User talk:J Milburn/archive22

'''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.'''

County Route 36 (Suffolk County, New York)
I see that you tagged a chapter of my article on County Route 36 (Suffolk County, New York). While I prefer not to complain about this, just which section would this be more appropriate in. DanTD (talk) 00:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that's so random. Anyone with a FEMA map made before 1988 might get the mistaken impression that the road used to be either NY 95 or SCR 95, despite evidence to the contrary(i.e.; the existing reference). I realize that trivia is discouraged, but I just want to know of a better location for that fact. I tried to add it to the lead paragraph, but something about it didn't seem right. DanTD (talk) 15:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, the paragraph after the lead paragraph does mention the fact that the road used to be part of Montauk Highway. Perhaps I could combine that and the current "Miscellanea" chapter into a history chapter. DanTD (talk) 15:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

New image on commons
Thought you should know. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 11:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Boletus pinophilus
Cool, thanks. Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  03:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Intelligent Design
Hello! I wondered why you undid my revision of the Intelligent Design article.Aleitheiophile (talk) 21:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. I have suggested a compromise on the talk page. Yes, I am sympathetic towards Intelligent Design or any scientific underdog, rather like one hopes one would be in the days of Copernicus. However, I would be just as irritated if someone cast aspersions on the validity of natural selection. (Most ID supporters believe in natural selection, just not on a larger scale.)Aleitheiophile (talk) 23:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

William H. Mumler
The polic for these categories is described in Category:Year of birth unknown. That a template (falsly) supports it doesn't change it. I will remove the support from Lifetime. -- Magioladitis (talk)

Olowofoyeku
You sent this to me in September.

Re:Your email Best to keep the discussion on-Wikipedia- it's generally quicker, and others are able to see it this way. If the image belongs to you (as in, you took the picture) then you can upload it here under a free license. Just say something like 'I took this picture.' and add a free license tag- puts it into the public domain,  releases it under the GFDL and there are several others. If you didn't take the picture, then you probably do not own the rights to it, and so cannot release it. Does this help? Please reply on my talk page. J Milburn (talk) 21:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear J Milburn, what if the photo was one taken of my father while I was there in Africa in the late 70s? Can I upload it and state that 'it was a picture taken of my father over 30 years ago, and we have no idea who took it at the time'? User:Akpantue

Connie Talbot spellchecking
Darn I am usually careful. I didn't see that one. My bad >.< gensanders (talk) 21:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Re:Fair use rationale for File:Risk logo.jpg
Good heavens man, give me a darn chance. I've uploaded the image a mere minute before you began spouting templates at me. -- Sabre (talk) 09:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Photos
Where on this page does it say to include a link to the source ? ChildofMidnight (talk) 10:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ANSWER: it doesn't. Please fix the instructions.  Thanks you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Saying where you found something, ie. on Flikr, is not the same thing as providing a link to the webpage. I hope you'll fix the instructions so this is clarified. Thanks for your attention and concern over this matter. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to add links to photos I've uploaded. The instructions don't ask for this. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

PIA
So please request all this to articles talkpage.Thanks for the review.User:Yousaf465 (talk)
 * I'm not working on that.Can't we just put it on hold.Images are in process of removal.What should be the size of logo and which images are with watermarks.I will do atleast these jobs.User:Yousaf465 (talk)
 * I was,and currently in cosultion with one who is editing it.Acutally those images with logo might would have been created by PIA entuisaths there are plently out there (my brother included).I will contact that editor.User:Yousaf465 (talk)
 * Will ask him.User:Yousaf465 (talk)

Belfast International Domestic figures
Thank you for reminding me about this error of mine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loughrey13 (talk • contribs)

RFC at Talk:Jasenovac i Gradiška Stara
I have begun an RFC over the lyrics dispute at Jasenovac i Gradiška Stara. If you could comment here, that would be appreciated. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not really sure what the point of this RfC is, as the issue is clear Funny you should say that, given the comment from the anonymous user that followed. Is there a point where it's just disruptive to let them continue?  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Faryl
--Dravecky (talk) 06:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Hya
Hya J.M. Was just looking at the Lactarius theiogalus article, and noticed you are working out of the 1981 Phillips. The 2006 version has many updated nomenclature changes, and the specific epithet Lactarius theiogalus is now considered a synonym of Lactarius tabidus with the epithets chrysorrheus, and hepaticus being assigned to different Lactarius  species. There has been a massive ammount of research into fungi nomenclature between the publication of the two books. Cheers mate. Luridiformis (talk) 09:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

According to Phillips 2006 L. tabidus Fr. is the true binomial classification, with L. theiogalus being reduced to syn. status. L. Chrysorrheus Fr. is a different species growing mostly with oak, as is L.hepaticus Plowr. which favours pine. It's a nightmare i know, and changing all the time. We love it tho dont we? Sorry about all the hassle. Luridiformis (talk) 07:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

First Edit Day

 * Congrats! ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice work
Nice work on Lactarius tabidus J.M....the link doesnt work tho...spelt tabidius instead of tabidus. Happy Wiki Birthday....Cheers Luridiformis (talk) 08:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

No probs...you might do the same for me soon. Just been working on Lactarius chrysorrheus. Its a bit sparse tho. I cant do a lot more...havent got the appropriate books. Stay chilled...Luridiformis (talk) 17:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers...Luridiformis (talk) 17:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I find the British checklist useful too. It tells me what is not here. A godsend for a field mycologist. Luridiformis (talk) 18:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The_Sulphur_Institute_Logo.jpg
This image is currently marked for deletion but I have already emailed the permissions stuff to the link you sent me earlier. Is there anyway to put it's deletion on hold for the time being? Jmoasahkua (talk) 21:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Lily Mazahery image
Hi. I am new to Wikipedia and I am trying very hard to make sense of all the rules and appropriate ways of doing things. I noticed that you removed the images of Lily Mazahery that I had uploaded, and I would really appreciate it if you would be kind enough to explain why they were deleted, especially LilyMazahery2007.jpg, which is a photo that my own father had taken of Ms. Mazahery a while back when he met her on his trip to Washington DC, and, ironically enough, he had taken that photo with my camera, which he had borrowed for that trip! So wouldn't these factors be enough to allow me to upload that photo without any problems? Thanks so much for bearing with a newbie like me. --Autoplay91 (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In response to your question on my "talk" page:
 * I have been a huge admirer of Ms. Mazahery and her work for quite some time, and so has my dad (mostly because of learning about her through me :). When he had gone on a trip to Washington a while back, he had contacted her office and had arranged a meeting. He took several photos during the meeting to bring back to me. As a gesture of thanks, I sent Ms. Mazahery a couple of those photos, which she seemed to really like. This was approximately around the same time that she was being asked for bio and photos by various organizations, and she asked me (I think she might have been being nice at the time, but none the less!) if it would be ok to use one of those photos as a profile photo. I was so excited that she wanted to use one of MY photos of her, and happily asked her to please do so. And whether as a gesture of niceness to my feelings or whether she really was serious, the photo ended up being used where you have mentioned, as well as in other places since then. And I have been enjoying the bragging rights ever since!! :))))--Autoplay91 (talk) 21:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, but they have my dad in them! Is that ok? I have no problem with providing you with the proof, which I am so proud of myself for! But I would rather do it in a way that doesn't let everyone on the internet see all those photos. Is that possible? --Autoplay91 (talk) 22:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah- you could upload them, then immediately add the text " " to the top of them. This will tag them for deletion, and an admin will shortly come along and delete them. Add links to where you uploaded them here- I'm an administrator, so I'm able to see deleted contributions, while the vast majority of editors are not. If I do not get back to you tonight, then I will within a few days (I'm not usually active on a Friday, and it's getting late where I am...). J Milburn (talk) 22:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. I did what you suggested. I just hope that the photos will be deleted immediately. Thanks for all your help. --Autoplay91 (talk) 04:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Here are the links to the now deleted photos that my dad took: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Lily_Mazahery_taken_by_dad.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Lily_Mazahery_and_dad2.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Lily_Mazahery_and_dad1.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1  Believe me now?  :))  --Autoplay91 (talk) 13:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Autism
Thanks for the heads-up! Tim Vickers (talk) 23:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Sportsman's Park
Mr. Waxman has told me he will post those cropped-enlarged photos on his website so we can simply link to them. Problem soon-to-be solved! Thanks for your advice and support. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Q for you regarding changing stub class to start class and so on
Hi again. As you know, I have informally "adopted" Lily Mazahery's page and have been expanding and improving it during Spring break. Since it now has so much more information with sources, notes, etc., does it not qualify as a "start class" instead of "stub" under Wikipedia guidelines? And if so, how can that be changed. As always, thanks so much for your guidance and help. I have been really enjoying the learning process here. --Autoplay91 (talk) 14:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You are the best! I can't tell you how much I appreciate all of your help and guidance. --Autoplay91 (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Question about whether this page meets Wikipedia guidelines
I know that you must be sick of my questions by now, but you've been a great mentor so far and I have learned a lot from your great advice and guidance. So here I am again! I wanted to get your thoughts about this page on Wikipedia: [] The page has no third party sources and seems to be nothing more than an advertisement of some kind. Any thoughts?--Autoplay91 (talk) 14:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Manchester 5
Hey there. I notice you were interested in Manchester 4; we're in the process of organising another one for some time in April. Hope you'll attend :). Ironholds (talk) 23:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

VPC Closing
I had to reverse your decision to promote File:Canon FT alvesgaspar.jpg as a valued picture. As the criteria state, there must be at least four votes in favor to promote. This only had three. In addition, you seemed to forget to add the image to the VP gallery at WP:VP and didn't up the count on that page. I reversed all the edits regarding this image. No biggie, just make sure to remember this stuff in the future. ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 22:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Cobbe Portrait of Shakespeare
It is imperative that the Chandos Portait, now on the Shakespeare Page, be deleted and replaced with the Cobbe Portrait, which has ample evidence to back its claim of being authentic, or the First Folio Droeshut Engraving, which won the admiration of Shakespeare's family and friends. Any help on how to replace the existing portrait with one of the aforementioned on the Shakespeare page would be greatly appreciated. -Thatindividual —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatindividual (talk • contribs)

copy violated images
Hello, J Milburn. Would you delete images uploaded by ? Given the user's immense plagiarism to Chung Young Yang Embroidery Museum and the high quality photography technique, I don't think those images are in pd. You once gave him/her warnings, would you take care of this case? Thanks.--Caspian blue 14:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a slight chance that the user is a professional photographer given the user's interest in art and artists, but in that case, s/he needs OTRS ticket. But the plagiarism is unacceptable.--Caspian blue 14:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the action. Ah, I somewhat hope the photos are really taken by the editor though.--Caspian blue 17:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I have met just "several" such pleasurable cases for high-profile opera singers and conductors taken by a professional photographer.--Caspian blue 17:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Barnstar
Thank you so much for the barnstar! I really appreciate it. =) The Le ft orium  14:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Mitch Lucker
Could you help move the article Mitch Lucker (musician) to Mitch Lucker? There currently is no article under Mitch Lucker so we're dealing with the primary and same person here. My move request was pretty much ignored and I thought I'd just find an admin and then a link lead to a link and so on. It is currently a mess: Mitch Lucker and Mitch lucker redirect to the band (Suicide Silence). There is also Mitch Lucker singer redirecting to Mitch Lucker (singer) [creating a double redirect] and Mitch Lucker (singer) redirecting to Mitch Lucker (musician). All of the links should end up redirecting to Mitch Lucker (or left deleted). Thank you in advance for the help! FireCrystal (talk) 17:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that there was an AFD and I agree with it too. You can go ahead and redirect to whatever you think is best and delete the unneeded pages. There is nothing important to keep. I'm not that interested in finding sources and doubting that anything could be retrieved. FireCrystal (talk) 23:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

New FAS logo
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Amustard&diff=cur

With respect to copyright of the Foreign Agricultural Service logo, it is in the public domain as a graphic product of the U.S. Government, but as an official logo of a Federal agency it may not be used for commercial purposes (this is true of all official USG logos found anywhere in Wikipedia, in fact). Since Wikipedia is not a commercial (for-profit) entity this is no problem with reproducing it on Wikipedia for informational services, but users of Wikipedia may not use it for commercial purposes. Amustard (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see USDA Office of Communication policy statement here: http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_2E5?navtype=SU&navid=CSC_GRAPHIC_LIB Amustard (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll keep my eyes peeled -- but as a Federal employee I can say pretty authoritatively that Federal agencies don't allow any of their logos to be used commercially unless it is some sort of seal of approval used for specific purposes (e.g., the "USDA Prime" or "USDA Choice" logos used by meatpackers with permission). Thus the Wikipedia article on NASA, for instance, features both the NASA logo and NASA seal, and I suspect NASA would not be pleased with commercial use of these logos without permission. Amustard (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amustard (talk • contribs)

Tuareg Picture
For images such as File:TuaregFamily.jpg that you recently deleted, how do I know if they are free or not. What on this: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en indicates that the file is not free? --Yellowfiver (talk) 21:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The owner of the flickr picture has given me the permission to use her photo on the Tuareg article. Does she need to change the licensing? If so, to what? --Yellowfiver (talk) 19:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Pajull1.jpg
Okay, so how does one exactly use an image under “Fair use”? This image is important because it shows that the Julleuchter is still used in the modern world. The Julleuchter in the photo is of the new Neo-Pagan type. It is historically important and is used as subject of commentary. I don’t want to be blocked because of uploading bad images. I am trying to do things right in regard to copyright status. I just don’t know what I am doing and am trying to figure things out through trial and error. The largest problem I have had is images being deleted because of copyright status info.nicholasweed (talk) 12:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC) --nicholasweed (talk) 12:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:VPC
Hi Senor Milburn. While I loathe to canvass interest, there are quite a few pictures at WP:VPC which would adore your attention should you have the inclination. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Coolio. I didn't even know it existed to be honest.  I don't think it gets the publicity it needs...  But thanks!  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Image
Hi, The Czech wikipedia source said that the author took the photo and added it as a public domain. So I am not clear why it is unfree. Maybe it needs a different tag, because of the camera angle, but the author clearly took the photo in a public place, so no reason for deletion. What tag do you think is needed? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 12:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. History2007 (talk) 12:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
 I 'mperator 17:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Four Award
♠  TomasBat  22:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

VPC Nom
Your concerns have been met. Thanks for the suggestion. ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 14:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

GTA images
Why do you think all the images left on the series page are not needed?

Osh33m (talk) 19:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

GTA images continued
Okay fine. I'll take them all out. All 8 of them. I just thought the article looked better with them. And I still don't know about the copyrights of the drunk driving image, and I don't know how to delete it, so you can delete it if I wasn't allowed to upload it.

Osh33m (talk) 19:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Metal
Hi Milburn, I created a thread regarding a picture of Heavy metal genealogy, I created and uploaded. I'll be so grateful if you could leave a comment on the matter. Cheers!--Chanaka L (talk) 05:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Quite alright Milburn. Thanks for the comment. Cheers!--Chanaka L (talk) 12:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Bovista
Could you have a look at this? It rather feels like the emphasis on this article is a bit too much on its use in a minor homeopathic treatment (one of hundreds given in the books cited), and not enough on the fungi. It was worse before I edited it: The lead was basically "It's a genus of puffball mushrooms found in temprate regions and used in homeopathy for a variety of uses!" [Not exaggerated]. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 06:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ...and then see my response at Fringe_theories/Noticeboard. Sasata (talk) 07:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If it can be expanded it'd be fine. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 17:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair use image
Hi there, you left a notice on my talk page a few hours ago about the fair use rational of an image I uploaded a while back. The image in question is File:Darkarenascreeb.jpg. I looked at the image and as far as I can see a suitable rational is provided in the 'Summary' section along with a boilerplate copyright tag. I'd appreciate if you could let me know what rational is missing so I can add it or if perhaps the fair use warning was in error? Cheers  Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 01:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Bubbles
You recently deleted the image for Bubbles (chimpanzee) and stated that it was no longer needed. Can you tell me what you meant by this? Also, the discussion here agreed that the image was OK to be used. Thanks,  Pyrrhus 16 ''' 10:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. :)  Pyrrhus 16 ''' 10:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Warning
Nobody else involved in this dispute has performed as may reverts as you, if this continues I will warn them as well. Since you do not, I hope, intend to continue this slow-revert warring, I'd strongly suggest you pursue dispute resolution such as an article RfC. This might produce a clear consensus either way. You do good work here, and I'm conscious of the problems posed by trying to enforce the fair-use policy, but your actions here in what several editors think is an ambiguous case did seem to me to be causing a dispute to get worse, rather than working towards a solution. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Intervention
Hi J Milburn, some editors and I need some help, and a neutral admin. At Talk:Christina_Aguilera, we've been hit by an off-Wiki forum where someone posted that they didn't like the current image on the article, and wanted someone to change it. Then, we got hit with a bunch of meatpuppets (first thought to be socks until we became aware of the forum) reverting to their image, which one of them claims they took, but we're unsure on how to prove. As you are are neutral admin, and are experienced with images, I wondered if you could help in the matter, both by settling the dispute, and perhaps also being able to give advice to the people who want the image changed. Here's the article history and this is the forum. Thanks! Acalamari 22:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you: Ward3001 asked about getting a neutral admin involved, and I wanted one to intervene before blocks got thrown around (not by me, mind you, as that would be abuse given my involvement in the article). I'd rather not have this dispute end with all the people from that forum getting indefinitely blocked here. Acalamari 22:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Aguilera image
This is not clear proof of anything, but in File:Xtina zae.jpg uploaded to Wikipedia, she is wearing the same wardrobe as seen here. Not proof, but a little more evidence. I'll continue looking. Thanks for you help on this matter. Ward3001 (talk) 23:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I reverted one of your recent image deletion marks
This had its rationale. Please be more careful. --Raijinili (talk) 03:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * As this template is time-sensitive, please remove the template until we can come to an agreement.
 * The image is being used for commentary on EX-Shielding, as stated. While there are a few minor details to be added, it's all busywork (replaceability, resolution, noncompetitive, where used). The rationale is there. --Raijinili (talk) 00:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * But process is surely more important in the long run than one image.
 * You say that it's "not how it works". Where does it say that? I believe it was your decision to make, not policy.
 * If it's not a rationale, then what would make it a rationale? I've already listed what I believe are the only things missing, and you apparently disagree, so if I added the minor details which I claim would make it detailed (and thus a detailed rationale), could I expect you to object? --Raijinili (talk) 00:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You're not willing to argue whether your actions are following policy after you imply that they are? What an uncooperative attitude.
 * I was already working on the template during this discussion. I just submitted it. I'm sure that you could have done a better job, in spite of however little knowledge you would claim to have on the subject, which is exactly the problem I have with what you did.
 * I did not remove the deletion template, since we've already disagreed on what a "rationale" is. --Raijinili (talk) 01:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * We seem to have a misunderstanding. My reference to "policy" was a response to your statement that removing the template was "not how it works". I don't believe that's a matter of policy, but you seemed to imply that it was.
 * A rationale is a reason for it being used. To me, adding fluffy framework and specific details about "low-resolution" doesn't make it any more of a rationale in my eyes. That's, as I said, busywork. The only parts I added to the page which weren't routine were the specifics on quality/quantity reduction (unnecessary), the characters depicted (unnecessary), and the specific game that the screenshot came from (possibly unnecessary).
 * But rather than improving Wikipedia by using your knowledge of the image policy to make these images conform, you're choosing to improve it by removing any potential violations. That's not a choice I can respect, especially since many images will probably be lost not because of an actual violation of fair use, but because people who frequent the articles are not knowledgeable enough about Wikipedia images and not willing enough to learn (since editing the mainspace is much easier and probably more familiar), and this situation would be avoidable if you had used your time to fix up some of the image pages rather than doing a sweep over all questionable pages. --Raijinili (talk) 10:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay.
 * The part about removing the template: I asked that you remove the template so that we could discuss it without fear that the image would be deleted during discussion. --Raijinili (talk) 10:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. --Raijinili (talk) 10:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Asperger image
Please don't do that. Comments about Eub should really go on his talk page or an RFC, not on FFD. How about some tea instead? – Quadell (talk) 12:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Faryl
I forgot to send the documents to the printer, so I intend to print them in 4.5 hours now. Please let me know if you make any changes after that time (not sure what time zone you're in with your 'tonight'). - Mgm|(talk) 23:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Update: I've got the review on paper. I'll post the review for the album tomorrow and if I don't have enough time, I'll post the review for Faryl herself over Easter. - Mgm|(talk) 20:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been busier today than I expected. As a result, I'll soon have two new pairs of glasses (which I ordered while entertaining a visitor at the same time) and I've seen the Doctor Who Easter Special. Unfortunately, the reviews are a bit delayed. Happy Easter anyway! :) Mgm|(talk) 22:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

This tag
I just discovered the case of File:07351 ThermoFlex Welding Rods.jpg, an image which claims to be free. I sent off an email to the company asking them if they want to give permission officially, but it's the weekend and I think the deletion should be pushed a few days off to give them time to respond. Can I change the tag? --Raijinili (talk) 20:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: The Minor Barnstar
Thanks so much! I appreciate your thoughtfulness. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfree? No Way!
Hey J Milburn. Hope u r listening.

The photos I got for my article 2003 Afro-Asian Games were taken by my uncle, who was (and is) in Hyderabad, India (the host city) at that time. I had those photos for a really long time. I was bored, so I made an article on it.

And for ur kinest info, the logo and mascot can be seen ANYWHERE in Hyderabad. Go to London - u'll see wat I mean.

OK I agree. But u dont have an answer for the logo & mascot.

Just admit it, u know u have been proved wrong!

Huh? who says that? As far as I have read the Wiki manual, if I or my family members have got photos relating to an article, I can publish them without copyright. If Im wrong, correct me.

OK, maybe the logo and mascot can be deleted. But I have a right to the other pictures. I mean, who has heard of copyrighting the Opening Ceremony photos that the public takes?!

Deleted the logo and mascot. Look, Im sorry. Wont do it again. But dont rebuke me. U can b a little polite.

White borders? There are'nt any!

Hey Milburn! Just check the article! And by the way, when did u write? I was waiting 4 ur message - I knew u would respond.

OK Milburn. Hope we can b friends now. Ur welcome. And by the way, Ive created 2 articles - 2010 South Asian Games and 2003 Afro-Asian Games. U can see them, and leave ur comments in my talk page. Cheers!!! :)

Look Milburn. Ur trying to mak a mountain out of a molehill. My photos did not have white borders. But yeah, there was a white border around Slide 5.jpg. I can explain that too - my uncle did not send me that photo along with the others. So he later sent them to me in Microsoft Powerpoint. I directly saved it as it is in a JPEG format. That's y there was a large white space. I replaced that. Is that something of utmost suspicion? Anyway, have fun. And please heed my recommendation.

Ankitbhatt (talk) 11:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Image permission problems for Matthew P. Scott
Regarding the note that you (or a bot) recently put on my talk page regarding the image I uploaded for use on Matthew P. Scott's article, I have obtained permission from Dr. Scott (who took the picture) and have emailed my correspondence with him regarding this to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Let me know if that suffices and whether we can remove the "di-no permission" template from that image page. SteveChervitzTrutane (talk) 18:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Ray Joseph Cormier
Good Day J! I was researching old information in Archive 1 of the subject BLP Discussion and came across your post of 10 months ago. At that time, what was an autobiography was reduced to an acceptable encyclopedic format.

///I agree, excellent work. Reading through the article now, the only issue is the lack of references on a couple of those points- I am sure references will be found, and it is good to see that the unreferenced information is clearly marked. As this is a biography of a living person, it is fairly important that those references are improved soon, but as the information is not negative, I do not feel there is any great urgency. J Milburn (talk) 16:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)///

Reading this again today you read much fairer with an NPOV I did not see then, and more than subsequent editors. The article has not improved much in 10 months, but as recently as February, an editor was portraying the subject like a common thug. If you would take the time to read Talk:Ray_Joseph_Cormier, I would like to know what you think?

Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 00:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you so very much for your intercession and for placing User:Sarcasticidealist/Cormier´s copyedit into the article.

I find this link to Boston University School of Theology interesting. It seems to be locked in to my BLP in Wikipedia and already reflects the edit you made: There is also this link:

I don´t know how many editors are active on Wikipedia, but the same small handful have monopolized the article and discussion, never ever suggesting ways to improve it, but consistent in nay saying. The history shows this. You are the first one to recognize ¨he has every right to be interested in how it is shaping up.¨

My accumulation of the original newspaper reports are now in the hands of the News Editor of a major daily deciding whether to run a Feature story on my activities, however, some of them can be seen here. They can be expanded and read clearly with a magnifying glass, but I imagine some computer whiz would be able to copy them to be printed out. They are all pre-internet.

A local print shop, Magic Reproductions, who donated 20,000 copies of my 1997 election literature Talk:Ray_Joseph_Cormier/Archive1 to my campaign has many of the references still on the computer and will e-mail them to you if give me your address.

Again, many thanks and appreciation for coming forward. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 12:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have every confidence you will do the right thing. Unless you were able to look at the references in the Facebook Album, I won´t be able to e-mail the originals until Saturday. Did you get the scans I sent already?

DoDaCanaDa (talk) 23:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. When you are ready to proceed I will identify and interpret the four explicit statements in the September 13, 1976 Kansas City Times report. They could not be seen as Signposts for these times back then. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 23:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Amanita muscaria
I've added two now. One was a picture of some buttons, which the article was lacking. I replaced another image with a pair of more mature specimens. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, do you think that File:Unidentified_Fungus_6120.jpg is A. muscaria too? I could quite possibly go for a featured set at three stages if so. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Casliber should see them at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fungi hopefully. I went on another fungi mission the other day. I'll probably have to send them to mushroom observer for ids too, though unfortunately some from the first lot still haven't been even remotely identified. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Faryl
I posted the review for the album article. - Mgm|(talk) 11:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No need to rush. I don't expect you to be any faster than I am (minus two days of Easter) :) - Mgm|(talk) 11:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've noticed you followed up on my reviews. I hope to follow up myself during the weekend. - Mgm|(talk) 10:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thanks for your participation in my recent Request for adminship. It's been good to see you on the D&D project talk page again! If you didn't notice, we do have a GA drive that has been running all year, and have met with success on Gary Gygax, Wizards of the Coast, Dragons of Despair, Drizzt Do'Urden, Forgotten Realms, Tomb of Horrors, Dwellers of the Forbidden City, White Plume Mountain, The Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth, Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, Planescape: Torment, Dragonlance, and Against the Giants; Dave Arneson and Drow (Dungeons & Dragons) are up next! Don't know if you're into comics as well, but I've been working on GAs there as well. Happy editing! :) BOZ (talk) 03:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool, it'll be good to have ya! Things are moving slower nowadays for me, but I will do my best to keep things going, so keep an eye out. :) BOZ (talk) 12:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you please explain further...
Could you please explain your placement of

Your edit didn't explicitly state which WP:CSD you were claiming authority under. I am guessing you meant to claim authority under WP:F7.

I re-read WP:F7. Am I missing something? It talks about dfu and rfu, one of which places a 2-day time limit, and one which places a 7-day time limit. You used the tag that placed the 2-day time limit. As near as I can tell from the wording of the policy that tag is only supposed to be used if the tagger can offer the URL of the free alternative. You can't offer the URL of a free alternative, can you?

I offered a fuller explanation as to why I think the image qualifies as "fair use". Geo Swan (talk) 17:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Re:Four Award
I'm fine with the sortable table idea (I have no problem with the change). As for moving it to the Wikipedia space, I'm all for it :) ♠  TomasBat  23:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:BITE on Manu Sharma and User:Mamta dhody
Hi there. I caught the OTRS complaints that Mamta dhody filed re the Manu Sharma article, after the edit war which erupted.

I went and reviewed the case notes, and the Outlook India article which is sourced there for the legal appeal to India's supreme court. Although Mamta dhody was not communicating well, he in fact did accurately describe the case status. Both the court records and the Outlook India article agree that Sharma's request for release on bail was denied, but the regular appeal is still pending. ""No case for suspension of sentence and grant of bail is made out," a Bench headed by Justice C K Thakker said, while dismissing Sharma's petition. The court said the appeal against the conviction is already admitted and likely to be heard within a reasonable time." (Outlook India article). I listed the URLs for the court decisions on the article talk page in more detail, if you want to check those.

It's clear that Mamta dhody was not editing clearly and communicating well, including no use of talk pages. However, you managed to WP:BITE him. Assume good faith should have led to a more careful examination of his claim about the facts of the appeal, which would have showed you the same info I dug up. He needed help in understanding process, and in how to format citations and correctly quote stuff. What he got was unsympathetic pushback.

I can easily understand how you might have goofed on checking the source. And I see that he escalated (the comment "User:J Milburn is being personally malicious and deleting facts." in his second edit summary on the article was a personal attack). But the end result was an experienced editor headbutting with a less experienced one - over a WP:BLP article, over a factual dispute which portrays the subject in a negative manner, and which the less experienced one was factually correct - and which ended with less experienced editor violating 3RR and being blocked for disruption.

This is not even vaguely how we're supposed to try and work together... You didn't do the last revert or the block, but the whole episode was not good.

I don't know if there's anything to be done now other than clearing up the facts (done, on the article talk and article) and discussing the policy violations on his userpage and his OTRS complaint so that he understands what went wrong. I really wish that it hadn't gotten that far.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Americus55's images
I saw you tagged one of User talk:Americus55's images as PUI. I see you're an admin, so go ahead and delete it and all the others he has uploaded, cause they're all confirmed copyvios from the Pennsylvania legislature, not the federal government. They're all tagged with CSD right now. I gave him a warning on this.--A. Gorilla (talk) 22:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's the list of the confirmed copyvios:File:Lisa Baker.jpgFile:Andy Dinniman.jpgFile:Lisa Boscola.jpgFile:Daylin Leach.jpgFile:Pat Browne.jpgFile:Jeffrey Piccola.jpgFile:Ray Musto.jpgFile:Lloyd Smucker.jpgFile:Stewart Greenleaf.jpgFile:Michael O'Pake.jpgFile:Charles McIlhinney.jpgFile:Dominic Pileggi.jpgFile:Anthony Williams.jpgFile:Vincent Hughes.jpgFile:Tommy Tomlinson.jpgFile:Mike Stack.jpgFile:LeAnna Washington.jpgFile:Shirley Kitchen.jpgFile:Tina Tartaglione.jpgFile:Larry Farnese.jpg
 * Didn't mean to bite that fellow. I did try to walk it back with this offer of assistance in understanding the copyright policy. Will be more careful next time. ::However, I can tell you that these images are surely not federal in origin. The best source for that (short of emailing the clerks) is the DCMA notice, which strongly implies that the Legislative Data Processing Center owns the material on the website. Also, there's no way that the images are of federal origin, why would the feds take photos of state senators and representatives? (Unless there's a former Congressman in the House or Senate and they keep the same portrait. But that's not remotely likely). Either way, if these images really are free, it is the uploader's burden to show that.--A. Gorilla (talk) 22:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree, but I will let nature take its course. I am certain, however, that Pennsylvania is not a state that releases its material into the public domain.--A. Gorilla (talk) 23:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Per 71 P.S. § 636, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania copyrights its publications. See also the Department of General Service.--A. Gorilla (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Need to replace stuff by bot
Aye aye

Wasn't sure where to go about this, so thought you might know. I and many others have referenced http://npor.emma.cam.ac.uk/. However, this has now been moved to http://www.npor.org.uk/. Would it be possible for the individual links to have the bit up to dot UK replaced with some kind of bot or AWB or something?--Vox Humana 8' 10:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Donald A. Wollheim
Hello-- I'm writing about your comment: "Cover of a book mentioned in passing. The cover art is not in any way discussed, and I cannot see why it would be significant. Use of a non-free image is not justified." J Milburn (talk) 17:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

As stated in the article, "The Pocket Book of Science Fiction (1943) was the first science fiction anthology to be mass-market published & the first book containing the words 'science fiction' in the title" -- a matter of some import. Please consider. And thanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_A._Wollheim Emloo (talk) 18:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Reply
I personally know Uga Man in real life and he gave me a list of supposed socks he used. He thinks its some sort of game and he's using the page to boost up his ego. I'm a friend so I decided I'd tag all these articles to make him feel good. --Retracted (talk) 19:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If you want I could give you the list but personally I don't believe him most of the time so I really am trying to see if it is stuff he would do.--Retracted (talk) 19:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay sure, I'll try to help out the encyclopdia. My friend also said he wants me to avoid WP:DENY, I don't really know what that means but he says he got caught up in that before. What could he be talking about?--Retracted (talk) 19:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I posted something where you directed me.--Retracted (talk) 19:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Orphaned non-free image (File:FullExperience.jpg)
Your 'orphaned image' notice was a little odd, seeing as it was you that orphaned the image by removing it from an infobox in a section of the Aura Lewis article about that album. An album cover image can be used just as legitimately in a section about the album as it can in a separate article about that album. I don't really understand your actions here.--Michig (talk) 14:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * To quote Non-free_content, "Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary).". It's the item, i.e. the album, that needs to be discussed, not the sleeve art, in order for the image to be considered "fair use". I could have made this a separate article, in which case I assume you would not have removed the image, but it's better merged into the artist's article.--Michig (talk) 14:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you're going to continue with this can we get a third opinion please.--Michig (talk) 15:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've raised the issue here.--Michig (talk) 15:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Current DYK
It's probably a little late now, but the common practice is to refer to Royal Navy vessels using the HMS prefix, so the current hook should be changed to reflect that. The HMS template helps shorten the Wikilinks while adding appropriate italics. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 21:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, you're right, I didn't read it closely enough. – ukexpat (talk) 21:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Keck School of Medicine of USC)
I noticed you tagged one of the uploaded photos for deletion: AerialUSCLAC.jpg We actually have rights for the photo, but I uploaded it in low resolution since I didn't know how to resize it in the form. I got the photo from Keck School's communication department, since I work with them on web communications. Perhaps I should upload the high resolution photo?! Thanks --  —Preceding unsigned comment added by GC2009 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Keck School of Medicine of USC)
Thanks for the quick reply. I did upload the high res version, although I didn't know how to replace the smaller one and ended up saving the big photo under AerialLACUSChighres.jpg We do have rights for the photo and I have uploaded it under the category which specifies our rights as well as regulations regarding permission of use by others. I will probably be uploading a couple of other photos on the page and I will do it in a similar fashion (upload high res document). Thanks, GC2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by GC2009 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Wbbc.png
OK...just noticed this was deleted. First off, no notice was given to me about its deletion. Second, just because there is a "newer logo" "used in the article" does not mean the image should be deleted as there are hundreds of other pages that have older logos on them. I request this image be brought back, replaced on the page and if you want to have a discussion about it...discuss. Don't go all willy-nilly and delete things without telling the uploader. -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 00:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Issue being taken care of by User:Peripitus. If you would like to chime in, please feel free on my talk page. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 00:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Phosphatidyl-Ethanolamine.png
Hi, was wondering if you could help me get get rid of the "missing source information" tag on the above picture, as part of a GAR request for the article Lipids. I added a textbook source, but then realized that wasn't the kind of source that's being asked for. I don't think there should be any problem with copyright, as it's just a basic chemical structure, but I don't know how to modify the source info to do this myself. Thanks in advance, Sasata (talk) 06:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Leopold Bros. gif
You wouldn't delete another editor's comments on a Talk page, would you? It is no more appropriate to do so on another page which is fundamentally a discussion page rather than an article. I've reverted your deletion. And, I think the point is valid - you're making your objections in this image in the wrong forums. Moreover, the substance of the objection is not well-taken. Fladrif (talk) 17:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I suggest you reread Talk_page_guidelines. Quoting the relevant passage:

Do not strike out the comments of other editors without their permission. (Emphasis in original)


 * You don't get to decide, even with an admin star on your chest, that a comment is "unconstructive" and therefore may be deleted from a discussion page. Fladrif (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. I've read the Talk page guidelines and I'm very familar with them. The comment you persist in deleting in perfectly appropriate to the discussion - it is no different than you being told by a bot that your first objection to this image didn't belong in PUF. It's not a personal attack to be told you're in the wrong place, and it hardly clutters up the discussion. Your conduct in deleting the comment is directly contrary to those same guidelines, and the specific directive that other editors comments are not to be stricken. I'f you're going to rely on IAR to justify simply doing whatever you feel like, I suggest you rethink not only whether you ought to be an admin here, but whether you ought to even be editing here. Your position is fundamentally at odds with the standards, rules and guidelines of Wiki. Fladrif (talk) 18:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Certainly. Files_for_deletion item II 4 (the image could be replaced by a free image)and II.5. (the non-free use rationale is either insufficient or disputed) would seem to encompass all of your objections to this image. It says that those objections should not be listed there, and directs those categories of objections to either RFU or DFU instead.  The message from the bot at PUF also directed your objection to either DFU or to Non-free content review. Hence, my conclusion that FFD is the wrong forum. Fladrif (talk) 19:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that it would seem pointless, at this late juncture, to close the FFD discussion and start over from scratch elsewhere rather than resolving it where is now resides. Fladrif (talk) 19:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Arby n the Chief
Excuse me J Milburn, but I was reviewing some articles when I found that you had deleted a entry about Arby n the Chief. I was hoping to create an article about this, and because you deleted it, I was hoping to know what exactly it did wrong, and what I should do to keep my article from being deleted. P.S. I'm a new guy, just joined earlier, so please excuse my lack of knowledge about this sort of thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garnaater (talk • contribs)

Hmm... maybe I was mistaken, but when I looked up Arby 'n' the Chief and said that I wanted to make it, it said that you had deleted one of them that was made. Anyways, thanks for the advice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garnaater (talk • contribs) 23:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The reason I really wanted to do an Arby n the Chief article was, first of all, because its youtube channel, Machinima, is among the highest subscribed channels on Youtube, and Arby n the Chief is arguably its highest viewed show, second of all because I thought I would have plenty to write about it, and third because I'm a new member of Wikipedia and I was hoping to start a new article, and Arby seemed like a good place to start. I'm not sure of many notable sources to cite, but I'll look around. I don't suppose theres anywhere you can suggest? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garnaater (talk • contribs) 22:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Faryl
I'm off work between Wednesday May 20 to the Sunday after that. I should have enough time to follow up then. - Mgm|(talk) 09:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Qqtacpn
He has withdrawn his legal threat and promises not to do again. I am considering unblock. Do you have any concerns here? Daniel Case (talk) 15:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I looked it over. It seems like it might be another user with a grudge. If it's a real issue, and he goes back to it, he'll be blocked again. Daniel Case (talk) 16:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

"Acquire knowledge for the sake of gaining knowledge and not for your own mean personal gain or wealth"
Please have a knowledgeable Indian on your edit table and then write all that you have written about me.Subscribe to Indian newspapers and keep your eyes/ears open to news and views. Please pardon me if i say that you seem to be a sand box yourself. "Acquire knowledge for the sake of gaining knowledge and not for your own mean personal gain or wealth" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mamta dhody (talk • contribs) 19:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Meghan Chavalier
I must apologize for my removing your edits on the above page. I did not understand why you removed the book cover. This is a book written by Meghan Chavalier under her given name. I was using the picture of the cover as a example of that work. If I have done this wrongly I would greatly appreciate your advice as to how to do it correctly. I do think it is relevant to the article. thank you for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baileysmom (talk • contribs) 18:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair Use for Fancy Fortune Cookies images
I'm unclear if there still needs to be additional information provided on the images i have uploaded for the Fancy Fortune Cookies article.

Images in question: File:FancyFortuneCookies apple.jpg File:FancyFortuneCookies giant.jpg

I also wanted to upload a few more for a photo gallery to appear in the article I am working on for Fancy Fortune Cookies, so I would like to get the issue resolved as soon as possible.

Kaschro (talk) 18:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm a little new at this so bear with me. I am an employee of Fancy Fortune Cookies, and am in the process of writing a Wikipedia entry for them.  The images being used are stock images that were taken by the company owner, which I have uploaded with his knowledge and permission to use for the Wikipedia entry.  Is there a more appropriate way to use these images that I am missing?  Is it necessary to declare them as available for free use in order to fit the guidelines? Kaschro (talk) 19:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Images for VATS lobectomy page
I apologize for the difficulties associated with these images. All the images for this articleare are images I generated myself from a thoracoscope during operations with patient consent. I have rights to them but have cleared them per GNU Free Documentation Licenses. I also went in and tried to specify in the source section that these images were created by myself. Please let me know what I can do to clear this up and again, sorry for the inconvenience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddearmond (talk • contribs) 20:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

J Milburn: thanks for your vigilance and your help, it is greatly appreciated.Ddearmond (talk) 21:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:FOUR
Thanks for your opinion at WP:FOUR. I have responded with a request for a further opinion. Also, I am hoping that someone other than the nominator can review one or two current nominees.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Faryl Smith
I just promoted Faryl Smith to GA Status. Congrats! I did however, have to do a lot of editing on the Faryl section for changes we already agreed on in the album article itself. Perhaps it's a good idea to stick a warning message in in HTML comment tags so editors know to keep those on the same line. - Mgm|(talk) 13:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Faryl
Well, i usually don`t add a reference to the personnel section when this one came from Allmusic, but if you want i can do it, no problem. Zidane tribal (talk) 21:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

NATO Flag on 2009 North Korean nuclear test
I gave a reason on image page and, like the copyright information on the NATO page says, "The use of NATO photos and logo is allowed for non-commercial purposes with clear mentioning of NATO as the source," so I didn't really see a problem.

Additionally, [| if a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.]

Tricky_Wiki44 (talk) 23:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Dele Giwa
the Dele giwa jpeg(s) that I uploaded was scanned from a copy of a newswatch magazine based in nigeria and are pretty much in the public domain now,what else should i do to keep the pictures on my account  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jomoal99 (talk • contribs) 13:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Jomoal99 (talk) 14:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)