User talk:J Milburn/archive27

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 September 2009

 * From the editor: Call for opinion pieces
 * News and notes: Footnotes updated, WMF office and jobs, Strategic Planning and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Wales everywhere, participation statistics, and more
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject Video games
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 23:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Rollosmokes
I see you just posted a notice on his page. He's been indef'd since last October. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Continuous restoring/deleting of links to images for Glen Campbell videos
In reply to your warning on my userpage, can I still ask you a question (although you may feel otherwise, i'm all doing this in good faith)? Why do you say I am ignoring our policies and guidelines? I assume you mean the non-free content policies and guidelines? We have obviously different opinions on how those should be applied to the Glen Campbell videos article, but I wouldn't call that "ignoring". Or do you mean other guidelines and policies about restoring deleted content or something? I haven't been able to find anything about that. In my view I have just as much the right to restore certain content as you have to delete it, as long as there is an unresolved difference of opinion.Lumdeloo (talk) 19:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You answered on my userpage:
 * If someone believes that calling someone else "a fucking nigger whore" (or whatever) is not a personal attack, does that mean that they have a right to restore it, "as long as there is an unresolved difference of opinion"? No. These images are in violation of policy at the moment, and you're going to have to demonstrate otherwise if you want them to stay. It's ok that you believe otherwise, but continually adding them back in the meantime is not acceptable. To give a real world example, I see no harm in prostitution (which is illegal where I am) per se, but that doesn't mean it's ok for me to go out and pick up young girls and pay them for sex as I see fit. Whether you like it or not, these guidelines are in place, and you're going to need to give specific reasons why these images are required in this article before we can even discuss adding them back. J Milburn (talk) 22:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, these comparisons are not good. I am not personally attacking someone (i really hope you don't feel that way). And the non-free content guideline and criteria is nowhere near as clear as a lawbook. That is why we have a difference of opinion, not because you follow the rules and I don't. You may think these images are in violation of policy, I think they're not.
 * And I have indicated why I think so. You however have not replied on that. Instead you started using coarse language and, in your role as administrator, threaten to block me. So please provide me a reply on the points I brought forward on your user page on 22:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC) and 20:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC). I have decided not to revert the changes again for now, you're right, eventually they can be put back (or not) if that's our conclusion. But then I would appreciate a decent reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumdeloo (talk • contribs)


 * You've been explicitly told how and why this image use violates our policies. Edit warring to violate that policy is not conducive to your editing privileges. This use has been debated ad nauseum, and THE USE HAS NOT BEEN PERMITTED. Knock it off. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hammersoft, you must be aware that the non-free content guidelines are not clear at all on some points. I read on several discussion pages (indeed ad nauseum) which included contributions from you, that some people want to change them, but these changes have not made it into the guidelines (yet), apparantly because some other people have different opinions on it (like I do). Discussions are good, but they're not the same as guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumdeloo (talk • contribs)
 * So what if there is discussion to change them? Discussion is all fine and good, but discussion is not guideline. Guideline states we don't permit this use. Read and understand Non-free content. I just went through all 49 articles in Category:Videographies. Only two had fair use images on them (one each). One had a screen capture for a Britney Spears video that is already used on the song's page, and thus shouldn't be on a videography, and it also lacked a rationale for use on the videography page anyway. The other was a Lenny Kravitz non-free image that I replaced with a free image that serves the same purpose (WP:NFCC #1). Every other article (and now all of them) lack fair use images. Please explain to us all how it is that everyone here has it wrong, and you have it right; that fair use covers/screen captures should be permitted on videography articles. Why are we all supposed to stop what we're doing, acknowledge you are right and we were all sadly mistaken, and lockstep with you into a new age of putting covers on videographies and discographies? Why? Because you say everyone else is wrong and you are right? You're going to have to do a hell of a lot better than that. I'm not going to keep debating this with you. If you attempt to restore the images to the article again, I'll report it as vandalism. You know what the policy is. You know what the guideline is. You know what current practice is. If you insist on violating it, the consequences will be your responsibility. Your move. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all, I appreciate your response. Then my reply: i have taken a look at most of those videography pages you mention. The big difference between those pages and the Glen Campbell videos page is that those pages merely list the videos but they do not provide commentary on them. I totally agree those articles shouldn't have front cover images. We can find this in the guideline under Acceptable use for images: "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)." and under Unacceptable use for images: "An album cover as part of a discography, as per the above." However, the Glen Campbell videos page does provide commentary on the releases and therefore, in my opinion, it's not against the guideline to include non-free images of the cover art. Indeed, the article becomes better with the images, just like an article about a single album/video/dvd is better off with an identifying image of the original cover art. So no, I'm not saying everybody is wrong and I am right. I'm just saying this kind of article is different than the other pages you mention. And no, I definitely don't want a new age of putting covers on all videographies and discographies. That would be against the guidelines and it's not what I'm after anyway.Lumdeloo (talk) 20:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've had this very same debate before with someone. They attempted to make a claim that their article was new, a different type of article, that the guideline didn't apply to because it was different. Ah, here is that discussion. There was a similar discussion about an unrelated article here. Guess what the resolution of both cases was? Elimination of fair use images on one, and reduction to one on the other. You've been told the principle this is done under; if the album/video/whatever is not notable enough to be able to stand along as its own article, no case can be made that we have to have a fair use image on a grouped article. Are images useful? Sure. But, we are a FREE CONTENT encyclopedia, which means we accept non-free content on a very, very limited basis and only when we must. What are you after if not after covers being on all video/discographies? Special dispensation for this article being special and thus beyond the scope of our non-free content policies and guidelines? I assure you, that's impossible. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That discussion was very enlightening. I think you're right when you say that the underlying principle there was: "if the album/video/whatever is not notable enough to be able to stand along as its own article, no case can be made that we have to have a fair use image on a grouped article." My point however, is that this principle (which in my opinion is crucial to your point of view) cannot be found anywhere in the non-free content guidelines or policy. It can be found in certain discussions, but as you and I have said before: discussions are not the same as guidelines. I don't want special dispensation for this article. I just want this article to be treated within the context of the current policy and guidelines. In my opinion this means that the use of non-free images here is acceptable.Lumdeloo (talk) 11:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I give up. Restore the images at your own peril Lumdeloo. There's no point in discussing this anymore. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If that's the only way to get to the bottom of this... Thanks for your replies anyway.Lumdeloo (talk) 21:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please do not reinstate the images. Your argument basically seems to boil down to "we disagree over the policy. My opinion is as valid as yours". Frankly, I don't care. I've demonstrated why that's a ridiculous argument, and you became rather snooty about it. If you want to start a centralised discussion about this, go for it, but you'll be wasting your time. J Milburn (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I will start a more centralized discussion about this, thanks for the suggestion.Lumdeloo (talk) 07:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Lumdeloo, we already HAVE gotten to the bottom of this. You simply choose to disagree with our WP:NFCC #8 policy. I'll re-iterate what I said above. If you persist in restoring the images, you will be blatantly violating policy and it will be treated as vandalism. Your call, sport. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hammersoft, i don't agree. I have been searching all over wikipedia for guidelines which support your statement "if the album/video/whatever is not notable enough to be able to stand along as its own article, no case can be made that we have to have a fair use image on a grouped article." I have not been able to find anything. On the contrary, the notability guideline clearly states that there is no direct link between notability and content (WP:N).
 * Oh, so this is the "I can't find exactly this situation explained exactly in policy, so you're wrong and I'm right" approach? Right. Everything you need is in the non-free content criteria. If you want to demonstrate what those images are adding to that article, be my guest. J Milburn (talk) 09:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 *  Lumdeloo, there's no point in continuing this discussion with you. There's a zillion possible types of articles. Policy can not and will not anticipate every single possible type. Restore the images at your own peril. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I took the discussion to Non-free_content_review. Lumdeloo (talk) 19:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Crown Fountain FAC 4
You are opposing based on changes made by and for our image reviewer. Could you possibly speak directly since images are outside my area of expertise.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have reverted to the single still image as the main image.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you still oppose?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have rearranged and reworded, but have further comment on the FAC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have removed the template. Does the article pass now?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You made no comments today. I think the ar/pr folks are waiting for your final decision.  I hope I am close to getting your support.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I see you are back online. Could you commnet on this.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Fine
Fine, and thanks for the care to remove contents pertaining to policy violations. --Bhadani (talk) 13:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Bratospoulosm
Great. I told him how to get them properly submitted and I am glad that everything turned out ok. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 17:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Susan Atkins photo
Regarding this edit, wouldn't that photo actually be in the public domain as Manson's booking photo is? See the "ownership" policy of the California Dept of Corrections. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 03:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

admin abuse
Stop abusing your position as an administrator to allow you to vandalize wikipedia to make a point. You've said you'd stop the removal of pictures from television articles, but in reality, you have increased the number of files deleted and pages altered. You have edited dozens of articles, but i'll just list the ones i can remember:

WDIV-TV, WMYD-TV, WXYZ-TV, CKCO-TV, USA Network, CHRO-TV, WJBK-TV, WKBD-TV, WWJ-TV, WJW-TV, WEWS-TV, WTOL-TV, WNWO-TV, WKYC-TV... this is blatant vandalism and abuse of power, and these articles MUST be restored to their pre-vandalism condition. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 17:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I take to offence that the images removed in the CKCO article were explained in great detail. I thought you wanted critical commentary for non-free images. Well there was critical commentary for the CKCO images. I would like to see you describe a television logo that you removed. File:Mctvbbs.svg would be a good start.
 * I'm not against having a solution to resolve this situation, but I feel the way everybody is acting right now is not the correct way to resolve this. I think that there should be a resolution so there wouldn't be edit wars every few days over this subject.  єmarsee •  Speak up!  23:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Creating critical discussion without sourcing the discussion in secondary sources external to Wikipedia is original research. We don't add logos everywhere we want to, and then describe them, in an attempt to keep them in articles. Was the logo notable for some reason? If so, cite sources showing that. Was the transition from one logo to another significant in history? If so, cite sources indicating that. If you can't do this, including the logos does nothing to improve the article, and actually makes it worse. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Emarsee, original research in image captions counts for nothing. Are the logos genuinely significant? Would they be discussed in the article if you weren't so keen to prove they are "necessary"? I think not. What a logo that the channel used years ago looks like is of pretty much no importance. J Milburn (talk) 21:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You may believe that the logos used by a local television station is of little importance, but there are people who disagree with that. I'm not saying that every single logo that a television station had should be on their articles, but what I am trying to do is to keep the most significant logos of the television stations. Independent sources with regarding with local television stations in Canada are very few, and and even fewer have anything regarding logos. I will gladly accept a limit of one non-free image outside the infobox on the articles if it would mean that the logos come with clear and critical commentary with some limited sources.  єmarsee •  Speak up!  00:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No arbitrary "one logo" limits. We don't work that way. Look, you said it yourself, "even fewer have anything regarding logos". Then it is blatantly clear the logos aren't significant. If you can't discuss an historical logo without using any sources at all, then the discussion is original research an not encyclopedic. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Emarsee, to give a similar example, there are very few sources discussing villages local to me, and even fewer discussing specific roads (take Ireleth, my village, and High Duddon Close, a street near me). As such, though I write about the village best I can, I will not mention roads of no significance. Equally, I would not include pictures of said roads, even if they were free- this isn't a copyright issue, this is just common sense editorial decisions. The same is true here- write about the TV station as best you can, but do not just slip in random facts for which you have no reliable sources, and certainly do not slip in random non-free images of no importance. J Milburn (talk) 18:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that you have a certain understanding of the dilemma I'm facing at the moment.
 * If the logos's only sources were press releases from their former owners, would it be considered to be a reliable source? I've found a few press releases regarding some non-free television logos. I've found one reliable source for a non-free logo which I've already added to the articles.  єmarsee •  Speak up!  01:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Primary sources are sometimes permissable, and I do not deny using press releases in some of my articles. However, you have to ask yourself whether that really justifies the use of the logo. If the company made a big fuss about the new design, perhaps it would. However, if you are down to scrabbling through press releases, perhaps you are focussing too hard on trying to add the logos to the articles, when there are more important things to discuss. J Milburn (talk) 10:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've think I've found a good source from the Canadian Government describing many non-free logos. Take a look at the file on BBS. It shows when the logo was first registered (close enough to first being used) and how the logo looks like in a legal manner.  єmarsee •  Speak up!  04:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So? That doesn't suddenly make it significant. J Milburn (talk) 14:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

admin abuse
Stop abusing your position as an administrator to allow you to vandalize wikipedia to make a point. You've said you'd stop the removal of pictures from television articles, but in reality, you have increased the number of files deleted and pages altered. You have edited dozens of articles, but i'll just list the ones i can remember:

WDIV-TV, WMYD-TV, WXYZ-TV, CKCO-TV, USA Network, CHRO-TV, WJBK-TV, WKBD-TV, WWJ-TV, WJW-TV, WEWS-TV, WTOL-TV, WNWO-TV, WKYC-TV... this is blatant vandalism and abuse of power, and these articles MUST be restored to their pre-vandalism condition. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 17:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I take to offence that the images removed in the CKCO article were explained in great detail. I thought you wanted critical commentary for non-free images. Well there was critical commentary for the CKCO images. I would like to see you describe a television logo that you removed. File:Mctvbbs.svg would be a good start.
 * I'm not against having a solution to resolve this situation, but I feel the way everybody is acting right now is not the correct way to resolve this. I think that there should be a resolution so there wouldn't be edit wars every few days over this subject.  єmarsee •  Speak up!  23:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Creating critical discussion without sourcing the discussion in secondary sources external to Wikipedia is original research. We don't add logos everywhere we want to, and then describe them, in an attempt to keep them in articles. Was the logo notable for some reason? If so, cite sources showing that. Was the transition from one logo to another significant in history? If so, cite sources indicating that. If you can't do this, including the logos does nothing to improve the article, and actually makes it worse. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Emarsee, original research in image captions counts for nothing. Are the logos genuinely significant? Would they be discussed in the article if you weren't so keen to prove they are "necessary"? I think not. What a logo that the channel used years ago looks like is of pretty much no importance. J Milburn (talk) 21:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You may believe that the logos used by a local television station is of little importance, but there are people who disagree with that. I'm not saying that every single logo that a television station had should be on their articles, but what I am trying to do is to keep the most significant logos of the television stations. Independent sources with regarding with local television stations in Canada are very few, and and even fewer have anything regarding logos. I will gladly accept a limit of one non-free image outside the infobox on the articles if it would mean that the logos come with clear and critical commentary with some limited sources.  єmarsee •  Speak up!  00:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No arbitrary "one logo" limits. We don't work that way. Look, you said it yourself, "even fewer have anything regarding logos". Then it is blatantly clear the logos aren't significant. If you can't discuss an historical logo without using any sources at all, then the discussion is original research an not encyclopedic. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Emarsee, to give a similar example, there are very few sources discussing villages local to me, and even fewer discussing specific roads (take Ireleth, my village, and High Duddon Close, a street near me). As such, though I write about the village best I can, I will not mention roads of no significance. Equally, I would not include pictures of said roads, even if they were free- this isn't a copyright issue, this is just common sense editorial decisions. The same is true here- write about the TV station as best you can, but do not just slip in random facts for which you have no reliable sources, and certainly do not slip in random non-free images of no importance. J Milburn (talk) 18:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that you have a certain understanding of the dilemma I'm facing at the moment.
 * If the logos's only sources were press releases from their former owners, would it be considered to be a reliable source? I've found a few press releases regarding some non-free television logos. I've found one reliable source for a non-free logo which I've already added to the articles.  єmarsee •  Speak up!  01:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Primary sources are sometimes permissable, and I do not deny using press releases in some of my articles. However, you have to ask yourself whether that really justifies the use of the logo. If the company made a big fuss about the new design, perhaps it would. However, if you are down to scrabbling through press releases, perhaps you are focussing too hard on trying to add the logos to the articles, when there are more important things to discuss. J Milburn (talk) 10:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've think I've found a good source from the Canadian Government describing many non-free logos. Take a look at the file on BBS. It shows when the logo was first registered (close enough to first being used) and how the logo looks like in a legal manner.  єmarsee •  Speak up!  04:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So? That doesn't suddenly make it significant. J Milburn (talk) 14:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Imagination and TFA/September 28, 2009
See to  regarding file:Imagination.jpg and it's impact on Today's featured article/September 28, 2009. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  13:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As I noted there, the magazine was scanned from a copy in my possession. Is it now possible to return the image to the front page? Mike Christie (talk) 14:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I see the issue has now been resolved. J Milburn (talk) 15:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

George Tupou V photo
Dear Sir, it's jazzfanatic here. I'm sure I set the image copyright status to free educational non commercial, but this hasn't worked. Can you please set it to this as I'm not sure how.

"not going to listen to my advice about your userpage?"
The reason it seems like I'm not listening is because I'm thinking of either putting my content to my userpage or make it a subpage. Secret Saturdays (talk) 22:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Why on earth would you want to do that? You're history in the making. You've already set the record for the most overloaded-with-nothing-to-do-with-talk-page-stuff user talk page on the project. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right. I deserve to be in the Guiness World Record book for this feat. :) Secret Saturdays  (talk to me)

This DR
Admin Kanonkas told me about this by you on wikipedia. According to Admin Yann, the process is all automated...someone just turns on the camera on the stage and leaves. That's it. No one pressess the trigger for the pictures to appear, so there is no author. If you have a follow up, please contact Admin Yann here on WikiCommons as I am not a specialist here unlike Yann. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

NYC subway diagram
Is there some way to replace the Original version with Edit 2 on the Wikipedia pages that use it? CountZ (talk) 13:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CountZ (talk • contribs) 13:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

New page (biography) Robin French
Please please can you have a look at this page. I have received a lot of advice regarding the style/layout/citations, etc. I have followed all and am waiting to see if it can be confirmed as 'authorised' so the 'notability tag' can be removed. I have asked the main page many times to do this but I think people are not picking up the request. Please can you have a look at it. There is one reference which is not (The Times) online and I do not have the exact details for so I have put a reference in linking it to the agent's page of Robin French. If this isn't ok just take it out. Thank you very much! Felicity Waters (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll look into this issue another time. J Milburn (talk) 23:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Sofia Rotaru
Thank you for your time with Sofia Rotaru related images!--Rubikonchik (talk) 14:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Magazine Covers on SKY Network Television
They are not random images. The SKY Sport magazine cover shows the reader what it looks like. Same thing with SKYWATCH. If these had seperate pages then there would be a picture on the page so why are they not allowed on the SKY Network Television page? The seperated articles are merged into the SKY Network Television page which is like having those aticles inside the main article. So I don't see why not that under their sections beside the text they should not have a cover showing the reader what they look like! Thanks! WWE  Socks  05:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The magazines are notable for there own article but there would be hardly anything to write about them so they have been merged into SKY Network Television which I think is fair. WWE  Socks  03:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion reasoning for File:Tokusatsu.jpg
I'm not really sure as to why you had tagged the file for deletion. I do not believe that your reasoning is sound. Merely because there images that are free (a series of film posters/promotional posters which have only been made free due to Japanese copyright law) does not mean an article can also have non-free images other examples given in the text.

I've removed the tag because I feel that the image helps illustrate the ongoing identity of the subject matter in a more modern medium, outside of the movie posters that are over 50 years old and are free (due to their existance on the commons), by showing members of the long standing franchises in a particular instance that the photo was taken (a similar photo exists for characters from the late 80s/early 90s, but omits the popular Ultraman character).— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 00:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I am aware that there are public domain images of other subjects of the article. There are no public domain images of the subjects as depicted in File:Tokusatsu.jpg, which are more relevant to the article.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 22:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you really saying it's not possible to have a free image as the lead? J Milburn (talk) 22:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Why does a free image have to be used in the lead? The free images in the article are a series of film posters from the 50s. The current lead image, while unfree, depicts a more recent set of fictional characters.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 22:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Lead images are meant to depict the article as a whole, and are generally considered more decorative than the body articles. A free image is preferable. Take, for instance, a BLP- we use a free image in the lead, while, if necessary, place non-free images in the body. Only when we are certain a free image is not possible do we use a non-free image in the lead. If anything, an older image in the lead is better, as it shows the origins of the genre, rather than falling prey to recentism. J Milburn (talk) 22:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * But the recent works in the fiction are more well known internationally than the older works (other than perhaps Godzilla). I would still like the unfree image used in the article as it does have a place in the article.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 22:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm honestly not seeing why it does- what is that image adding that is so essential? J Milburn (talk) 09:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The historical images may be free but they are not as informative as the unfree one for certain aspects of the subject material.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 11:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In what way? What is this image showing that so urgently needs to be shown? J Milburn (talk) 11:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The image depicts subjects of current (although the photo is approximately 20 years old) and long-running instances of programs that are considered tokusatsu. Its placement in the article could be changed, and the lead image could be one of the free images in the article. However, it is still informative.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 11:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't personally identify the characters- are the franchises all mentioned in the article? Further, could the caption be changed to identify the characters and where they came from? J Milburn (talk) 11:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Even though I have moved the image to a different section of the article, the caption already includes that information: Spider-Man, Kamen Rider Stronger, Kamen Rider V3, Battle Fever J, Ultraman Jonias, and Doraemon.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 11:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There are ten figures, and only six named in the caption? J Milburn (talk) 11:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Battle Fever J" is a group. I've modified the caption again.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 11:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm happy with this as a compromise. Thanks for working this out. J Milburn (talk) 15:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Section Blanking?
Hi, I was wondering if you could tell me what "section blanking" means exactly and the context in which it should be used? I found the "Tags" section that describes it but I still don't understand the usage. Thanks. jlcoving (talk) 16:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes sir it answers my question. I thought that is what it meant. That said, could you PLEASE admonish user Goodman1387? He has REPEATEDLY undid my revision's to an article I've done a LOT of work on, despite the fact it is SOURCED. It has to do with testimony given by someone which was used to convict others in the organization. I have a source cited which is the persons own testimony in court via his trial transcripts. Could you please tell him to stop? He claims I am "defaming" Daniel Corral (makes no claim against any of the rest though). Defamation would be the publication of UNTRUE statements that cast someone (or an organization, etc) in a negative light. I don't see how posting public record material of someone's own statements about himself and others is defamation?

The article is "Black Mafia Family"

jlcoving (talk) 17:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Cool, that works. I didn't know all of that existed, I'm still very new to wikipedia and doing articles. I have no problem undoing his revisions as he makes them though. Thanks. jlcoving (talk) 17:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Spotlight newsletter
Hi there. Just a really quick, short note. You're currently listed as a spotlight participant, here, but you are not on the list of people who want to get the newsletter. If you want to receive updates about spotlight, then please add your name on this page. If not, no further action required, and I won't bug you about it again. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  15:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

 * From the editor: Perspectives from other projects
 * Special story: Memorial and Collaboration
 * Bing search: Bing launches Wikipedia search
 * News and notes: New WMF hire, new stats, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: IOC sues over Creative Commons license, Wikipedia at Yale, and more
 * Dispatches: Sounds
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject Tropical cyclones
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 03:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

 * From the editor: Perspectives from other projects
 * Special story: Memorial and Collaboration
 * Bing search: Bing launches Wikipedia search
 * News and notes: New WMF hire, new stats, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: IOC sues over Creative Commons license, Wikipedia at Yale, and more
 * Dispatches: Sounds
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject Tropical cyclones
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 03:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Expo 67 photo
Hi there. I believe it was an honest mistake on your part, as well as a mistake on the copyright notice I used, which should have been changed to Public Domain (due to various people trying to delete these images in the past, I have had to change the notices several times to suit those concerns, until last year when SimonP sorted out the copyright issues for Expo 67 related materials from Canada's National Library and Archives). It is in the public domain, as are all photographic and graphic arts material from Expo 67 held at the National Archive. There are no restrictions for reproduction, as stated on the image's description page at the National Archives. It was one of the only images that I forgot to change the copyright notice to the currently accepted form for these images. I reverted your change to the Expo 67 page, and hope you will remove the deletion request for the image. As you are obviously not a Canadian, many of the people in the photo may not mean anything to you, but they were the most powerful people in Canada at that time. Cheers.Abebenjoe (talk) 01:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 03:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * News and notes: WikiReader, Meetup in Pakistan, Audit committee elections, and more
 * In the news: Sanger controversy reignited, Limbaugh libelled, and more
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Talk page conversations
The editor has removed your comments twice from his talk page. That is a good indication he no longer wants to talk to you about this on his talk page. I also notice the dialouge has become more and more heated, "mindlessly claiming" "stay off my talk page" etc. Best to discuss it on the image deletion page, to avoid any more conflict. Thank you. Ikip (talk) 17:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Neosurrealism images
Thanks for tagging other images linked from Neosurrealism. I think you are correct about the George Grie items, though it doesn't seem like the tagging on the images indicates the creator and instead links to the commercial site.--Larrybob (talk) 20:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I need your opinion.
I there. I have one question, will this picture have a chance at Value picture or featured Pciture

File:MET entrance.jpg

Please respond on my talkpage ASAP. Secret Saturdays (talk) 03:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/Kenyon Cox nude study
I've uploaded a version which has what I feel are more realistic colours for a graphite drawing. Can you review? Shoemaker's Holiday Over 214 FCs served 16:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/Battle of Churubusco
I've done an edit to this, which I'd also appreciate you looking at. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 214 FCs served 17:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Interview: Interview with John Blossom
 * News and notes: New hires, German Wikipedian dies, new book tool, and more
 * In the news: Editor profiled in Washington Post, Wikia magazines, and more
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Re Lucy Merriam
Yep, a case where consensus needed to be interpreted so didn't want to leave it to just 'anyone' to close. Hope no one regarded me as being involved either way due to that licensing discussion, but I believe I maintained neutrality on the image itself, so was in a legitimate position to close it. --jjron (talk) 13:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Category Invite
Please add the category to your userpage. The category is for ease of access to a list of serial FP contributors, and will not be used for spam. Thanks,  Nezzadar   ☎   17:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

5 non free newspaper pictures
Hi, I was going to nominate that picture, and I asked him to speedy it himself and he refused, Mick has replaced it and reverted your edit, I also feel it is a poor addition to Wiki and if it is allowed to stay that it will set a precedent and people will start to create other such pictures, let me know if you are going to nominate it at Files_for_deletion, if you don't then I will, but I am inexperienced in writing image deletion rationales. Off2riorob (talk) 23:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ray Joseph Cormier
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Ray Joseph Cormier. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Ray Joseph Cormier 3. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * J, as one of only three Wikipedia Editors who have seen all the original newspaper references on the subject BLP, I hope you will register an opinion. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 16:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * J, when I saw the Afd tag placed on the BLP, I checked Wikipedia Article Traffic statistics and there was a big spike in viewers. From 1 or 2 a day, it shot up to 53 for the day, but only one comment was posted. One out of fifty three seemed strange? I am being accused of canvassing because I notified 4 editors with the same permissible ´friendly notice¨ as generic as the automated bot above.

When you asked me to send you all the independent newspapers references, I was hopeful, finally, some one was actually going to look at them. With quiet resignation, I respected your opinion that this particular BLP did not fit in with your particular expertise and subject matter.

I´m disappointed the editors calling for delete are totally ignoring the fundamental Wikipedia requirement of numerous independent, reliable newspaper references that determine Notability, and voting on emotion because I attempted to exhort Editors to improve it before another Afd tag was placed on it. I couldn´t improve it because of COI. This is between a rock and a hard place. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 01:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Ping
Hey, go on IRC if you're around.  iMatthew  talk   at 19:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ping #2. :)  iMatthew  talk   at 23:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

[14:48]	<iMatthew>	J_Milburn! :) [14:48]	|<--	J_Milburn has left freenode (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))

=[  iMatthew  talk   at 19:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Need you today especially. Are you around?  iMatthew  talk   at 19:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

ZREO (Zelda Re orchestrated)
I intend on taking on the task of making a page for this group, they specialize in orchestrating Zelda music which I plan on tying that info into the Zelda music article somehow, i noticed you deleted this article before can you please indicate why was there not enough information,content,etc ?

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Awards
Congratulations! (Normal spam message removed, because you're judging next year and not participating!) :)  iMatthew  talk   at 22:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Spam links and changing a redirect
I have cited the site con-way.com as a reference for several articles, but recently I have been receiving a notice that this site has received a spam designation. I wanted to know why, and if/how it is possible to change that status. I was planning to use this site and pages on it as a source for another article.

This instance happened when I was editing Menlo Worldwide.

Also, the name of this company is actually Menlo Worldwide Logistics. I opened that article and set up a redirect to Menlo Worldwide, but I would actually like the content to be under Menlo Worldwide Logistics. May I do this without getting the article pulled?

Thanks.

Tcy3421 (talk) 20:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Peter King (afrobeat)
In February 2008 you speedy deleted this article. I have been following a thread of Nigerian musicians of the 1950s - 1960s. I created a redlink to it when doing a thumbnail of Roy Chicago, put together a first cut on Peter King, went to save it and found it had been previously deleted - twice! He seems to me to be notable, if only for his school of music. A bit of work could probably scrape up other references, and I tend to give creative people the benefit of the doubt. But maybe not all that notable. I would appreciate an opinion. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. I will see if I can find better sources and improve the article, but am not optimistic. Peter King is clearly a respected jazzman who toured and performed widely in the 1960s and 1970s, recorded several albums, appeared on TV, founded a music school but never really became a big star. He is discussed in various music reviews, but the information probably comes from the album sleeves. He is mentioned in several books, but mostly just in passing. I could not find any serious and independent studies. But I think the article is accurate and may be helpful to someone interested in Afrobeat. I suppose the conclusion is "Marginally notable, does no harm, and Wikipedia has plenty of room." Aymatth2 (talk) 14:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Abuse
I would like to report someone who undo's edits of most users, even if it's for good or there's nothing wrong. how would I do that? Read this (section Characters of Smallville) 2 Cause I don't know if it's just me but shefinds fault with everything if it doesn't suit her/him. --JKSarang 09:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * J, the user is referring to me. Recently, the editor above has uploaded new images for several TV related articles to their preferred image. Most of the images are either fan art (which is not allowed), or random promotional images that don't really capture the show. Myself, and several other editors (including at least 2 administrators) have explained the issues with his images with regard to our policies. Instead of trying to build a consensus, JKSarang has been repeatedly uploading image after image, and reverting all of the editors who disagree with him (then claiming that it's all just me). JK was recently blocked because of those reverts, and his ignoring both the policies about non-free images and the fact that consensus was against in him changing the images in the first place.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  16:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Cup question
Hi J Milburn, I'm sending this to you in the hope that you might be able to foresee future problems with co-noms, as it appears that others can't. Does it make sense to you that competitors can tack on co-noms (under the pretense that they are "collaborating") and equally share in the full value of the points awarded? Seriously, what's to stop me or anyone else from forming a nom-cabal of 10 editors who all pitch in to work on articles then all claim full credit for them? I'm sure that it wouldn't happen this blatantly, but it will happen (and did happen last year). Does it really need to become a dramafest half-way through the competition before someone recognizes it as a problem and changes the rules? Sasata (talk) 15:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a tough call. IMatthew wants to encourage collaboration, and I respect that ideal, but think it under the current rules it would be too easy to game. Personally, I think just one should take credit (or the points divided equally among co-noms). The benefit of collaboration comes with the camaraderie of teaming up with a group of editors, and collectively using your talents and resources to work on sections of an article that you're best at, not so more points can be claimed for less effort. Sasata (talk) 17:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know what you mean... but in the long run it's gotta be better to have the rules tight as a drum before the competition starts to avoid later hassles. Good luck! Sasata (talk) 17:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

IRC - 8:30?
Can you be on IRC at 8:30 tonight (3:30 for me)?  iMatthew  talk   at 19:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Four Award
As a past WP:FOUR awardee you may wish to comment at WikiProject Council/Proposals/Four Award.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

help needed on my first article
can you look at my article and tell me how i'm going. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User%3APga1965/Kaitlyn%20Maher

thanks

Pga1965 (talk) 21:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

J. Milburn, Re zimbio - I had used it because of the pictures of the event(nat xmas tree). to add interest is a link to a video allowable?

at the moment i'm on an old, old computer, very unreliable and slow(main computer in shop - 10 weeks old - not happy), so your assistance would be more than welcome.

Pga1965 (talk) 23:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

J. could you look at my article again please, and let me know how its coming along please.

Pga1965 (talk) 12:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

j. have a reply over picture. its posted on my talk page. 'yes'

Pga1965 (talk) 08:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The Official Kaitlyn Maher Forum :: Private Messages :: Inbox :: Re: wiki article Matthew V Administrator offline Posts: 350 Location: Niagara Falls, NY, USA Joined: Jun 2008 Re: wiki article « Message sent on 5 Nov, 2009, 14:46 »

Quote:Matthew, I think this one would be great. btw have you looked at the article yet? Have you heard what the movie next year is to be called this one is "Santa Buddies: The Legend of Santa Paws", could it be called Fairy Buddies(with Kaitlyn)?

http://www.fototime.com/B3A994C1018993A/orig.jpg

Thanks

Paul

Paul,

Thank you for asking. The copyright to that photo belongs to our other administrator. (Douglas) As such you would need specific permission from him.

However, if he says yes, since it is an official forum photograph, I must insist that you give credit to the forum by providing a link and text giving credit in the caption for any of the photos you do use.

In addition you may feel free to use any of the photos in the photo album that were posted by me. (The same credit must be given.)

Just please do not go overboard with how many you use and also let me know which you do end up using.

Thank you,

Matthew V

Back to Top  Logged

Forum Jump» Home» About Kaitlyn- Kaitlyn Updates!- About Kaitlyn- Kaitlyn's Official Sites- Kaitlyn Photo Album- Kaitlyn Video Vault» Kaitlyn's Music- Kaitlyn's Music- Performances & Appearances- Song Suggestions for Kaitlyn» Forum Information- Forum Guidelines- Meet The Team- News & Announcements- Membership Country Totals- Feedback from Members» General- Welcome, Member Countries- General Discussions About Kaitlyn- Kaitlyn Celebrations- Kaitlyn in the Media- Kaitlyn's Videos» Misc- Members Birthdays & Celebrations - Other Music --- Connie Talbot- Off-Topic Subjects

The Official Kaitlyn Maher Forum :: Private Messages :: Inbox :: Re: (No Subject) Douglas Administrator Site Photographer offline Beauty and the Beast Posts: 199 Joined: Sept 2008 Re: (No Subject) « Message sent Yesterday at 13:07 »

Hi Paul:

That is a great picture and yes it is ok to use it on wikipedia with the following credit ©Douglas -- The Official Kaitlyn Maher Forum with a link to the forum below it http://kaitlynmaher.proboards.com

Kaitlyn is an amazing girl as I think the Disney corporation has found out. While I will love her voice and singing in Santa Buddies, she will be just amazing I am sure in The Search for Santa Paws where we can see her sweet smile in addition to hearing her voice. I can't wait.

Douglas Back to Top  Logged Forum Jump» Home» About Kaitlyn- Kaitlyn Updates!- About Kaitlyn- Kaitlyn's Official Sites- Kaitlyn Photo Album- Kaitlyn Video Vault» Kaitlyn's Music- Kaitlyn's Music- Performances & Appearances- Song Suggestions for Kaitlyn» Forum Information- Forum Guidelines- Meet The Team- News & Announcements- Membership Country Totals- Feedback from Members» General- Welcome, Member Countries- General Discussions About Kaitlyn- Kaitlyn Celebrations- Kaitlyn in the Media- Kaitlyn's Videos» Misc- Members Birthdays & Celebrations - Other Music --- Connie Talbot- Off-Topic Subjects

The Official Kaitlyn Maher Forum :: Private Messages :: Inbox :: Re: (No Subject) Douglas Administrator Site Photographer offline Beauty and the Beast Posts: 199 Joined: Sept 2008 Re: (No Subject) « Message sent Yesterday at 13:52 »

Quote:Douglas this is the info I have recieved from J. Milburn (author of Connies article and Wikipedia Administrator)

"Yeah, I was planning on requesting a photo later today. This is something I do a lot of work with- please note that permission for Wikipedia to use the image is not enough. Instead, you need the copyright holder (normally the photographer, but her agents/representatives will own the rights to any publicity shots) to explicitly state that they are happy for the image to be released under a free license- normally, we recommend Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0. There are then additional steps you must follow- if you do get a reply and he is willing to release an image under a free license, contact me again, and I'll go through the remaining steps. J Milburn"

here is the link milburn refers to :- http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

I'm sorry if I'm a bit about the place with this its my first full article on Wikipedia

Paul

Paul: I am aware of the complexity of copyright and the creative commons licensing, though it can be very confusing at times. I have read the Common Attribution Share Alike license and agree to release that photo under that license.

Douglas Back to Top  Logged

-

these are copies of personal messages from Kaitlyn Maher offical Forum, are these sufficent to certify the photo(the photo link is in the first message)?

Pga1965 (talk) 20:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

ok photo emailed to photosubmission@wikimedia.org as asked. I'm not sure how to upload.

thanks 4 the help.

Pga1965 (talk) 21:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

j. where have I gone wrong on the filmograhpy table?

Pga1965 (talk) 22:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

am I going overboard with sections or is that about right?

Pga1965 (talk) 22:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I fixed the track listing for Connie Talbots Christmas album properly? Pga1965 (talk) 23:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

kaitlyns new movie needs citations(she is in Canada shooting it now!)? Pga1965 (talk) 23:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

got connies info off the album sleeve, itunes off the cd(track times) and wiki. note ave maria, the producers missed that one! Pga1965 (talk) 23:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC) I'll do holiday magic track listing tomorrow. Got the cd here now, so that will be easy to do. (I just used over the rainbow track listing like a template) Pga1965 (talk) 23:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

if you like i can finish editing over the rainbow track listings also? i got to get some sleep now up for work in 5 hours Pga1965 (talk) 23:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

you might be able get some leads off the offical forum Pga1965 (talk) 23:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

j.  what a dill I am, MY computer, is  is NOT citable, nor are album sleeves I guess. I'll have knuckle down and try to find on allmusic or something.Pga1965 (talk) 11:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I got three album citations for Connie Talbot's Christmas Album, only allmusic has track times 12\13 match the other citations "walking in the air" is missing from allmusic listing Pga1965 (talk) 12:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

j. I received this response from Reuben Maher(kaitlyn's father)i thought i would ask him if an media releases were planned covering new events, and i received this reply:-

Re: info

Hi Paul,

Thank you for running with getting Kaitlyn's Wikipedia page up. To answer your questions:

1) http://www.facebook.com/l/a2440;IMDB.com fact checks all movie information and has officially listed Kaitlyn in the role of Quinn (http://www.facebook.com/l/a2440;www.imdb.com/title/tt1544572/) 2) We always reference people to Kaitlyn's website (http://www.facebook.com/l/a2440;www.KaitlynMaher.com) for music and release-related questions. Additionally, we have a press release lined up for this Friday (11/13) about her Christmas singles being released that same day.

Also, I would like to help give you a bit more information (see below) which will assist you in your research of past performances of Kaitlyn as well as general biographical information. I would simply ask that you allow me to provide high-level edits for clarification purposes before the Wikipedia page is officially published. Thanks, Paul.

Reuben (Kaitlyn's dad)

=
================================

Kaitlyn Maher’s Bio - Kaitlyn Maher is only five years old, but has already endeared herself to millions across America and around the world. When she was only four years old, her pure voice, cute smile, and infectious personality propelled her over hundreds of thousands of contestants to become the youngest person ever to make it into the Top 10 as a Finalist on NBC’s hit show, America’s Got Talent. Shortly after this, Kaitlyn was honored to be a featured entertainer for then-President and First Lady Bush – as well as over 7,000 attendees – and performed in the live, nationally televised 2008 Lighting of the National Christmas Tree ceremony at the White House. She was touched to be able to bring comfort to our country’s brave men and women of the armed forces when she sang on both Thanksgiving and Christmas to retired and wounded soldiers at the Veteran’s Affairs and the Walter Reed Medical Center, respectively. In addition to being one of the headlining acts at the McDonald’s Christmas Parade in Orlando, FL, Kaitlyn was also the lead actress in a holiday commercial campaign for a major national supermarket chain and finished a print ad campaign for a leading national insurance company. She was a featured performer on both the Today Show and Access Hollywood and has appeared in People magazine as well as other newspapers and websites around the world.

Kaitlyn’s God-given gift and unique ability to draw and captivate audiences remains evident by the fact that she performed at the 2009 National Cherry Blossom Festival chaired by First Lady Michelle Obama, sang the National Anthem and “God Bless America” for over 40,000 at the Washington Nationals Major League Baseball game (a clip of which was highlighted on ESPN’s SportsCenter), sang the National Anthem at the Legg Mason Tennis Classic (as well as a number of other major sporting events), and has performances booked at venues around the country throughout the rest of the year.

To top things off, Kaitlyn finished her inspirational CD (entitled You Were Meant To Be), 2 songs of which she wrote, and scheduled for release in November 2009. She debuts in her first Disney role in the upcoming movie Santa Buddies scheduled for release November 24, 2009 and has agreed to become Compassion International’s first ever International Child Ambassador to raise awareness of and address childhood poverty around the world! In addition, Kaitlyn was selected by Disney to be the lead actress in The Search for Santa Paws, currently scheduled for release November 2010.

Through it all, Kaitlyn still enjoys being a kid. In addition to being homeschooled, she is actively involved in ballet, swimming, her church, AWANA’s Sparks program, and singing at a local nursing home. She admittedly loves to read (at a 4th grade level) and particularly enjoys “smothering” her baby brother with kisses!

Links -- Kaitlyn’s Website: http://www.facebook.com/l/a2440;www.KaitlynMaher.com Kaitlyn’s Electronic Press Kit (EPK): http://www.facebook.com/l/a2440;www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrPshDKV-Wc Kaitlyn’s MySpace Page: http://www.facebook.com/l/a2440;www.myspace.com/KaitlynMaher Kaitlyn’s Facebook Profile: http://www.facebook.com/KaitlynMaher Kaitlyn’s Facebook Fan Page: http://www.facebook.com/KaitlynMaherFans Kaitlyn’s Twitter Page: http://www.facebook.com/l/a2440;www.twitter.com/KaitlynMaher Maher family’s YouTube space: http://www.facebook.com/l/a2440;www.youtube.com/user/avrem1

Kaitlyn’s “America’s Got Talent” Performances (YOU'LL WANT TO VET THESE LINKS) -- Kaitlyn’s New York performance on “America’s Got Talent” singing Somewhere Out There: http://www.facebook.com/l/a2440;www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwAbtizFCzo

Kaitlyn’s Las Vegas performance on “America’s Got Talent” singing When You Wish Upon a Star: http://www.facebook.com/l/a2440;www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XnQvfPE8QY

Kaitlyn’s Top 40 (Hollywood) performance on “America’s Got Talent” singing What a Wonderful World: http://www.facebook.com/l/a2440;www.youtube.com/watch?v=i78MvUF8ed4

Kaitlyn’s Top 20 (Hollywood) performance on “America’s Got Talent” singing Beauty and the Beast: http://www.facebook.com/l/a2440;www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOWax-cHT6k

Kaitlyn’s Top 10 (Hollywood) performance on “America’s Got Talent” singing I’ll Be There: http://www.facebook.com/l/a2440;www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOENRN2ant0

Kaitlyn’s Finale (Hollywood) performance on “America’s Got Talent” singing A Moment Like This: http://www.facebook.com/l/a2440;www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EJrHlA8BwY

Kaitlyn’s Other Appearances/Performances

10/13/09 - Release 2 Christmas singles: "Away in a Manger" and "God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen" on http://www.facebook.com/l/a2440;www.KaitlynMaher.com

10/10/09-10/11/09 – Featured singer at Cornerstone Ministries

10/3/09 – Featured singer at “An Evening of Stars” fundraiser in Reno, NV

09/14/09 – Featured soloist of “Above All” on Christian Fellowship Church’s album “Give Me a New Song”: http://www.facebook.com/l/a2440;www.cfellowshipc.org/pages/page.asp?page_id=83674

08/29/09 – Featured in PSA for “An Evening of Stars” fundraiser in Reno, NV to address Childhood Alzheimer’s: http://www.facebook.com/l/a2440;www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJvTfjOcHns

08/02/09 – Sang the National Anthem at the Association of Tennis Professional’s Legg Mason Tennis Classic

07/22/09 – Sang the National Anthem at the Bethesda Big Train Summer College League Baseball game

07/20/09 – Featured singer at The Palace in Nashville, TN

06/21/09 – Featured singer at Potomac Falls Anglican Church

05/24/09 – Sang the National Anthem and “God Bless America” for over 40,000 at the Washington Nationals Major League Baseball Game

05/01/09 – Featured singer at Christian Fellowship Church’s 2009 Worship Concert: http://www.facebook.com/l/a2440;www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7RIuukDINc

04/15/09 – Featured singer at Prison Fellowship Ministries

04/11/09 – Featured singer at 2009 National Cherry Blossom Festival - Part 1 (“I Have a Dream”, “What a Wonderful World”): http://www.facebook.com/l/a2440;www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOkgarY_msU - Part 2 (“My Wish”, “I’ll Be There”, “God Bless the USA”): http://www.facebook.com/l/a2440;www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3Hce-Nsaio&feature=related

01/25/09 – Featured singer at Capital Life Church - “God Bless the USA”: http://www.facebook.com/l/a2440;www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-5UI4uGxtU - “There Will be a Day” (4:14 into video): http://www.facebook.com/l/a2440;www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAKEo_qSHPQ

01/03/09 – Sang the National Anthem at the George Mason University men’s basketball game

12/25/08 – Featured singer at Walter Reed Medical Center Christmas Day concert for wounded soldiers

12/24/08 – Featured singer at Christian Fellowship Church’s Christmas Eve service - “Away in a Manger” (original arrangement): http://www.facebook.com/l/a2440;www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1GPytV-sys - 12/14/08 – Featured singer at McDonald’s Christmas Parade in Orlando, FL: http://www.facebook.com/l/a2440;www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLYKPC1RCbo

12/12/08 – Interview with Fox TV in Orlando, FL: http://www.facebook.com/l/a2440;www.myfoxorlando.com/myfox/pages/InsideFox/Detail?contentId=8070893&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=5.2.1

12/6/08 – Featured singer at large, corporate Christmas party

12/4/08 – Featured singer for over 7,000 at the Lighting of the National Christmas Tree in Washington, DC - “Sleep Well Little Children”: http://www.facebook.com/l/a2440;www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2I981UQP_g - “Where Are You Christmas”: http://www.facebook.com/l/a2440;www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2LG3HEoB0E&feature=related

11/27/08 – Featured singer at Veteran’s Affairs Hospital Thanksgiving Day concert, retired/wounded soldiers

11/22/08 – Sang the National Anthem at the Infinitive Championship Series 5K race: http://www.facebook.com/l/a2440;www.youtube.com/watch?v=0w566XZLXA4

10/25/08 – Featured singer at the Great Kids Expo: - Part 1: http://www.facebook.com/l/a2440;www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNDoOtuuLCo - Part 2: http://www.facebook.com/l/a2440;www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErWIQyuXCaA - Part 3: http://www.facebook.com/l/a2440;www.youtube.com/watch?v=qb-o7l-Nl54

10/10/08 – Principal actress in Harris Teeter Holiday Commercial: http://www.facebook.com/l/a2440;www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3-Gg4Tl3QQ

10/01/08 – “Access Hollywood”: http://www.facebook.com/l/a2440;www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6xndFpXWS4

09/24/08 – “Today” Show: http://www.facebook.com/l/a2440;www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3DZ_3emGbs

09/01/08 – Featured in People magazine, page 37

07/26/08 – Sang the National Anthem at the Washington Glory professional softball game: http://www.facebook.com/l/a2440;www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhD9kKb3hSM

April-October 2008 – Contestant on NBC’s hit show “America’s Got Talent”; through popular vote, Kaitlyn became the youngest ever Top 10 Finalist

Kaitlyn has shared a link with you. To view it or to reply to the message, follow this link: http://www.facebook.com/n/?inbox%2Freadmessage.php&t=1082668407503&mid=1650a35G3e13c74cG1095382G0

___ Find people from your Windows Live address book on Facebook! Go to: http://www.facebook.com/find-friends/?ref=email

This message was intended for pgashton@hotmail.com. Want to control which emails you receive from Facebook? Go to: http://www.facebook.com/editaccount.php?notifications=1&mid=1650a35G3e13c74cG1095382G0 Facebook's offices are located at 1601 S. California Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94304.

it dosent look like very much of this can be reliably verified.

what do you think Pga1965 (talk) 20:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

yeah agreed, is imdb a trusted source? as I said earlier I wasn't trying to get stuff like that, just an idea of what's happening with the new movie and album. he said there should be some news on the album coming out in the next couple of days, that should be good, right. I know Kaitlyn is away right now filming, but knowing something without facts is no good, hopefully there will be some news there soon also. Pga1965 (talk) 22:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

j, im thinking about a section for philanthropy. "Compassion International has selected Kaitlyn to be its first-ever International Child Ambassador to help in the campaign against global child poverty!" what do you think? if so where would be best, under history, personal or elsewhere?Pga1965 (talk) 21:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Connie talbot article re: holiday magic cd and support of "toys for tots" note this only applies to the U.S. album Pga1965 (talk) 21:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

just found this article looks pretty poorly sourced, should it be flagged for extra work, possibly should be a stub article, for now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rissi_Palmer Pga1965 (talk)

=
===============================

Parent (Ruben Maher) asking to be allowed to edit.

Quote from above "I would simply ask that you allow me to provide high-level edits for clarification purposes before the Wikipedia page is officially published"

it would not be proper to allow this, would it, but comments only on the discussion page though, ok?, subject to admins etc.

Pga1965 (talk) 08:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

DrV - Ray Joseph Cormier - Last Statement
J, as one of only two Wikipedia Editors who actually have copies of the original references in your possession, and have seen the the independent, reliable news sources supporting inclusion of the subject BLP in Wikipedia, while I was disappointed the close was delete, I was particularly disappointed you, more than others, abstained, rather than register an opinion to KEEP or DELETE. You got an automated bot notice before I knew such a thing existed, as I sent out a few just as Friendly Notices to 3 keep and 3 delete participants in the previous AfDs, nom in March by the same nom who initiated this current AfD process, now at DrV.

Deletion_review

After you had the opportunity to view the references and more, I respected your forthrightness when you told me you felt you could not do a good job with the information since it was so different from what you have been accustomed to and have experience with in matching your particular interests. You are witness that I quietly accepted and respected your honest opinion, and did not attempt to convince you to change your mind, and we both moved on.

As for me, all I could do was hope someone would come forward with a genuine interest in drawing the article on the available newspaper references, and you know there are many of them. Sadly, no one came forward except User_talk:Steve_Smith, who started a new section in the hurried revision of User_talk:Kingturtle, that he revised from the outright slander the nom edited the BLP to be in the revision history posted to User_talk:Kevin, the closing Administrator. Steve committed to finish the re-write, but with his busy schedule in Wikipedia on so many worthwhile projects higher in his priorities, he just never found the time to finish it before the AfD.

Being intimate with all the details, it was exasperating to me to see Kingturtle have the last word in the AfD, essentially saying even though Newspapers from the The Kansas City Times with a follow up story on All Souls Day two months after their first report, to The Whitehorse Star in the Yukon, to The Vancouver Sun, The Edmonton Journal, The Calgary Herald, and across Canada to Le Droit, to repetitive coverage by The Ottawa Citizen in Canada´s Capital, to Le Soleil, The Halifax Daily News and St. John´s, Newfoundland, The Weekend Evening Telegram, and many others wrote reports exclusively on the subject, but because Toronto and cities around The Kansas City Times didn´t, the rest do not count? That is an absurd argument!

I find it so annoying that Kingturtle, except for Steve Smith´s partial re-write, wrote the rest of the version just deleted, and deleted references from MacLean´s, Canada´s weekly National News Magazine, and The Globe & Mail, Canada´s daily National Newspaper, both located in Toronto. It is natural that I would notice this, but casual, uninvolved Editors, without having the interest in taking a deeper look, would not see these pertinent facts and realities. AGF, but I do know The Vancouver Sun put their report on the subject on a Canadian news wire service, and newspapers in towns and cities all across Canada picked it up. It would take a professional to find all those pre-internet sources.

Kevin, who closed the AfD, did not see these simple facts and realities, or dismissed them outright, if he even did consider them. As you or Kevin or anyone else would think if it was a BLP with you as the subject, ¨This is BS!¨

This is the last statement I have to make in Wikepidia pending closure. I have no illusions about this. This DrV discussion is not about Ray Joseph Cormier. It is about the twin pillars of WP:N and NPOV, and it seems to me most Editors are asleep along the Watchtower, and do not realize what is taking place from superficial glances. Wikipedia is now in the process of modifying those long held principles of WP. Again, This is not just about Ray Joseph Cormier.

Personally, I have no problem with either Endorse or Overturn to no consensus or keep. If it is deleted, it in no way invalidates the numerous news reports written exclusively on the subject.

'''[15] I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot: I prefer that you were cold or hot. [16] So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my mouth.................. [21] To him that overcomes, will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.''' This may be a Revelation to some, but this is my POV. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 18:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: I commend whoever changed the User Talk links from blue to red on this page only. Those talk pages still exist, but only those really interested will find them. Seek and you will find. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 22:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Andrew Johnston
Regardless of what paper it came from, I would be hesitant to republish a minor's negative comment about a father that he has not lived with since he was eight. Editors of Wikipedia biographies are warned against writing stuff that might be libellous, regardless of where it comes from. Since you are not quoting many positive things that Andrew has said about a number of other matters, why labour the point about his father? Surely there is more to the kid's life than the fact that his family split up when he was a baby? Why not describe the things that Andrew does with his mother, which are positive and charitable? How he currently gets on with his siblings is probably more relevant than how he hardly sees his father. What concerts has he done and who has he performed with? What about his invitation to visit Paul Potts? Amandajm (talk) 13:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Before you revert my edits and say Hell No, can I suggest that you look at a few more bigraphies. Try Elvis Presley and Pavarotti. While I realise that they are both deceased, they do make it fairly clear that it is normal to commence a biography (which is what this is) with a statement of the date and place of birth, and the names of the aprents. I was just searching for a reference for the name of Andrew's father and found the one that gives all of Andrew's names. That reference also talks about the things that Andrew and his father have done together. AQnd how his father wept when he sang, and longed to be there with him. Do you really think that the article ought to include the nasty comments that Andrew made to the press. If he doesn't regret those words now he probably will, when he's a little more mature.
 * Amandajm (talk) 14:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That article that you just pointed me to is nonsense. It says that the father split three years ago. As for the publicity, of course they are pumping up the fact that the child is from a "single parent family".
 * As for the "growing up in poverty", it does sound as if they had it fairly tough, but the mother did chose to study, rather than just work, so that would account for financial difficulties. Amandajm (talk) 14:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not suggesting that you fill the article with quotes from the father. I am merely stating that the quote of a statement made by a peeved child is not an appropriate one, even if the child is the subject of the article. The article needs to state clearly when and where he was born and who his parents are. It needs to state this in the first section of the main body of the article. That is how it is done. Why don't you just get on with what is obviously appropriate and leave what is equally obviously a personal matter for the boy himself to sort out. I loathe unnecessary scandal-ragging, and that is what that type of writing is. Amandajm (talk) 14:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Then write about his relationship with his mother- how she studied and he was cared for by his sisters and older brother. Write that she did an assortment of jobs and used to take him out to deliver Indian food. There's plenty of info, without slamming his father. Write about the sort of estate they live on and the fact that it has been misrepresented in the press, and isn't really that ghastly at all. Amandajm (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Check out some good articles about really significant singers and see what sort of headings they use. There might be something that can be drawn on for this article. As for the small paragraphs- run them together. But don't eliminate the basic facts ie. birth, place of birth and parents from the first sentence of the body of the text. Amandajm (talk) 07:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Free Images
If I uploaded photos that had filled rationale, with a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License and I had MetaData from a Nikon camera. Would it still count under this tag: This file has been listed on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because the information on its source or copyright status is disputed. I guess what I am asking is, does a free image have to have an OTRS ticket in order to be valid? But I notice some members upload free images with reliable information yet there images are being deleted by random editors. Mostly editors that pray on other editors who either have a bad background or none at all. And what about Flickr I tried to upload a flickr image once that had Exef or Meta data and was under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License but then it was rejected by a random user. When there are other user with images from Flickr? <font color="FF4526" size="2pt" face="Arial bold ">JKSarang 00:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No problems for me but I've noticed it for other editors of Wikipedia. So even if I were to upload my own free images another editor would step in add deletion tags to my photos. I have a stalker editor right now. Wherever I edit they would step in and edit my edits. So I won't submit free images. As for Flickr can I upload my images at Flickr then submit them to Wikipedia or does it have to be someone else's? <font color="FF4526" size="2pt" face="Arial bold ">JKSarang 02:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh no not right now. But just for the future I think I'll send them in to OTRS. Seems safer. <font color="FF4526" size="2pt" face="Arial bold ">JKSarang 09:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Image tagging
Since JK seems to listen to you, could you explain to them that all the images they are tagging as "possibly unfree" all have copyright tags and non-free licenses that clearly state that they are "non-free" images. I tried to explain that, but they just deleted my message. Based on the images they are tagging, it would seem like they are going through mine and Ophois' upload log (since we were the ones who had a dispute with him) and vindictively tagging anything we've uploaded. I'm hoping your apparent amiable relationship will allow you to talk some sense into JK.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's too late to transfer them now. But I will uncheck the possibly non-free box. <font color="FF4526" size="2pt" face="Arial bold ">JKSarang 13:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You call what I did wikistalking yet these editors are allowed to do the same thing to me? Where's the sense in that? Why is it that people can stalk me but i can't do the same? There are editors going through my images. Once the same person who "tags" my images, then does it again, and again. that is also considered stalking. Becuase they are mainly editing my images. <font color="FF4526" size="2pt" face="Arial bold ">JKSarang 19:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I felt these were tagged not incorrectly but as wikistalking and disruptive editing. 1, 2, 3 this photo depicts the actress in a movie that made her famous. So it is important for this actress. <font color="FF4526" size="2pt" face="Arial bold ">JKSarang 01:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Notre dame de la paix yamoussoukro by felix krohn retouched.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Notre dame de la paix yamoussoukro by felix krohn retouched.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Jesse Draper
My apologies: I just rollbacked your addition above but have since restored it. Wikipedia went porridgy while loading my watchlist and a click to see if there was still life landed on the [rollback] tab. Best,  Roger Davies  talk 11:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 15:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup withdrawal.
Re : and to a lesser extent. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-11-17t22:16z

Help me JM?
I asked a photographer for a photo, but there was a mixup betwixt the two, as they're nearly identical. I uploaded the wrong one, and got a swift note about it being in Commons, but being in Danger of deletion. Thus I emailed the photographer to switch the offending photo to a CC-BY-SA image (they both come from Flickr) and he has done so. Can you please somehow let the Powers-that-Be (You?) at Commons, and let them know that BOTH photos for the band XTC are OK for use under Creative Commons? They were both uploaded under my same username leahtwosaints in Commons in the last 2 days-- the one I really want is currently also in the infobox on en.Wikipedia and the other one, that I also wish to keep is on the talk page there, as another editor and I hope to cannabalize it and get at least one of the two missing band members' photos from it.
 * Ah. one last thing. The main photo for Cat Stevens was a featured photo in Turkey! However, the photographer is concerned that it has lost it's original shine from before. I used the Flickr upload bot for that one a long time ago.. what could have happened? Thanks as always for your help! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 18:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Ping
Hiya. Could you perhaps hop on IRC when you get online? Cheers. <font style="color:#006600;"> GARDEN 19:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

connie talbot
check the schedule on the article discussion page.

Pga1965 (talk) 09:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

updated Connie's schedule today

Pga1965 (talk) 20:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 12:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Disney Channel 2007.svg
OK, Switched this to the Cleanup-SVG template, It's 'tiny' display size is silly compared to the file size though ? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Square Max Hymans (Paris).jpg
Hi, Regarding my level in english, I have some problems to understand those copyright problems. I uploaded this image for a US guy who asked it to me. I will report to him this problems, I hope he can fix. I don't understand why some of my pictures are allowed and other ones not. Regarding the french no-FOP, why do you keep so many images of modern french buildings or skyscrapers. In Paris for example. On english wikipedia and on Commons (where they are forbidden) ?--Tangopaso (talk) 21:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

In France images of modern buildings have two licenses - this image here is marked as both Creative Commons and copyrighted. The photographer contributes a license, but the architect also contributes a license. Both are valid at the same time. I have discussed this issue at NFCC pages, and I will happily show you relevant discussion. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The image itself needs to have a free license. For an image of French building to be uploaded on any Wikimedia project, the photographer license must be a free license.
 * However the building itself also causes the image to inherit the copyright of the architect. In cases where this happens it is not possible to upload the image to the Commons
 * If the architect copyright expires, then the image is fully free and it can be uploaded to the Commons.
 * As per this discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_43 - it is fully justified to show both Creative Commons and a fair use notice for images of modern French buildings. This is how it is in regards to modern French buildings. Please also see Commons:Commons:Licencing WhisperToMe (talk) 04:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As for the reason why Square Max Hymans is important for the Air France article, images of corporate headquarters (and former corporate headquarters) are important for articles about companies. Air France had its corporate offices in Square Max Hymans for a thirty year span, until 1995. Due to the situation in France, it is not possible to find a free equivalent of Square Max Hymans. For Montparnasse and the 15th arrondissement, the building had a major employer and corporate presence (Air France) WhisperToMe (talk) 04:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The page Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_43 clearly states that an image can be free and non-free at the same time (that is if it is a modern French building). It is important to state both licensing statuses (because the photographer license *has to be free*, while the architect license *is not free*). This is how French law works, and it is factually wrong to say otherwise. If you want to ask more about it, then please start another discussion on WP:NFCC. I did my part by starting the discussion archived on part 43.
 * "sorry, but you don't get a "free" non-free image to show the company headquarters" - I have explained how French building laws work. There is no other way to show the company headquarters. Showing the building where the executive management works is an important aspect of an article about a said company.
 * "Unless the appearance of the building is of particular significance" - Ironically that is precisely how the architect copyright occurs. If the building's appearance is truly utilitarian, then the architect copyright does not apply. But if there is some architect creativity in the building, then the architect copyright does apply.
 * I decided to ask here Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content if there is a special template that exists in regards to modern French buildings so any images of them will be tagged, highlighting the special licensing statuses of them
 * I must also add that under French law, a panorama showcasing multiple buildings does not get an architect copyright, so images of panoramas showing a skyline or multiple buildings may go on Commons
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 16:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Square_Max_Hymans_(Paris).jpg&diff=327846300&oldid=327812838
 * You said: "Note the free license in the description, do NOT double tag." How can one show that both licenses apply if one cannot double tag? As has been demonstrated in the discussion, both licenses indeed apply to the picture.
 * Regarding the category, it is a valid point that the image of the image should not show up in the category. So how can one mark an image being in that category without the image itself appearing as a preview in the said category?
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 18:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I tagged the category "Images of Paris" with NOGALLERY - Because of the strange French copyright stuff, there will be images of French buildings that cannot go to Commons. Images of Paris should have images of those buildings.

You said: "It cannot be both free and non-free, as they are mutually exclusive. " The situation with French buildings is a paradox - The idea of having a free photographer's license and a non-free architect's license sounds very strange, but that is how it is. For the purposes of storing and using the image, it should be treated as a non-free image, yes (which is why we have NOGALLERY, etc) - However, we also have to acknowledge the free license from the photographer. For instance we cannot upload images where the photographer has a non-free license for his image. Becuase it is possible to get a "free-er" image where only the architect has a non-free license, we cannot accept non-free images of French buildings where the photographer has a non-free license.

I will stress that we do need to categorize these images as "non-free" as opposed to being "free" since the architect's copyright is important WhisperToMe (talk) 20:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

At this page Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_43 I asked whether it was okay to include an image of a non-free French building I found on Flickr. The answer was no, because while the building was non-free, the photographer also had his non-free license too. Because it is possible to get a photo of the building without a non-free photographer license, we cannot use the Flickr image. The point is that Wikipedia cannot use images of non-free buildings with a non-free photographer license, while Wikipedia can use images of non-free buildings with free photographer licenses (they are used like other non-free images are). WhisperToMe (talk) 20:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I wanted to acknowledge the "Creative Commons" photographer license of these images too by including the CC tag.
 * Now, when I looked at how the CC 2.0 tag worked, I found that it automatically adds images to Category:Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 images, and this is problematic due to the gallery stuff. Unlike "Images of Paris" it would not be appropriate to do a "NOGALLERY" in that category, so it seems like we can't use the tag in the French building pictures for that reason - I guess it has to be explained in the text.
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 20:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:FOUR survey
My flight departs in 25 minutes. If you get a chance, could you notify past FOUR recipients about the survey.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Image cat
In that case I'll make a derivative category, something like AF-KLM images... WhisperToMe (talk) 22:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I looked over the one of the Tremblay building and realized it did not have a full out fair use rationale template. I just added one to it. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Also added templates for the Puteaux town hall and the Tour Total. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Images uploaded by InkHeart
Hi, I've been looking at some of the images uploaded by this indef blocked user and associated socks. Some images appear to have been taken from a variety of websites and used without permission, and are listed for deletion both here and on Commons. But several images have OTRS permission confirmed. Per my comments at the discussion for File:ParkSiYoun2009.jpg, I'm concerned that some of these are not legit.

I came by your name in relation to two such images, specifically File:Lee Jun Ki 2009 JapanFM Press Conference.jpg and File:2007 Auction House.jpg. I'm pretty much ignorant of the OTRS system, so I'm wondering, is it possible for copyvios to slip through, and should these images be a concern? PC78 (talk) 02:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The other images with OTRS permission are File:LeeJunKi BDAY.jpg, File:LeeJunKi 2009Taiwan.jpg, File:LeeJunKi 2009Taiwan.jpg (not this one), File:Lee Jun Ki K&C.jpg, File:Episode II Shanghai.jpg and File:Lee Jun Ki 2009 JapanFM Press Conference.jpg. I've run a few image searches on google and found File:2007 Auction House.jpg at , but came up blank with the others. It could be that some of them are OK, but this user seems to have left behind quite the tangled web so it's hard to know what's good and what's not. PC78 (talk) 14:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk about being "beyond me"
The following edit comment was left on Eastern Bloc emigration and defection: "We actually have free images of her. Why we need this non-free one is beyond me". I thought, great, someone is replacing the non-free with the free image. Shockingly, it was flat out deleted. With the caption. No replacement. No puported free image. No nothing.

If you have a free image, please make the project better and replace the "non-free image" rather than just wholesale deleting the entire photo and caption.Mosedschurte (talk) 11:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Tour-Total.jpg
Same issues as with the previous photo of a 'french' building... There's a license conflict. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Why are you chasing my images, and not the other ones ?
 * You have images of recent french buildings in Category:Images of la Défense. Why are they allowed and mine forbidden ?
 * And on Commons, you have A LOT OF recent french buildings in Commons:Category:La Défense and all the sub categories. Idem in Commons:Category:Skyscrapers in France and all the sub categories, in Commons:Category:Sofitel Arc de Triomphe. Among them, there is only one of mine (Tour-Total.jpg). And I made a translation in french of the warning template to prevent creations of images of this kind.
 * But I give up ! I will not do any update, because I dont understand. I go back to old buildings and cactuses ! Good bye misters the censors !--Tangopaso (talk) 20:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I made a request for Tangopaso to photograph the L'Oreal headquarters in a Paris suburb for EN. With L'Oréal added, which discusses the building itself, it should be okay as per FU justification. BTW, what image editing program do you recommend? I want to reduce the sizes of the images of the French buildings, but I do not want to distort the images. What programs do you reccommend? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 19:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have access to Windows XP computers. Is the Windows powertoy you are referring to for XP? If so, I can use that one. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The page has the info I need to begin the replacement. By tomorrow evening I'll begin resizing the pics of the French buildings. Thank you! WhisperToMe (talk) 19:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Cup points poll
Neither of the runoff options is acceptable. So the poll really precludes followup participation. <font face="Verdana"> Durova 371 20:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The point needs no explanation; was explaining the reason for abstention. <font face="Verdana"> Durova 371 20:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Image reducing
I used the Image resizer program to reduce the sizes of the Square Max Hymans and Tour Total images to the "Small" option indicated by the program. If I need to reduce sizes of more images, or if I need to further reduce sizes of the existing images, please let me know. Thank you WhisperToMe (talk) 02:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW if you want I could find a French speaker to explain things more clearly to Tangopaso. His native language is French, so it may be best to have a French speaker explain things more clearly. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, if the target is around 300x300 (maybe a little bigger than that): I think Tour Total is fairly close to 300x300, but I could further reduce Square Max Hymans. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Unfortunately it seems like the image resizer isn't resizing images smaller than by 480. I'll have to look at the program more and see what I could do. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Tour Total is 360x480
 * Square Max Hymans is 640x480

Ah, I just realized - There is an advanced options screen, so I can make it by 300 pixels. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Done - I did both Square Max Hymans and the current AF HQ WhisperToMe (talk) 18:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 13:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Advice needed on images
Got the following on my talk page.. User_talk:Sfan00_IMG

About something which went via WP:PUI back in July!!

Perhaps you would care to explain Image policy to the user concerned?

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Great News!!!
Unable to resist bacon's temptations, rogue editors have kicked off the Bacon Challenge 2010 before the New Year even starts! This is a fun and collegial event and all are welcome. There are many non-pork articles for editors who enjoy some sizzle, but object to or don't like messing with pig products. This year's event also includes a Bacon WikiCup 2010 for those who may want to keep score and enjoy engaging in friendly competition. Given the critical importance of this subject matter, I know you will want to participate, so remember to sign up today and get started A.S.A.P. ALL ARE WELCOME!!! The more the merrier. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey there J.M. Is there a way to seach through the photos on English Wikipedia? Is there a way to see the ones that aren't being used? Just curious. What happens if a photo is removed from an article. Does it get lost forever in the fog? ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I was just curious. Thanks for your reply. It would be interesting to look through the ones not being used to see if they should be added somewhere (or deleted). Thanks again. Happy holidays. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Dissapearing gun emplacement.jpg
This file has a licensing conflict...

- If it's the uploaders own work, making it non-free is not Wikimedia policy.

- If it's not then the source is wrong and it needs a rationale.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Edinburgh Make poverty history dsc06375.jpg
Licence conflicted image. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Pike_Place_Piggy_2008.JPG
Conflicted licensing notifcation... Your advice appreciated Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Confused Licensing images
A list of them would be useful...

I only found the ones mentioned above during a review for over-large Fair Use.

That said some might still need to be found manually.

I'll keep notifying you about ones I find if that's OK? At least until there is a more formal process...

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 05:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Confused Licensing - File:VShiva by Alexander Calder Kansas City MO.jpg
This is a confused licensing notification for the file indicated. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree file and OTRS
Hi there J Milburn, as I was going through the immense backlog over at WP:PUF, I noticed. The uploader states that he resent the evidence of permission to OTRS and I was wondering if it was ever received. Just thought it might be worth clearing this up. Regards. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  06:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Conflicted licensing notification File:Einstein Memorial side view.jpg
The above noted image appears to have conflicted licensing Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Conflicted Licensing notifcation File:Pavilion projects.JPG
The above noted image has conflicted licensing. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Conflicted Licensing notifcation File:Mack robinson memorial pasadena.jpeg
The above noted image has conflicted licensing. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Conflicted licensing notifcation File:The Equal of God by de Cordier.jpg
The above noted file has conflicted licensing. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Conflicted licensing image notification File:Deuceberg.jpg
The images noted above may have conflicted licensing. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Conflicted licensing notification File:Passenger Lisr RMS Etruria.jpg
The above noted file has conflicted licensing. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Everson Cantus Tristiae Guitar 1984.ogg
Tagged as fair-use, but looks worth checking with the uploader... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Conflicted licensing notification File:Illuminationflare.jpg
The above noted media may have conflicted licensing. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Got an easy one (for you, anyway)!
Hey JM, What should be done when I come across photos with tags like the one here from Canned Heat's photo?: I see these from time to time, but don't know what's really involved, so I leave them alone. If it's something simple that I can understand, I'd be happy to deal with it. This photo from Woodstock was one of the earlier ones I requested from a Flickr photographer, who contributed about 10 photos from that concert. I'm scared to look for the rest, but they're listed in my very first talk page archive, if it's the case. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 01:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)