User talk:J Milburn/archive28

Conflicted licensing notification File:AmalMurkus.OGG
The above mentioned file may have conflicted licensing. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: The above wording should probably be templated somehow Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Conflicted licensing notification File:WorldCurrency.JPG
The above noted image appears to have conflicted licensing Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

File:OctavianCover.jpg
Not conflicted licensing as such, but it's time that the only acceptable 'permission' was one to release under CC-BY-SA lodged with OTRS.

Otherwise such media is 'non-free', and needs to be treated as such REGARDLESS of what the publisher/uploader have agreed. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Conflicted licensing notifcation File:Joe David 04A.jpg
The above noted image may contain conflicted licensing. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

File:AmalMurkus.OGG
I received notification that there is a question about the copyright of this file. The file is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2. The license holder, Freemuse, specifies this on this page.

I would fix this myself, but I am not exactly sure how to go about it. Can you help? Thanks. --Ravpapa (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Conflicted licensing notification File:Slyfam-simplesong-1969.ogg
The above noted media may have conflicted licensing Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Portuguese dogfish
This public internet at high school. please do not respond to our talk page. --168.10.168.201 (talk) 14:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Conflicted Licensing
Thanks to a another contributor with toolserv access there is now a 'partial' list of media with potentially 'conflicted licensing'

Link is : http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/reports/miss_tagged_files.txt

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Kaitlyn Maher
Hello! Your submission of Kaitlyn Maher at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! I can help with expanding the urls and citing the paragraphs; however, am a little concerned if it will pass WP:Notability as now written. Any views on this is appreciated at the submission's entry. Kindly Calmer   Waters  14:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Possibly conflicted licensing File:DGFEZ in Asia Map.png
See comment in infobox... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

how to submit an article
J. I have reached the extent of my writing skills with this article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pga1965/Kaitlyn_Maher and don't know how to lodge it. could you reply to my talk page please.

Pga1965 (talk) 12:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Neal E. Boyd won that series, but Kaitlyn didn't make the final "5"

also I cannot find all of the authors for her songs, the album has been released digitally, but the physical release is set for dec 17, 2009.

Pga1965 (talk) 23:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

ok moved to main wikipedia

Pga1965 (talk) 06:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

thanks 4 nomination

would you say the article is still a stub(i realise i did put that on myself)?

Pga1965 (talk) 03:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

how do i protect the article from non-registered users changing things?

Pga1965 (talk) 07:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

could you please review the wholesale changes being made to the article? 17 changes in 8 hours

Pga1965 (talk) 03:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Help?
Hi. User:Xeno popped by my page looking for a copyvio admin. It is an image issue that touches on Wikipedia, Commons and WP:NFC, so you were the admin who immediately popped to my mind. :) The discussion at my talk page, User talk:Moonriddengirl, links to the issues. This one has gotten pretty nasty and seems to be getting worse. Note the edit history of and the new section at File_talk:Chicago_Spire.jpg. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. Truly, I can think of no one better to ask. :D (And hopefully I won't have to ask too often. I don't like to wear out my contacts. ;)) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The saga continues... –xenotalk 16:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

File:KJJacobs.jpg
Sufficient rationale? Your view welcomed Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Giant ground sloth Iowa.JPG
As this was one I got rescued, I am slightly disapointed that someone's now tagged it as non-free. If it is non-free, I need some help in providing a rationale.

The user who tagged it as non-free, seems to to be applying policy a little literally on a number of other images as well (Check their contribs..). Perhaps you could tell that user to be a little bit more flexible? (Or at the very least notify the original uploaders?

I also note they rewrote some sourcing information on something else http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Lebanesearmyfirstflag.png&diff=prev&oldid=329879675 which IMO makes it less clear what the sourcing of the image/design is.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't a photographers name be removed from the photo itself?
Hey, JM, I know it sounds like I'd be the last person to comment on this, but, I thought in Wikimedia Commons that uploaded photos were supposed to have watermarks and photographers' names removed before using them. See here?: Just wondering. Thanks.--Leahtwosaints (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you have a template or something
that can respond to User_talk:MBisanz.  MBisanz  talk 06:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Please restore images of 'Sugarcane Grassy Shoot Disease (SCGS)"
Thank you for ur reply. Please restore images of 'Sugarcane Grassy Shoot Disease'under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 license, as u suggested. I am OK with that. Thanks again.

Amityadav8 (talk) 17:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Conflicted images
Apologies for any duplicates to one previously reported. The following messages can be removed once read. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Conflicted licensing on image File:MattressFactory-PoemHouse.jpg
The above noted image or media file appears to have conflicted licensing. As an image cannot be both 'free' and 'unfree', a check of the exact status of this media/image concerned is advised.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Conflicted licensing on image File:Leonard Harrison CCC Statue Sunset.JPG
The above noted image or media file appears to have conflicted licensing. As an image cannot be both 'free' and 'unfree', a check of the exact status of this media/image concerned is advised.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Commons OTRS
Hi,

This is regarding an oTRS issue on commons. Iv sent the permission email twice, but its not been updated yet. Iv had a bot msg re this on my talkpage today to follow up else the images may b deleted. How do u suggest I go bout this?

Thanks, Around The Globe सत्यमेव जयते 23:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

Thanks for the reply. The following images were included in the email:

1. Vadtal Showers.jpg

2. Vadtal.jpg

3. Vadtal Shikhar.jpg

4. Shree Swaminarayan Mandir.jpg

5. Jetalpur.jpg

6. Manaki Ghodi.jpg

7. Maharajshri.jpg

8. Acharya.jpg

9. Shri Swaminarayan Mandir.jpg

10. Shikhara.jpg

The email starts with "FOR THE ATTENTION OF OTRS PERMISSIONS".

Regards - Around The Globe  सत्यमेव जयते 11:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. With regards to the three images in question, they are the property of the Swaminarayan Sampraday. The email permission has come from the official Swaminarayan Sampraday website, so I do not see the issue. Around The Globe सत्यमेव जयते 16:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I really dont see the issue here. This is governed by Indian Law, where rights expire 70 years after the artist dies. Now, these paintings are probably well over 150 years old (they are portraits of the first Acharyas during their time in office - which was the first half of the 19th Century). The way it works is someone is hired to make a portrait - they make it, get the money for it and the portait is then owned by the temple (or Swaminarayan Sampraday organisation). At that time there was no real fuss bout rights and such stuff - I can confirm that whatever paintings are owned by the Swaminarayan Sampraday - it holds the rights for as well (where there are rights). Around The Globe सत्यमेव जयते 19:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Conflicted licensing on image File:20090619 Sui Jianguo's Windy City Dinosaur at Boeing Galleries.JPG
The above noted image or media file appears to have conflicted licensing. As an image cannot be both 'free' and 'unfree', a check of the exact status of this media/image concerned is advised.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Conflicted licensing on image File:20090619 Hadid pavilion.JPG
The above noted image or media file appears to have conflicted licensing. As an image cannot be both 'free' and 'unfree', a check of the exact status of this media/image concerned is advised.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Conflicted licensing on image File:Euro coins.jpg
The above noted image or media file appears to have conflicted licensing. As an image cannot be both 'free' and 'unfree', a check of the exact status of this media/image concerned is advised.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Conflicted licensing on image File:Outrage in progress.jpg
The above noted image or media file appears to have conflicted licensing. As an image cannot be both 'free' and 'unfree', a check of the exact status of this media/image concerned is advised.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Conflicted licensing on image File:20080514_Trump_Chicago_Kiosk.JPG
The above noted image or media file appears to have conflicted licensing. As an image cannot be both 'free' and 'unfree', a check of the exact status of this media/image concerned is advised.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Conflicted licensing on image File:20090316 Large Internal-External Upright Form.JPG
The above noted image or media file appears to have conflicted licensing. As an image cannot be both 'free' and 'unfree', a check of the exact status of this media/image concerned is advised.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Conflicted licensing on image File:Oscar_Wilde_tomb_Jacob_Epstein.jpg
The above noted image or media file appears to have conflicted licensing. As an image cannot be both 'free' and 'unfree', a check of the exact status of this media/image concerned is advised.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Conflicted licensing on image File:Stripped Book.JPG
The above noted image or media file appears to have conflicted licensing. As an image cannot be both 'free' and 'unfree', a check of the exact status of this media/image concerned is advised.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 03:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Can this be moved to Commons?
I found this on the en.Wikipedia, and think it belongs on Commons. Can you do this? Thanks. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 06:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Your assistance requested
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sfan00_IMG&oldid=333863567#December_2009

I can't work out what it refers to... , Surely you are allowed to remove speedy tags on images you tagged, but on reflection felt where NOT justified...

I am also needing a review of the caption cleanup in case I missed something.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy holidays


Caspian blue is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to your friends' talk pages.

--Caspian blue 21:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Pictures from 'Sugarcane Grassy Shoot Disease'

 * Thanks for ur reply. Do i need to do anything more.? I hav ere-uploaded the images with suitable license.

Amit Yadav 12:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amityadav8 (talk • contribs)

''' Amityadav8 (talk) 14:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Will you please tell me how to add licence to uploaded pictures.? I don't see my uploaded pictures anymore.
 * Do i need to upload all the pictures again with desired copyright licence.?
 * '''Please reply ASAP, the article is without pictures since a week. Moderators are late in thir replies. SO PLEASE.
 * Except image: Amit Yadav SCGS MHA Treatment.jpg, which is from www.sugarcaneindia.com/RSD.htm; citation for same was provided in the image description (n will be provided after restoration).
 * Rest all images are from my own computer and click by myself using various cameras.

Thanks n regards, Amityadav8 (talk) 16:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Connie talbot : Holiday magic DVD
word just in from AAO music, "Connie Talbot's Holiday Magic" DVD, has reached #1 on the music DVD charts in Hong Kong. see this thread for further info http://connietalbot.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=shawn1&action=display&thread=2717&page=1

Pga1965 (talk) 10:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

J. could you also review my edits of connie talbots Holiday_Magic_(album) please.

Pga1965 (talk) 12:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I realise this is a forum post, but it IS locked for exclusive postings from Shawn of AAO Music. Should I therefore ask him to include this information on the AAO website/news.

Pga1965 (talk) 02:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you help?
Hi JM, I have a photographer from Turkey who is having trouble navigating her way through the red tape there. Since I don't speak any language close to hers, (I think she's exasperated), and finally sent me the photos (Of Ron Wood and Mick Jagger). I don't have an ORTIS account. She sent them photos in an email with the comments to please provide links to her name and photostream. Would it be possible to email them to you, and see if you can get them in? This language problem is getting to wear on me! Oh, please respond on my talk page, and I'll do the same here if you wiah. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 21:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The ORTIS issue
Well, I've had several Flickrmails with her, which I can copy and paste here.. and the last was this: (Title of email was) "My Ron Wood and Mick Jagger photos" ''Here are my photos... Please link them back to my flickr account and write my name under. Thanks, Eszter Turbéky'' So, that's the final comment. There were three; the first, was my contacting her, and she asked if there was any financial compensation. I told her no, but for those curious, they can click the photo and find her name and Flickr photostream. She wrote back saying that it was a pity, but she was willing for these two pics. When I tried to tell her how to change the license from copyright to CC-BY-SA, it became difficult for her, and that last response I sent you included an attachment of the two photos. What can I do? --Leahtwosaints (talk) 22:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Jolly Rodger
It was worth a shot though. I will think hard and try and find an appropriate one. --Kumioko (talk) 14:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL, Ok I'll find another one. --Kumioko (talk) 16:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Oops
Thanks, I missed that. I'll replace it now. Thanks for the heads up.  T i a m u t talk 18:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

2009–10 West Virginia Mountaineers men's basketball team
As you were in the process of reverting my reversions, I was in the process of inserting rationale on the media page.

Although I appreciate you attention to this matter on the West Virginia basketball pages, and as an "administrator" I am sure you are much more well versed than me in Wikipedia policy, I do take issue with the manner by which you are trying to implement a precedent. I do not appreciate the passive aggressive tone you have taken with me. In my more than three years editing Wikipedia pages, I have never been treated like this (as you can see by the talk on my page, people seem to appreciate the work I do). As an "administrator", I would expect you to be more courteous and helpful in addressing things you see as in error, rather than micromanaging, especially when the concerns you raise are of a much broader consequence to the use of athletic team logos on Wikipedia pages in general.

So as to whether or not it is an "appropriate" use of non-free images. I think you would agree with me that, like all other athletic team pages (such as West Virginia Mountaineers men's basketball, which you also removed the logo from, most likely because there is no non-free rationale), the logo is an important component of the identity of the team, no matter whether it is a single season or the entire entity. That said, I disagree with your assessment that these sorts of pages are "discussing the team's performance in a certain year", rather they are building the identity for that team in a particular year. And so I'm arguing point 8 of the policy, that it is contextually significant, and is therefore an important component to the page itself. But if you disagree with me, then this gets to my other issue of the way you appear to be micromanaging. If you are going to remove the Flying WV logo from this page, then why not remove the logos from all the single season pages for all sports teams on Wikipedia? If you have a problem with the execution of drug pushers in China, then why are you focusing all your attention on a single executor, instead of working to establish and implement a universal standard? Sinisterminister (talk) 19:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * And I will refer you to this for a similar, yet much more elaborate discussion: Media copyright questions/Archive/2009/October. Sinisterminister (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Regardless of whether or not you "appreciated" my reversions, it appears my actions can be justified, especially now that non-free use rationale has been established for this particular image on all the pages from which you removed it. That still does not excuse you from being unnecessarily sarcastic and condescending toward me, for which I have half a mind to report you to RFC/ADMIN. Sinisterminister (talk) 20:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, I am taking liberties which I believe are most certainly within range of non-free use rationale. I do not believe I am disregarding this criteria in any way, especially not in spite of your handling of this situation, and believe that use of this logo is important to the identity of the team in all its forms. Again, I will refer you to this discussion: Media copyright questions/Archive/2009/October. If you have been too busy to read it, I suggest you do and get back to me in more explicit terms about why your judgement seems to contradict what was established in this discussion. Sinisterminister (talk) 20:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This discussion has everything to do with what we are talking about (especially regarding NFCC). I think Crazypaco would disagree with you: "...this also gets into the question of what the purpose is of logos in an infobox. It was my understanding they are present for the purposes of identifying the topic of the articles. If this is the case, the do serve an informative purpose in helping to identify the institution and/or team. I am also assuming there will be readers who may not be completely familiar with college athletics in the United States....I therefore believe they do serve important identifying, and thus informational, purposes. In addition, it seems that the goal of Wikipedia is that each article is to stand on its own and have its own notability (see my post above), which would appear to be somewhat in conflict with the idea of restricting logo use in one article because it appears in another. CrazyPaco (talk) 21:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)" You still haven't explained to me why it is not relevant on these pages. I asked you to be explicit...to leave no room for me to question you. At this point, all I am gathering is that this is a matter of your individual preference, and that there really is no precise policy. Sinisterminister (talk) 21:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Assistance requested
I tagged some iamge for license/source issue. Uploader's complaining I didn't respond to their comments, I didn't get any comments other than the complaint... See User_talk:Sfan00_IMG and User_talk:S.S._Miami Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Image concerns
Are the licenses now satisfactory?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Image
✅ I have changed my flag to Dublin. Thanks for alerting me. Cargoking  talk  11:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

'Conflicted' images
I was in need of a tag for the actual images, any suggestions? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Image licensing - non-free content
I have a number of food-related images of products, logos, organzations and other trademarked, copyrighted or otherwise non-free images I've uploaded to illustrate articles under the fair use rationale. Some of them were photos I took myself and some I found on flickr posted under CC-BY-2.0 licenses. Sfan00 IMG has let me know that a number of these have conflicting licensing tags, because they have both non-free notices/fair use rationales AND a free use license noted on the image page. Examples:


 * File:Kummel.jpg
 * File:Tasti D-Lite.jpg ‎
 * File:Maryland cookies.jpg
 * File:Butter salt.JPG
 * File:Marukan seasoned rice vinegar.JPG
 * File:Strawberry coolatta.jpg ‎
 * File:Fiji water poster.jpg
 * File:Black rice vinegar.JPG
 * File:Chinkiang rice vinegar.JPG
 * File:Bakers_coconut_vintage_ad.jpg
 * File:AlsoSalt.jpg

I thought the easy way to answer Sfan's concerns for photos I took myself was to remove my own GNU and CC licenses for the photos themselves, but I had another thought when I ran into one of my uploaded images on his list that I had found on flickr. I didn't take the photo, but the photographer had posted it with a CC-BY-2.0 attribution license, which means it could be used anywhere and in any way so long as the attribution (and the license) was included. I'm not comfortable removing someone else's license tag. So, it makes sense that the photo license be included and also the non-free tage and rationale as the subject matter depicts non-free material, such as an image of a product label.

As I thought about it, I noticed a note on Sfan's talk page from WhisperToMe regarding French licensing:
 * AFGonesseMemorial.jpg
 * In France two licenses are recognized: One for the photographer, and one for the non-free object being photographed. The photographer license is a free one, but the object is non-free. The image is treated as a non-free picture. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

- in which there are two separate licenses, one for the photo itself and one for the content. That concept seems to perfectly sum up a photo taken of a trademarked or copyright-protected subject. I'm wondering if that is the correct approach to take regarding this specific type of product, logo or organization photo, whether or not French law is involved? It makes sense to me. What do you think? Thanks for the help. Geoff Who, me?  22:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy J Milburn's Day!
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Your views
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sfan00_IMG&diff=cur#.22Cannot_be_both_free_and_unfree.22

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

RE: Probably a stupid question, but...
Ok, one last clarification. You said the good topic is eligible, but I can only claim the topic points for articles I worked on. In this particular good topic I'm hoping to work on, I was the primary author for all the articles, but of course, I did the work for most of them prior to this month. Can I still claim those if I do the good topic in January, or can I only claim the articles within the GT that I worked on in January? — Hunter Kahn  ( c )  01:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much! Sorry to be a pest with the questions! — Hunter <font color="#595454">Kahn  ( c )  01:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Conflicted images
I created a possible tag for the image/media pages themselves as Conflicted-license, Your opinions and possible cleanup to it would be appreciated before it's brought into active use. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

RE: Probably a stupid question, but...
Ok, one last clarification. You said the good topic is eligible, but I can only claim the topic points for articles I worked on. In this particular good topic I'm hoping to work on, I was the primary author for all the articles, but of course, I did the work for most of them prior to this month. Can I still claim those if I do the good topic in January, or can I only claim the articles within the GT that I worked on in January? — <font color="#C0C0C0">Hunter <font color="#595454">Kahn  ( c )  01:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much! Sorry to be a pest with the questions! — <font color="#C0C0C0">Hunter <font color="#595454">Kahn  ( c )  01:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Conflicted images
I created a possible tag for the image/media pages themselves as Conflicted-license, Your opinions and possible cleanup to it would be appreciated before it's brought into active use. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Problem image
Tagged by me, Uploader detagged... Retagged as it's Non-free.

Media concerned.. File:Wilsonville Spokesman newsbox.jpg

I don't want to have to 'keep' tagging it daily.. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

A discussion you may be interested in
It seems the conflicted license and the user notification is having the desired impact, 6 of the images tagged and notified have already had the conflicts resolved :)

There's been a disscusion started about it at, Wikipedia_talk:Image_copyright_tags as well.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikicup
I am completely certain that I will be eliminated in the 1st round because I don't understand the rules and haven't developed any strategy. In addition, I have a self imposed wikibreak for a few days at the beginning of every month so I that will remain interested in Wikipedia. That's my fault, not anyone else's.

Question 1. I think I know how to apply for points. Just edit this page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3APrefixIndex&prefix=WikiCup%2FHistory%2F2010%2FSubmissions&namespace=4  according to the templates here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiCup/Submissions

___ a. No, you are an idiot

___ b. Correct, but you are still an idiot.

Question 2. You get points from making an article GA or FA, right? The other things like featured sounds, I never do (maybe a thing I should learn). No points for article improvement where the article is not a FAC or GAC.

___ a. Correct.

___ b. No, correct description is _________

Question 3. What is the criteria for a FA wikicup credit? Is it just reasonably significant contributions or is there a technical criteria, like number of edits?

I can think of 20 other questions but this is enough to get me started so that I won't be a fool with zero points. Maybe if there is a 2011 Wikicup, I can write the simple English translation? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quick answer! As far as my DYK, I hope that I will be able to do everything to that one article, from DYK to GA to FA to featured article on the main page.  I expect that process to take over 1 year but it will be a real achievement since Wikipedia is already nearly a decade old and most FA have already been started as an article already (except news related articles). Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe for 2011, we could award a few points for factual errors corrected that have been in place for over 30 days. I corrected a few. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Sharks
Hello J.Milburn

I've just signed up to WikiProject Sharks and was wondering if you, as another participant of the project, would know where I could find good coverage to expand two shark stubs that I've just created.

Orectolobus floridus Orectolobus reticulatus

Also, if there is anything I've done wrong, can you please let me know. Thanks. -- Domestic CAT 21:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've left a similar message to the user you suggested.-- Domestic CAT 22:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

York Imperial apple
I've gone and mainspaced this and listed at DYK. Any improvements would be appreciated. I'm still trying to get a free image too. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 23:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just added it as a ref, thanks! <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 00:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

please add me
Somebody took my name off. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikiCup%2FHistory%2F2010%2FContestants&action=historysubmit&diff=335790993&oldid=335779950  Please add it like you did with User:Grandiose. I am meek, not grandiose.

Note the time stamp. I asked to join before User:Grandiose did. I asked here. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/Contestants&diff=prev&oldid=335779950 User:Grandiose asked 2 hours later. So I ask if I can be granted an addition to the list. If you want to slam the door shut after those who asked after User:Grandiose's request, I will not object since I qualify as an earlier request. JB50000 (talk) 04:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello again
I know that you are probably not involved in WikiProject Cats at all but you might be able to answer this:

See British Longhair.

I noticed an unsourced claim about an appearance in a cat food commercial. I've tagged it with "citation needed", but I don't believe (even if true) that mentions of appearances that cats of a certain breed have had in cat food commercials holds any encyclopedic value whatsoever. i was about to just remove it immediatley, but decided to seek a second opinion, just in case these sorts of claims are (by Wikipedia standards of course), of an encyclopedic nature. Thoughts?-- Domestic CAT 05:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Whipped cream.jpg
Was there an OTRS confirmation on this image?

I am having the uploader moan at me because it was tagged for no rationale, will read over the image again, but appreciate a second opinion. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
I'd just to thank you for completing my application for the WikiCup. I was relying on the goodwill of people like you to be accepted, and I'm very glad to have found.it. Germany is fine. Thanks again. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Re:Concerning File:1055 vijayabahu~i au o copy.png and other currency images
-  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 04:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

wikicup
Thank you. Of course I don't want ! I prefer 🇨🇦 Canada which is not taken. If it becomes taken today, then alternative choices are 🇧🇷 Brazil then 🇨🇱 Chile. JB50000 (talk) 05:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikicup DYK
Darn, figured it would be okay because it wasn't actually featured on the mainpage until well into the new year. Never mind, hopefully there will be plenty more where that came from. Just FYI, I am being credited with the 10 points on the scoring page, I don't want to edit my score given the potential for drama and tomfoolery, but someone probably should remove it then. Cheers, Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC).

Concerning File:1055 vijayabahu~i au o copy.png and other currency images
Surely, the copyright on these images of old coins belongs to the photographer, and seeing as we have no evidence of release from the photographer, they should be deleted? J Milburn (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi J Milburn. Yes, that is correct.  I was mislead by the Non-free currency tag and I neglected to read the date the coin was created.  I will restore the {{subst:npd}} tags and remove the Non-free currency tags in favor of the PD-old tags.  I appreciate you letting me know.  Regards,  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 04:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that there is no copyright on the old coins. The photographer is not creating something new; he or she is simply making a two-dimensional reproduction. The same issue arises with old paintings: a photograph that is a faithful reproduction of an old painting is not a new copyrightable form. This is why {{subst:npd}} tags are not appropriate on the images of old coins. If the photograph consisted of several coins, things might be different, but probably not. - Eastmain (talk) 04:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Eastmain, why do you feel that reproductions of coins are automatically free? A coin is not a two dimensional work of art- we already interpret this rather liberally. J Milburn (talk) 12:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010
<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) 23:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
For your input in the West Virginia logo discussion. I trust that the ensuing conversation helped to answer your questions. If not, please visit my talk page. — BQZip01 — talk 02:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Why Block Warning?
Why did you give me a warning? It seems as though the image I uploaded is just as good as any other image. I think it's acceptable. And make sure no one deletes it again without even telling why.

(S.S. Miami (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC))

Amanita muscaria gallery
Hi, J Milburn. No problem about the gallery removal (my gallery edit to Amanita muscaria). I can understand the reasoning behind not wanting articles to accumulate pictures in a gallery section. I do think that gallerys can be useful and that this article might benefit from one but I'm not going to press my point. Is there anywhere in the MoS that discusses this? Jason Quinn (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

RE: Your image uploads

 * I do not play these games J Milburn. Be specific of what "variety of sources" you are talking about. The photographs which I took are listed as my own regardless of what they depict. The ones that are not taken by me or are scans- such as "fall of Phaeton" by Peter Paul Rubens or the "Dante and Virgil in Hell" - are listed as they were found on wiki.commons. I do not claim any rights to them. I dont see the need to list the author of the artwork when, to my best understanding, the copyright information refers to the actual photograph, not the subject. I dont see the reason why it would be otherwise.--Satt 2 (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This picture that Satt 2 uploaded File:Cathedral_dome.jpg seems to be this image on flickr by earthmagnified. It does not have either of the two creative commons licenses necessary for use on wikipedia. Images of the dome from the Church of the Gesu do exist on commons, eg File:Cupola Baciccia Gesu.jpg. Mathsci (talk) 13:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The other image File:Baroque Fresco Ceiling.jpg is taken from here . It shows Jupiter Crowning the Victorious Hero by Pietro da Cortona in the Sala di Giove (the Medici throneroom), in the Palazzo Pitti in Florence. (I found it by looking for the exact dimensions.) Mathsci (talk) 13:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Pele San Diego.jpg
Opinions?, I have had someone revert my 'conflicted' tagging of this? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Free image of non-free object
Hiya, User:Sfan00 IMG suggested I talk to you to resolve this issue. He tagged the image File:Unoabjd.jpg with conflicted-license, but previous threads at Media copyright questions suggest that free images of copyrighted sculptures/toys should be tagged with dual licenses:. Thank you for any input you have on this. Siawase (talk) 11:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your quick reply. I started a new thread regarding this at Media copyright questions since there appears to be conflicting information about it. Siawase (talk) 12:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Picture of a mobile phone?
Hi. :) There's a question on my user page about photographs of mobile phones. If you get a chance, could you come weigh in there? I'd be most grateful. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

why deny?
the 2009 Togo national football team attack redirection should be deleted. The attack happened in 2010, not 2009--121.33.190.164 (talk) 13:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The page was linked from the main page. I was more concerned with sorting out the double redirects at that point. Redirects are cheap- why delete? J Milburn (talk) 13:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyright issue, cross project
Hi. Me again; sorry. :D I've just closed out a multiple image infringement case, and within minutes of my deleting File:MorganSquare.jpg, the image was returned to the article, having been uploaded by a brand new user at File:Spartanburg square.jpg. I do not know if we have the same contributor socking on Wikipedia (since s/he is now indef-blocked on English Wikipedia (and I've just put all of his or her images up for deletion at Deletion requests/Images of Akhenaton06. I wonder if a sock investigation is appropriate...or even possible given how little QCdue has done.

In any event, I need to draw the attention of a Commons admin to the new upload and was hoping you'd have time to tag it or delete it or do whatever seems appropriate. It seems highly unlikely that the actual copyright holder just showed up to put it back at this specific point in time, but I do not have the original to point to (though it is used at myriad points around the web). --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Given that this individual is now busily moving all these deleted images to Commons, the sock question seems clear. I'm going to block as a sock here and bring this up at the Administrators' Noticeboard on Commons before this gets too out of hand. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :) When I saw the uploading spree, I figured it was best to hop on it sooner rather than later, when the mess would grow. I'm still digging up info on it, but stupid real life keeps happening. :P --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

OK
About the WikiBowl Silver, I see you don't want it on the WikiCup page. If you can notify the losers that there is a way to keep playing, that would be thoughtful. People still in WikiCup should not feel threatened as they earned more points. Having the chance to still play, but at the kid's table, not the adult table may encourage the losers to keep writing! JB50000 (talk) 06:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010
<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) 08:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thoughts ?
Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Possibly_unfree_files/2010_January_12
I'm not being unreasonable am I? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Uploads by User:Sureshiras
I've been going through some of my previous image work and found some stuff uploaded by this user:

The first two (based on the claims given) were transfered to Commons, (Tineye gave no results BTW)


 * File:Vb110.jpg
 * File:Vb112.jpg

I then found these, which had no description:
 * File:Vb130.jpg
 * File:Vb140.jpg

So I went to the uploaders talk page to leave an appropriate request, when I found that you had left them a slightly stronger worded message in relation to thier images in 2008 User_talk:Sureshiras

Perhaps given that you found some problems previously you could review the 4 above along with : Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Visakhapatnam.jpg
 * File:INS_Karmuk_P64_at_Visakhapatnam.jpg
 * File:Visakhapatnam Outer Harbour.jpg
 * File:Hindustan Shipyard in Visakhapatnam.jpg

File:Buddy Holly - That'll Be the Day.ogg ‎
This image is claimed to have a fair use rationale? Agree? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Rochester Midtown Plaza - Interior.jpg
Re:, thanks for helping to straighten that out. Powers T 03:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Significant enough?
The WikiCup got me looking through "my" old articles, thinking which ones to improve, and I realised that Roystonea regia was pretty close to what I might put up for a GA candidate. Not that this has any bearing on whether I put it up or not, but I was wondering whether this is significant enough "new" work (2010 work) to make eligible for consideration for WikiCup points. Just trying to get a sense of what might constitute "significant" work. Guettarda (talk) 05:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, not actually looking for an yes or no answer, but rather a sense of "maybe"...or "absolutely not" :) Guettarda (talk) 05:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 14:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Connie Talbot
J. I understand Connie is not her real name. someone mentioned it is Constance Victoria Talbot. I don't know how I would verify that. obviously she is known as Connie.

Pga1965 (talk) 13:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Worcestershire coat of arms
I recommended retagging, but disagree with your reasoning. You may wish to read my response at. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Bulk request - Commons OK or not?
I found I'd tagged the following for Commons move back in late 2008, On review I'm not so sure some of them can go on Commons...

Can you take a look over and tag accordingly?

Thanks in advance...


 * File:Villa Vecchia seventeenth century print of Matteo Greuter 1620 img072.jpg
 * File:Hotel Monte Cavo 1907 img122.jpg
 * File:Villa Sora Frascati 2008.jpg
 * File:Mario Titi Drip Painting time img245.jpg
 * File:Iphigenia in Villa San Marco Stabiae.jpg
 * File:The new archaeological excavations in Villa San Marco of Stabiae june 2008.jpg
 * File:The winter peristyle of Villa San Marco.jpg
 * File:View of Carrufo 070.jpg
 * File:Main road of Carrufo 099.jpg
 * File:Drinking fountain in Villa Santa Lucia degli Abruzzi 062.jpg
 * File:Front door of St Peter ad Oratorium 407.JPG
 * File:Enigmatic inscription of St Peter ad Oratorium 400.JPG
 * File:The false dome Church of the Jesus Frascati 007.jpg
 * File:Villa S Lucia Abr G2894.JPG
 * File:Villa Parisi-Borghese seventeenth centrury print of Matteo Greuter 1620 img071.jpg
 * File:Villa Sciarra seventeenth century print of Matteo Greuter 1620 img056.jpg
 * File:Villa Muti seventeenth century print of Matteo Greuter 1620 img054.jpg
 * File:Villa Sora seventeenth century print of Matteo Greuter 1620 img055.jpg
 * File:Villa Grazioli seventeenth century print of Matteo Greuter 1620 img053.jpg
 * File:Mondragone seventeenth century print of Matteo Greuter 1620 img039.jpg
 * File:Frascati seventeenth century print of Matteo Greuter 1620 img035.jpg
 * File:Leonardo da Fiè - Family coats of arms in Castle of Presule.jpg
 * File:Villa Mondragone 1907 img008.jpg

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Flaming Moe's/GA1
Thank you for reviewing the article for me. Just to let you know, I have addressed your concerns, so if you could take another look at it, I'd appreciate it. -- Scorpion <sup style="color:black;">0422  19:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Images - Closing PUI's ?
I reffered the following to WP:PUI,


 * File:Tute deck twoplayergame.jpg
 * File:TuteFourKings.jpg
 * File:Tute 40inbastos play.jpg
 * File:Tute 20inespadas play.JPG
 * File:Player of Tute holding cards.jpg

The uploader subsequently clarified the situation and I'm not sure they are now a PUI issue...

I think only admins can close PUI threads? So your advice would be appreciated, as well as any you can give to the uploader. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Suede67 and I trimmed a photo, but someone put back what was missing!?
Hey JM, I uploaded a photo of Ben Taylor, and the photographer is Sean Rowe, with whom I have a good relationship. The photo came from Flickr. (Ben is BTW the son of James Taylor, etc.) Anyway, there's a woman performing in the photo next to him-- I believe Sean took it at a festival in the UK. Neither I nor Suede67 who I asked to crop the photo know who she is, and I emailed Sean and he didn't either. My request to crop her out of the photo just to show Ben was cheerily approved by the photographer. The image is in the infobox for Ben Taylor's article, so you can find it easily. My problem, is that someone came along afterward and either uploaded or placed the original photo back in Wikimedia Commons above the original and the cropped one. Nobody asked me why it was cropped, or mentioned what they were doing. With a 2.0 Creative Commons license and permission from the photographer, what can I do so that just his photo is in the freaking infobox? (Sorry, I'm Cranky... earache, infected). You are my best bridge between the two worlds of Wikipedia and Commons, so if you can help, or have advice, would you leave a note on my en.Wikipedia talk page please? Thanks. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * MY HERO! Thank you, thank you! (Smiling) --Leahtwosaints (talk) 01:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Opinion on a rationale

 * File:1914_game_box.jpg - Added a rationale for this - Acceptable?

I was planning to try and help clear some of the backlog here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Database_reports/Non-free_files_missing_a_rationale

I would strongly welcome any reasonable challange you have to any I add. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Paul Levitz fanzine image
So what? So this...

Firstly: I'm assuming that you know that Paul Levitz, high profile (former) publisher of DC Comics rose through the ranks from comics fanzines...? That he was publisher/editor of et cetera, and took over the premiere fanzine of the day The Comic Reader - and continued to publish it after being hired by DC. That after he was hired by DC, he was one of those tasked with putting together their in-house fanzine The Amazing World of DC Comics - part-response to Marvel's FOOM (itself the successor to the out-of-house club/publication Marvelmania), part reaction to the professionalisation of amateur fanzines and an attempt to both jump on the bandwagon and get previews/behind-the-scenes/articles/biographies out to DC's fanbase. Levitz was one of the 'Junior woodchucks' (alongside Bob 'The Answer Man' Rozakis and others) who produced TAWODC, before rising to become Jenette Kahn's V.P. (by 1986 - can't date his promotion exactly at the present), and later President.

So what? So Levitz's histoy as a fan - indeed a BNF ("big name" fan) is integral to his subsequent career as editor/writer/VP/President for and of DC Comics. So his history as writer of fanzine articles and publisher of important fanzines is crucial both to his having been hired by DC, and his being involved in AWODC - iself one of the most important "pro-zines" (with FOOM and CBG and TCJ and the rest of them). Arguable, without Levitz's association with The Comic Reader, the subsequent chain that led him to Presidency of DC Comics might not have started. So his fanzine days are very important. Critically important, even.

He wasn't an artist, so while a cover of et cetera (published by Levitz) would fit adequately to illustrate this part of his career trajectory, it might potentially be confusing to... somebody. However, since the 'Junior woodchucks' were caricatured by Dave Manak in AWODC #13, this image serves - in the words of my edit (above) - to illustrate Levitz in his guise as "a prominent fan, fanzine publisher, contributor and subsequent [read: "future"] professional."

You queried whether I have read the non-free content criteria; I have. I'll briefly comment on the policy points:
 * 1. I do not currently have access to a free equivalent image (i.e. a fanzine-published image of Levitz-as-younger-fan), and it is doubtful that such an image could be "replaced by a free version that has the same effect." As the image serves a triple purpose - illustrate Levitz in his fan days; demonstrate an example of fanzine published art; illustrate an AWODC-published image - I would contend that the subjects (AWODC; Levitz-as-fan; fanzines) CANNOT "be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content."
 * 2. Since AWODC has been out-of-print for more than thirty years, there is no possible way that the use of Mr Manak's image might "replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media." Indeed, by highlighting and demonstrating its existence, there's a very slim outside chance that DC might reprint AWODC in a compendium volume...
 * 3a. "Minimal usage"? Single usage.
 * 3b. "Minimal extent of use"? Only the illustration of Mr Levitz, and none of the text. This "portion will suffice." (If it needs to be lowered in resolution, so be it. I don't - and didn't - see any logical justifaction for doing so myself.)
 * 4. Published in AWODC #13 (Oct/Nov, 1976).
 * 5. It meets content standards, and has a purpose that is encyclopedic.
 * 6. It meets the Image use policy, and is rationaled for Fair Use.
 * 7. It will - should/has been - used in one article: Mr Levitz's.
 * 8. "Contextual significance." Quite. It does "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic," by showing Mr Levitz at the turning point between his fan and professional career and by illustrating a snippet of the content of AWODC.
 * 9. It's only on the Levitz article.
 * 10a. The source is identified, the artist is identified (even though he has no page, and is mostly unknown to me), the publisher and copyright holder is also identified - and clearly, having been out of print for more than 33 years, DC is not anxious to exploit this small image in a commercial manner that its use here would harm...
 * 10b. There is a copyright tag.
 * 10c. Levitz' article is named, and rationale given: "1. The use of the image will not affect the value of the original work or limit the copyright holder's rights or ability to sell or distribute the original art" - i.e. DC can absolutely still market an AWODC compendium without this image's use here harming their potential sales (and, again, any mention online might help such hypothetical sales); "2. Copies of this image could not be used to make illegal copies of the original artwork" - astonishingly, since the retail value of the 'original artwork' would depend upon it being original, i.e. pen and ink...; "3. The image is useful for identifying the subject towards the start of his professional career." - the image is useful for identifying, etc., etc.

There's palpably no edit war - I scanned this image from my own personal collection and amended the page in MAY 2008, to no obvious contention/disagreement from anyone until yourself, six days ago. Having been largely absent from here for a considerable time, I noticed this issue only today, and reinstated the image with what I felt was a reasonable - if necessarily brief - rationale. That it was moderately-swiftly redacted by Nightscream (who appeared to misinterpret my association of "prominent fan" - i.e. Paul Levitz not Dave Manak) might be construed as the begininngs of an edit war - since no reasonable attempt was made pre-redaction to contact me and ask for my reasoning (now lengthy reasoning!) in reinstating it... but there's no edit war and no ignoring of the rules. Hopefully this will, however, clarify things. :o) ntnon (talk) 04:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm pleased you aren't challenging the writing about this aspect of his career, but at the present time I am wary of doing so - not least because there are groups of zealots here who sneer at the use of fanzines as sources. Despite their often being the only records of vital information...
 * You wrote: "Why, precisely, do we need an image?" Precisely, there is little need for any images anywhere. However, to illustrate certain points (e.g. in a career); to break up text for ease of reading; to allow images that will rarely otherwise be seen to be seen; because there are images available? All/some of the above.
 * "Why does that time need to be illustrated?" Because it is an important - arguably THE MOST - important shift in Levitz's career-to-date: from fan to professional. Because AWoDC was an important fanzine in the shift from amateur to professional ones. Because an image exists that can illustrate all of this.
 * "In what way does this charicature add to reader understanding?" The caricature adds to reader understanding of Levitz (he was a fan, he became employed by DC and - as a fan - was tapped to be part of AWoDC); of fanzines (they included articles/illustrations on/about themselves, including who worked on them; amateur fans were often employed to create the earliest pro-zines by companies wishing to jump on the bandwagon); of AWoDC (it utilised the fans now employed by DC; it documented itself; it included illustrations by Dave Manak) and of the era in general. Most of which is near-subliminal to the casual reader, but all of which is aesthetically and otherwise useful to a reader/researcher/interested party. ntnon (talk) 02:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Feedback on some sandbox stuff
Your thoughts welcomed: User:Sfan00_IMG/Sandbox Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Underground image
The situation is quite unclear. See here for a discussion, and the image page for more details. I'm currently trying to find the photographer. SlimVirgin TALK  contribs 21:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Boletus zelleri
Done! Thanks for your review. While I'm here, thought I'd mention that I'm thinking about bringing several of the B-class Lactarius articles you wrote to GAN this year... when I do, shall I put you as co-nom? Sasata (talk) 01:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Jersey City flag
Hi, as you pointed out my Wikicup flag is not free-licensed, please give me a random flag. Thanks J04n(talk page) 02:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Flag
File:Miami Florida city flag.svg is my flag. Thanks Secret account 13:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Flag
I'm fine with a random flag...thanks, Sabiona (talk) 14:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010
<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) 14:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Raging Bully/GA1
Hi, just alerting you that your concerns are all fixed. Feel free to check back in whenever you like, and thanks for the review! :)  The Flash  <sup style="color:black;">{talk} 02:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for the review. I don't plan on getting that specific article to FA status, but others I have at GAN I have full intention on getting through an FAC.  The Flash  <sup style="color:black;">{talk} 20:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Progress ?
Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Sfan00+IMG

I am trying to update some older fair use rationales..

Most of it's straightforward film posters/covers, but there's quite a lot of them still to do...

The screenshots and publicity stills using the rationales I'm updating will need a different approach.. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for Input on talk page
Hi, I recently undid an edit you made on the Sarah Palin page and I started a section on the talk page at "Inclusion or exclusion of File:GoingRogue.jpg" to discuss the merits for including or excluding the image. I was wondering if you could respond on the talk page so that the matter could be discussed?Chhe (talk) 01:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Family guy
Fail it it can not be expanded. --<font color="Green">Saint Pedrolas J. Hohohohohoh merry christmas 01:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Done
Thanks for another review! Sasata (talk) 03:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Delete
Hi there, can you delete all my HK22 pages. (I.E User:HK22/Sig) thanks. HK22 (talk) 05:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Flower review
Thanks very much for the review and the barnstar! I wasn't thinking about FAC before, but you've inspired me to give it a shot! -- Pres N  03:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010
<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) 03:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Message on the featured picture candidates page
Do you have any idea of where or how to display a friendly message to attract quorum to the valued pictures? I mean, I don´t really care much about that little box top-right, I just want to do something because I consider the reviews/consensus in the valued piecture candidates is low. - <font color="#007BA7" size="5">☩ <font color="#E52B50" size="3" face="Harlow Solid Italic">Damërung <font color="#007BA7" size="5">☩ <font color="#808080">. -- 03:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Wait a sec!
You tagged File:Slide 1.jpg and File:Slide 2.jpg for deletion (or someone else did). I'm very happy you brought this to my notice. Actually, I created this file (in the sense, I captured it live). Can you tell me how to add the source information for these two files? I'm a little new to these things.

Thanx,

Ankitbhatt (talk) 11:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have done the needful. Are you sure I can remove the deletion notice now? Can you assure me that the image has not been listed for deletion somewhere, and that someone might delete it?

Thanx again,

Ankitbhatt (talk) 09:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

At the Movies (Rugrats)
Thanks for the review. I won't be able to get to the concerns just yet unfortunately (my computer got hit by the Blue Screen of Death) but I'll get to them as soon as I have immediate access to the internet. Cheers,  The Flash  <sup style="color:black;">{talk} 21:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

unimportant comment
The Wikicup is a nice idea. I did not plan strategy so I am certain that I will not win. However, a win for me is if articles get written and I progress to the 2nd round without resorting to any tricks or even strategy. Even if I am eliminated, it is not a total loss as I have more than zero points now. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Question at WT:CP
Hi. :) We have a question at WT:CP about the handling of a 1902 painting on Commons. I believe I've addressed it correctly, but as I am not as firm in my footing on image questions as text and only really just beginning to get somewhat comfortable on Commons, I would very much appreciate your review, if you get a chance. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Air France headquarters
Hi! In regards to the AF headquarters, I visited CDG and got a shot of the AF headquarters from a different viewpoint:
 * fr:Fichier:AFheadofficeTremblay.png

In regards to the one currently here:
 * File:Air France HQ.jpg

Which one do you think is a better illustration of the Air France headquarters? If you think the new one is better, I'll replace the old one with the new one. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010
<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) 21:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Unblock on hold: User talk:Ehkr
You blocked this user back in September for uploading copyrighted/improperly licensed images. They are asking for unblock now. There may be a WP:COMPETENCE issue here, but they seem to at least understand why they were blocked. I was thinking of giving them a chance to prove it, but I'm checking in with you as blocking admin first. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Graphic Lab Request
A reply to your request at the Graphic Lab has been made. Please view the reply here. Cheers, Mononomic (talk) 20:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

POTD notification
Mr. Milburn,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Morchella conica 1 beentree.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on February 8, 2010. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2010-02-08.  howcheng  {chat} 08:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Nick Griffin
I am not at all impressed by your arbitrary removal of a non-free file from this article. If you—as an uninvolved editor—have a problem with this file's rationale, then discuss it first on the article's talk page. Parrot of Doom 12:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi J Milburn, I have deleted the image, as the talk page discussion had quickly led to a fairly clear consensus (IAR'ing the customary waiting period to stop the nastiness.) Just as a friendly reminder, it's been my experience that instead of letting oneself get drawn into a situation involving reverts over articles or speedy tags on file pages, it's usually the cleaner and less painful way to simply take it to FFD immediately. It's usually just as quick, fairly safe for an obvious open-and-shut case like this, and gives less opportunity for disruption. Even if, of course, semi-speedy would formally have been justified here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your comments, at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Biological warfare. I have addressed all of your concerns, and responded there. Perhaps you could have another look? Cirt (talk) 16:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have addressed your (additional) multiple points that you have raised. Quite frankly, I have worked quite hard on this portal. And I am not sure that featured candidacy should be held up over minor things that could have been raised during the peer review where I had notified many WikiProjects and waited over a month, or simply raised at any time at the portal's talk page. Nevertheless, I have removed what you have asked to be removed, and worked quickly to respond where I feel it was appropriate or helpful suggestions. I hope the portal meets your satisfaction for featured status at some point. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 19:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries. I think I am also a little tired today. :( Cirt (talk) 19:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I hope you did notice that I actually have addressed many of your concerns. (It did kinda sorta feel like an oppose... : Cirt (talk) 19:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay thanks. Cirt (talk) 19:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

At the Movies (Rugrats)
Alright, I finally took care of everything at the GAR. :)  The Flash  <font color="#C0C0C0">I am Jack's  <font color="#C0C0C0">complete   lack of surprise 17:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Final responses done. Sorry for the delay.  The Flash  <font color="#C0C0C0">I am Jack's  <font color="#C0C0C0">complete   lack of surprise 20:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review! :)  The Flash  <font color="#C0C0C0">I am Jack's  <font color="#C0C0C0">complete   lack of surprise 15:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010
<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) 02:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

A question.
Upon meditation I realised than I need to know your opinion on the following. Although most wartime photos are not in PD in Russia, they are in PD in some other post-Soviet states. Although Russia claimed to be a legal successor of the USSR, I am not sure if it automatically means that Russian copyright law covers all Eastern Front photos throughout the world. How this situation should be treated in your opinion?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

BLP contest
Hello J Miblurn, I hope you would be interested in a possible BLP contest. I would be happy to help in any way. Okip (formerly Ikip) 17:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * the flag idea is genius, was it yours? Okip (formerly Ikip) 17:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Problem Uploader...
Am I being unreasonable in tagging?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Kreyg&namespace=6&tagfilter=&year=&month=-1

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well at least they have read the messages, they've blanked their talk page... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Re-tagged the following for no source...: -

File:Ustreammainlogo.png File:Ustreamlogo.jpg File:Justintv-logo.png File:Kotakusc.JPG

I've now hit 3RR on them :( Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Images Taken Down
Oh that's nice you choose me when there's lots of images why don't you just take down this image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cena-STFU-07_2.jpg it's clearly not made by him ''' <font color="White">Kreyg Talk''' 03:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010
<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) 13:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Message on my talk page
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sfan00_IMG&diff=cur#SPAM

Since when is leaving messages requesting more information, SPAM?

Can you have a word with the user concerned, as I am suspecting a misunderstanding on their or my part.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
I've completed the vectorization: let me know what you think. Mononomic (talk) 01:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Siebert
Hello, I'm in a dispute with User:Paul Siebert over some World War II images on the Censorship of images in the Soviet Union article. Like I've spelled out on the talk page, I feel that these two images, reichstag with two Watchs and reichstag with one Watch should be allowed in the image. I feel this way because while they are non-free images they can't be replaced by free images and they demonstrate what was being censored out by Khaldei. As per WP:NFCC's clause #8 the images should be used because they significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and their omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Anyway I just want to get your opinion on if I have a case. -- Esemono (talk) 23:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you very much for the support at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Biological warfare. Do you think your comments above in that page could be collapsed using hat/hab? Cirt (talk) 20:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅, thanks. :) Cirt (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Lancashire Cotton Photographs
Further to our conversations about a year ago. Can I request the un-deletion of the following files- As you we see, they are no longer orphans and will be used in the info boxes of the following articles. I could upload them again Commonist is a wonderful thing- but I would then lose the file history and need to reproduce the Fair use statements, of which I don't possess a copy.

I see you are rather busy at the moment, I will leave this a week and if you can't get back to me- I'll post this request elsewhere. Thanks in advance --ClemRutter (talk) 14:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Wilton Mill, Radcliffe · File:Wilton Mill, Radcliffe 0020.png
 * Bolton Union Mill, Bolton · File:Bolton Union Mill, Bolton 0011.png
 * Century Mill, Farnworth · File:Century Mill, Farnworth 0001.png
 * Coppull Mill, Chorley · File:Coppull Mill, Chorley 0012.png
 * Mavis Mill, Coppull · File:Mavis Mill, Coppull Chorley 0016.png
 * Brunswick Mill, Ancoats · File:Brunswick Mill, Ancoats 0001.png
 * Ace Mill, Hollinwood · File:Ace Mill, Hollinwood 0000.png
 * Blackridings Mill, Oldham · File:Blackridings Mill, Oldham 0011.png
 * Dawn Mill, Shaw · File:Dawn Mill, Shaw 0012.png
 * Fox Mill, Hollinwood · File:Fox Mill, Hollinwood 0013.png
 * Hawk Mill, Shaw · File:Hawk Mill, Shaw 0014.png
 * Magnet Mill, Chadderton · File:Magnet Mill, Chadderton 0015.png
 * Regent Mill, Failsworth · ✅
 * Royton Ring Mill, Royton ·File:Royton Ring Mill, Royton 0018.png
 * Rutland Mill, Shaw ·File:Rutland Mill, Shaw 0018.png
 * Trent Mill, Shaw · File:Trent Mill, Shaw 0009.png
 * Arkwright Mill, Rochdale · File:Arkwright Mill, Rochdale 0011.png
 * Atlas Mill, Ashton-under-Lyne · File:Atlas Mill, Ashton-under-Lyne 0000.png
 * Cedar Mill, Ashton-under-Lyne · File:Cedar Mill, Ashton-under-Lyne 0001.png
 * Rock Mill, Ashton-under-Lyne · File:Rock Mill, Ashton-under-Lyne 0007.png
 * Texas Mill, Ashton-under-Lyne · File:Texas Mill, Ashton-under-Lyne 0019.png
 * Tudor Mill, Ashton-under-Lyne · File:Tudor Mill, Ashton-under-Lyne 0009.png
 * Waterside Mill, Ashton-under-Lyne ·File:Waterside Mill, Ashton 0020.png


 * Try again

As for Category:Textile mills in Lancashire, I don't consider myself an expert- but in wiki terms I probably know more than most, and my set up does allow me to generate Start class articles reasonable quickly (2 a day maybe). My focus has been with spinning, and the LCC mills in particular but Horrockses is in my list. Weaving sheds are lower down the list principally due to my lack of source material. The best starting point is
 * Atlas Mill, Ashton-under-Lyne · File:Atlas Mill, Ashton-under-Lyne 0000.png
 * Cedar Mill, Ashton-under-Lyne · File:Cedar Mill, Ashton-under-Lyne 0001.png
 * Rock Mill, Ashton-under-Lyne · File:Rock Mill, Ashton-under-Lyne 0007.png
 * Texas Mill, Ashton-under-Lyne · File:Texas Mill, Ashton-under-Lyne 0019.png
 * Tudor Mill, Ashton-under-Lyne · File:Tudor Mill, Ashton-under-Lyne 0009.png

I have added the portal to at least one mill, and both the Coppull mills are in the category. Now I must get back to real life Tescos beckons. --ClemRutter (talk) 20:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

A further five if you could be so kind --ClemRutter (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Pilot Mill, Bury File:Pilot Mill, Bury 0017.png
 * May Mill, Pemberton File:May Mill, Pendleton Wigan 0016.png I will then have to rename this --> File:May Mill, Pemberton Wigan 0016.png
 * Stalybridge Mill, Stalybridge File:Stalybridge Mill, Stalybridge 0008.png
 * Saxon Mill, Droylesden File:Saxon Mill, Droylesden 0008.png
 * Welkin Mill, Lower Bredbury File:Welkin Mill, Lower Bredbury 0020.png

Here are a further batch when you have a moment I have definitely broken the back of the LCC mills. The aim was to get an established format and a substantial body of articles written ṕour encouragér les autres. --ClemRutter (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Textile Mill, Chadderton File:Textile Mill, Chadderton 0019.png
 * Orme Mill, Waterhead File:Orme Mill, Waterhead Oldham 0017.png
 * Newby Mill, Shaw File:Newby Mill, Shaw 0017.png
 * Monton Mill, Eccles File:Monton Mill, Eccles 0006.png
 * Mons Mill, Todmorden File:Mons Mill, Todmorden 0006.png
 * Kent Mill, Chadderton File:Kent Mill, Chadderton 0004.png
 * Manor Mill, Chadderton File:Manor Mill, Chadderton 0005.png
 * Royd Mill, Oldham File:Royd Mill, Oldham 0007.png
 * Heron Mill, Hollinwood File:Heron Mill, Hollinwood Oldham 0003.png
 * Laurel Mill, Middleton Junction File:Laurel Mill, Middleton Junction 0015.png
 * Junction Mill, Middleton Junction File:Junction Mill, Middleton Junction 0004.png

This is the last batch- Iḿ off for a wiki-detox. There are a few Lancashire Mills here, but you are most welcome to add a few more. Until I do an expedition up to the ice flows of Bailrigg, I just can't get hold of the reference books I need and it is pointless struggling when there is so much more to do. --ClemRutter (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Harp Mill, Castleton File:Harp Mill, Castleton Rochdale 0003.png
 * Mars Mill, Castleton File:Mars Mill, Castleton Rochdale 0016.png
 * Elder Mill, Romiley ‎File:Elder Mill, Romiley Marple 0002.png
 * Kingston Mill, Stockport File:Kingston Mill, Stockport 0004.png
 * Empress Mill, Ince‎ File:Empress Mill, Ince Wigan 0002.png
 * Foxsons Mill, Staincliffe File:Foxsons Mill, Staincliffe Dewsbury 0013.png
 * Imperial Mill, Blackburn File:Imperial Mill, Blackburn 0014.png
 * Ainsworth Mill, Breightmet File:Ainsworth Mill, Bolton 0010.png
 * Trencherfield Mill File:Trencherfield Mill, Wigan 0019.png

Talk:Butterfly Fly Away/GA1
Hey. Looks like all the concerns have been addressed, so it can be re-looked at. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 19:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I went over the review and fixed a couple of missed comments, and I believe everything's been checked off. Will you look it over to see if it passes? Thanks, Liquidluck ✽ talk  20:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review and promotion. I doubt the article will ever be FA worthy, but it is needed as part of a planned GT on the album. Liquidluck ✽ talk  21:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

POTD notification
Mr. Milburn,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Morelasci.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on February 24, 2010. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2010-02-24.  howcheng  {chat} 22:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010
<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) 12:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Hermetia illucens Black soldier fly.jpg
Hey, Is the edit any ? --Muhammad (talk) 16:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

HMS Cardiff and Cumbria
I thought you might be interested in this discussion about whether ships partly built in Cumbria (and Lancashire) come under the scope of WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria. Nev1 (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey
Hey dude, I need to talk to you on IRC about the Cup when you get a chance. Hope to catch you tomorrow. —<font face="Baskerville Old Face"> Ed  (talk  •  majestic titan)  03:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * New plan, see deleted edit here. —<font face="Baskerville Old Face"> Ed  (talk  •  majestic titan)  07:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Check again —<font face="Baskerville Old Face"> Ed  (talk  •  majestic titan)  20:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I just got on to do the tiebreakers before work, but you've already done them; sorry about that. Yesterday was busier than I thought it was going to be; I managed to get on twice for like five minutes each. :/ I should be on tonight after 5pm CST. —<font face="Baskerville Old Face"> Ed  (talk  •  majestic titan)  15:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Commons image question
Good morning. :) I have a question about a Commons image; hope you can help out. As there's no freedom of panorama in France, how are we to determine the copyright status of the sign depicted in File:Orglandes War Cemetery 00.JPG? It was clearly created at some point after 1961 because of the text on it but the precise date is not stated. It's obviously uploaded in good faith, but if the text on the sign is under copyright, the image is a derivative work. Should this be tagged? With what? :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I tagged it with the derivative template. There is a locally hosted image as well. I'm still not very experienced with writing fair use claims and wouldn't really know how to proceed with this one. Can you help? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry. I should have linked it. :) It's at File:Orglandes War Cemetery Sign.JPG. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. Then I'll tag this one, too. You're far more experienced with fair use image practices on Wikipedia than I am. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I tagged it with derivative, but I wonder now if there's any point to that? The category it's placed in has images tagged over half a year ago. Not that many, but I wonder if anybody reviews these? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Now at PUF. Thanks for your advice. :) Now, I wonder if we should do something with that derivative template to make sure that Category:Derivative works gets eyeballs on it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, what's wrong with South Park?
;) Just kidding. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  22:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 February newsletter
Round one is over, and round two has begun! Congratulations to the 64 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our first round. A special well done goes to, our round one winner (1010 points), and to and , who were second and third respectively (640 points/605 points). Sasata was awarded the most points for both good articles (300 points) and featured articles (600 points), and TonyTheTiger was awarded the most for featured topics (225 points), while Hunter Kahn claimed the most for good topics (70). claimed the most featured lists (240 points) and featured pictures (35 points), claimed the most for Did you know? entries (490 points),  claimed the most for featured sounds (70 points) and  claimed the most for In the news entries (40 points). No one claimed a featured portal or valued picture.

Credits awarded after the end of round one but before round two may be claimed in round two, but remember the rule that content must have been worked on in some significant way during 2010 by you for you to claim points. The groups for round two will be placed up shortly, and the submissions' pages will be blanked. This round will continue until 28 April, when the top two users from each group, as well as 16 wildcards, will progress to round three. Please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup; thank you to all doing this last round, and particularly to those helping at WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Back to health (a bit)
I was sick over the weekend, so I didn't get your message about WikiCup. I have responded on the talk page. It appears that, right at the end, one of my articles passed GA. See Talk:Henry Martin Tupper. -- Jayron  32  17:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Re
I've replied but I doubt that Imatt would ever listen to any compromise-- Coldplay Expért <sup style="color:#DC143C;">Let's talk  21:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikicup
Awesome, sounds like a win-win for everyone :-). Thanks for letting me know!  Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ataka_propaganda.jpg
but it is a free image, the author had given permission to me. there is the conversation between me (as varg) and the author (sorry, in turkish): http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/328/87430308.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infestor (talk • contribs) 16:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * it is a derivative work because he shot a picture of a picture (poster)? i mean the Ataka_propaganda.jpg is gonna be deleted at the end? how can we resolve the situation?--Infestor (talk) 17:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Image OTRS request...
Hi J Milburn, I've heard that you're one of our resident Image-OTRS experts. Would you mind taking a look at User_talk:Toon05 and the relevant image if you have the time? Unfortunately I don't have a ticket number for you. Cheers – Toon 19:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is a ticket number as yet, this is one of three on the article,  there is a written claim on the page and a claim that an email has been sent, after some time I tagged it which was removed by a a user that imo is the original uploader with a new account, the three pics, look to me like newspaper scans, there has been a lot of copyright violations with this uploader. Off2riorob (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

About my wikicup submissions
Hi JMilburn,

Greek Orthodox Church of the Annunciation has yet to appear on the main page, though its been nominated. I should mention that the same is true for two articles I listed in the first round of Wikicup (Sharafat, East Jerusalem and Mujir al-Din al-'Ulaymi). If I should not be listing things until after they are approved for the main page, please let me know. I've been adding them as a I nom them, so as not to have to go dig up the nom diffs later. Sorry for any confusion. You might want to revise my first round point total to 110, and I'll relist the two articles I mentioned along with the church one in this one once they are appear on the main page. Thanks.  T i a m u t talk 16:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry about the confusion then. Your advice to hide the listings is a good one, and I'll do that from now on. Can you revise my round one totals to 110 (removing the two articles I listed above) and I'll add them as hidden comments in the new list? Again, sorry for any trouble I may have caused. I misunderstood the instructions, thinking I could list them when nommed and that they would be counted once approved. My bad.  T i a m u t talk 17:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

On the image of Michael Foot
Your reasoning for deleting the above-mentioned image is false and at best weak! My copyright statement was accurate at the time of writing it; it remains accurate at this very moment that I am writing this message. You cannot take such action as you have taken on the basis of possible future events! When a free image turns up, by all means feel free and replace the present image with the free one; not until this has happened can you remove the present image on the basis of your false argument! --BF 17:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you in the strongest possible terms! Where is your argument "all eyes are on ..." based on? Michael Foot is dead now, and the fact that eyes may be on him is neither here nor there! You should not make up rules because you may feel like it. My copyright statement is clear enough! It says that the image is a copy-righted material and unequivocally provides its source. --BF 17:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, I disagree with you. As I wrote earlier, if you, or anyone else for that matter, know of any free image, then my present copyright statement becomes invalid and on that basis the image can be removed and replaced by that image. As the things stand, my present copyright statement is accurate to my best knowledge. In fact, you have also not been able to prove my copyright statement wrong. Your action, of removing the image, is therefore as arbitrary as anything I can think of. I believe therefore that the matter should be put to arbitration. I shall now ask User:Stifle to look into this problem. --BF 18:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I really have not the time to keep arguing on this very simple issue, and, as you put it, go back to basics. I just left a note for User:Stifle and asked him to resolve this problem. I can only say that you are mistaken in your judgement. You had been absolutely right if at the time of deleting the image my copyright statement deviated from fact. --BF 18:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Milburn: There is nothing unclear to me. Your mistake originates from your presupposition that I were in the pay of Wikipedia. I am not and I have no obligation to invest my time into going after free images for Wikipedia. What I did was a reasonable search of the internet and after ascertaining that there were no free images of Michael Foot anywhere to be found, I did what I did. I emphasise once more, should you, or someone else for that matter, succeed in finding a free image in the coming days, or months, by that you will have rendered my present copyright statement invalid. Not until such time can you remove the image! You should realise that the onus is on others to prove me wrong; insofar as I am concerned, I have done a reasonable job of searching the internet in the time available to me, and in my copyright statement I have not misrepresented facts as known to me. --BF 18:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Let us bring this fruitless back-and-forth writing to conclusion. Let the judgement be made by Stifle. --BF 18:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

On Ebrahim Pourdavoud
You seem to have decided to make your presence felt! Go and look into the history of the file! The matter has already been discussed in detail earlier! (Talk with User:Feydey, and he will be able to tell you about the details. You may begin here). The person who has put the photograph on Persian Wikipedia owns the photograph and I have used exactly his desired copyright statement. If you cannot read Persian, seek some help from someone who can. Finally, please leave me in peace! I feel unable to live peacefully with those who embark on vendetta. If there is anything to be done, let that be done by Stifle. Incidentally, I told you earlier about my desire that the matter with regard to Michael Foot be dealt with by Stifle, but for some mysterious reason, you behaved compulsively by leaving message after message on my talk page on every single word that I wrote for Stifle, disregarding the very fundamental principle that my correspondence with someone else is my correspondence with someone else and you are not supposed to spy on them. Had you any relevant point, you had had to discuss them separately with Stifle, and I would not spy on your correspondence with him --- I had already unequivocally told you that I had no desire, none whatsoever, to discuss the matter with you. Now I hope that this is the last time we hear from each other. It was no pleasure knowing you! Please have the sensitivity to appreciate that in the course of the past ten hours or so you have overtaxed my patience, far in excess of what I am normally capable of tolerating (just count the number of the unsolicited messages that you have left on my talk page, after my explicit statement that I would leave the matter to Stifle to handle --- for some reason you could not help forcing yourself on me, that you were such an important and indispensable person here on Wikipedia and that you were always so right and ....). Now, please let this nightmare be over. --BF 02:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * May I suggest that disengaging may be better here? I appreciate that you've been giving long messages back and forth and are trying to have policies followed, but it may be better to give BehnamFarid his wish and leave the personal matter to myself and Feydey, and the PUF and image matters to their processes. Stifle (talk) 15:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's your call. Stifle (talk) 15:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If at all, it is in using a swearword in one of your messages. But BehnamFarid has a history of arguing at WP:TLDR length with people who call him on policy infractions. If you want to open an ANI, I am sure he will be happy to make his own contributions for uninvolved admins to see. Stifle (talk) 15:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Boxing image, OTRS and Bret Newton
Sorry for the mither, but would it be possible to check that this OTRS ticket applies to File:Delahoya1.jpg. Cheers. The uploader maintains that Mr Newton has a long-standing, and automatic open licensing for his images on WP. This ticket is linked to on about half a dozen images or so and the uploader just placed it on an image I tagged for no copyright or permission. Many thanks. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 21:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Desargues
I made an alternate at to account for the mistake in the original, would you be able to re-evaluate?  Jujutacular  T · C 23:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Phelsuma dubia.jpg
Hi, I have put up an edit at the nomination. I would appreciate your feedback --Muhammad (talk) 10:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks --Muhammad (talk) 14:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Brougham Castle
Well there's not much point in saying that Cumbria needs more quality articles if I don't then do something about it, so what do you think of this? I've put it up at WP:GAC, but have an eye on FAC (one of the perennial problems with the articles I take to FAC is that I can't see problems with my own prose, so GAC should help smooth out some of the issues and the enforced break due to the backlog should allow me to approach the prose with fresh eyes later). The layout section needs finishing, but there's no rush at GAC, and I should be able to take care of it either tonight or tomorrow. The article touches on some pretty important parts of the region's history such as the Anglo-Scottish Wars, and hopefully makes for interesting reading. The main source I've been working from is a bit dense so an outside opinion on how the article comes across would be very welcome. Hopefully soon there'll be another article for the Cumbria portal's showcase, and perhaps at some point a mainpage appearance for WP:L&C. Nev1 (talk) 21:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

When you're done...
Can you copy the POTD blurb to the unprotected version? I can't keep up. --  tariq abjotu  00:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your DYK comment
Thank you for commenting at Template_talk:Did_you_know. Please see also a discussion about that particular DYK nomination on WT:DYK, at Wikipedia_talk:DYK. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 20:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of images from Canadian Afghan detainee issue
Can you elaborate why you removed File:Eileen Olexiuk.jpg and File:Colvin testimony.jpg from Canadian Afghan detainee issue? As far as I'm aware, it meets WP:NFCC. --<font color="#000000">Natural <font color="#ff0000">R <font color="#000000">X 02:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Gallery removal
Just hoping for a bit of discretion when removing 'galleries' from bird-pages, they can be useful tools showing different plumages, races etc (this has been discussed at length on the WP:Birds Project in the past), although I agree that most are superfluous. Aviceda  talk  09:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Galleries
See WP:IG and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds/archive_29 "Images are typically interspersed individually throughout an article near the relevant text (see WP:MOSIMAGES). However, the use of galleries may be appropriate in Wikipedia articles where a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images." Snowman (talk) 14:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Portal:Country Music
Would you kindly undelete everything that's redlinked on Portal:Country Music? Apparently someone didn't agree with my demolition of the portal. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The Monster in the Box pic: help needed; may not be the only image with this problem
Hi J Milburn,

You have tagged a non-free image I uploaded to be d in size. I was unaware of the policy on non-free image sizes. I should have been, and am now. I've read over the relevant policy, as well as Thumbs but can't find a specific guideline about what the preferable size should be. (It appears to me that there is a de facto standard for book covers presented in articles of 200 px along the the longer side; reduction to that side would appear to be good common sense. However, if there is a guideline, I would most appreciate you pointing me to it. As you can see here, I have uploaded a number of similar images.  Tagging them for reduction myself and then waiting for my own or other editors' action would appear to be at once both somewhat pointless and possibly rather pointy.  Once I know what I should do, please be assured I'll rope, throw and brand 'em.
 * What size to reduce images to?
 * Other "fair use" image I have uploaded may have this problem

Thank you!

--Shirt58 (talk) 10:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Image question at WT:COPYCLEAN
Hi. :) There's a fair use question at the copyright cleanup talk page that I think could benefit from an experienced review. If you have opportunity, would you mind helping out there? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. :) If I can trouble you again, there's another image question that may be a bit urgent in that it could hold up a "Today's Featured Article" nomination. Can you please take a look at the use of the seahorse logo in The Avery Coonley School infobox and see if that meets logo, in your opinion? There is an argument on the talk page that it could be made free given the OTRS communication, but the OTRS communication is a bit more complex than that. I think we need to consider it in standard NFC context. (In case you have interest, the complexities are explained at Today's featured article/requests.) See User_talk:Moonriddengirl for more. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 March 2010
<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) 21:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Human intervention
For what it's worth, this is my ranking of the four "non-free" images in Divine Intervention (film) in order of get-riddability (least to most):


 * 1) Palestinian ninja
 * 2) Soundtrack cover (shows the Arafat balloon)
 * 3) DVD box (shows the main characters)
 * 4) Santa Claus stabbed

Just my 2¢. たろ人 (talk) 23:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Ivan Ilyich
Hi JM, if you can find a first edition cover or similar that's free, by all means add it, but in the meantime I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't remove the image that's there. Or if you think it's not a legit fair use claim by all means propose it for deletion. But removing it, then claiming it should be deleted because it's not being used, isn't on. :) SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 15:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Then nominate it for deletion, please. You're currently trying to avoid that process by saying it isn't being used. But it is. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 15:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If I'd been able to find a free one I'd have added it, but I can't find one. Perhaps you'll have better luck than me. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 15:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you're really out of order here edit warring like this. If someone objects in good faith and requests that you respect process, I think as an admin you have a responsibility to do that. An admin saying he has no intention of following process is always rather worrying. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 15:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

John Logie Baird image needed
Hiya... i felt compelled to sign in after i saw there was no image for the man who invented the television (and colour television), and i did ask another user but no luck. I happened to read your mention of wiki images on your home page.. and for one of the most important inventors in the 20th century Logie Baird not to have an image needs to be addressed. I'm completely new to wiki and have no idea whatsoever how to upload images, also i'm using someone elses computer. I'd be grateful if you could somehow see that this great man has his image up (also noticed Alan Turing needs an image as theres only a statue of him). Thanks. 1990Jessica (talk) 15:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Burns Verkaufen der Kraftwerk
Hello, per your suggestion I have removed the three questionable references. Is there anything else that you think needs to be done? -- Scorpion <sup style="color:black;">0422  15:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Gyromancer GAN
I've fixed the problems that you noted in your review, and the article is ready for another look. I know that you're away for another week, so I'll see you after the 30th, no rush. -- Pres N  19:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

April 2010 GAN backlog elimination drive
–MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 17:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Clavarioid fungi
Welcome back. I just spotted a new article, Clavarioid fungi. Thought you'd be interested.  Chzz  ►  01:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note on the clavarioid article. No I haven't nominated it for anything...but feel free to do so, if you wish.RunningClam (talk) 02:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Italics for taxa
I note you left a comment about taxa above the rank of genus not being italicized. There is no rule under the botanical code, but there is a recommendation in the preface to the current code http://ibot.sav.sk/icbn/main.htm that all taxa should be italicized: "As in the previous edition, scientific names under the jurisdiction of the Code, irrespective of rank, are consistently printed in italic type. The Code sets no binding standard in this respect, as typography is a matter of editorial style and tradition not of nomenclature. Nevertheless, editors and authors, in the interest of international uniformity, may wish to consider adhering to the practice exemplified by the Code, which has been well received in general and is followed in a number of botanical and mycological journals." If not to italicize is a Wikipedia thing, that's fine - though the movement is gradually towards italicizing all taxa.RunningClam (talk) 18:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Burns Verkaufen der Kraftwerk
I'm going to work on this article. Please don't close the review yet.  The left orium  22:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have done some work now. I'll finish it this weekend.  The left orium  23:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I think I'm done with the article now. Can you do another review? Thanks,  The left orium  22:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 April 2010
<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) 02:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 April 2010
<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) 02:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Blooddrunk (song)
Hi - hope you've been well. Long time, no see. Just wondering; is the following article up to GA standard in your opinion? I rewrote it awhile back, but wasn't sure if it was up to GA standard. Obviously, it's too short to be nominated for FA, but I thought it might be GA standard given the fact the article is on a song by an underground (ish) metal band. LuciferMorgan (talk) 11:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks man, much appreciated. What are your thoughts on Enter the Grave, by the way? It's currently at GAC, and following that, I will be aiming for FAC. LuciferMorgan (talk) 13:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up on the image - I'll reduce it to 300x300 later on. As far as Metal Revolution goes, I'd say the article in question is reliable because it's a first interview with Evile. I wouldn't trust it as a source for CD reviews, but for interviews, yes, because tons of metal bands are interviewed by webzines. In terms of the lead section, what information from the article would you say it lacks? So I can address that... LuciferMorgan (talk) 13:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with your sentiments on the article's introduction, hence why I've tried tweaking it a bit. LuciferMorgan (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 April 2010
<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) 02:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Help on an article please
Hey there, I saw on your bio that you are willing to read over content and offer suggestions so if you could view the page I posted about jewelry designer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katey_Brunini. It got marked for speedy deletion because it was too "advertisey", could you make a suggestion of how to make it more creditable? articulationagency —Preceding unsigned comment added by Articulationagency (talk • contribs) 20:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured portal review/Disasters
Are you going to work on this portal? -- Cirt (talk) 00:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Featured portal review/Disasters

Talk:The Legendary Axe/GA1
Thanks for helping out at the backlog elimination drive. Just following up to see if you think MuZemike is done here or not? Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 22:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm actually waiting to see what J Milburn thinks of the changes/additions I made. (I understand that he was away the last couple of days.) –MuZemike 04:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for taking so long. J Milburn (talk) 12:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * First off, thanks for the review; it was greatly appreciated. Second, I submitted the GA for the WikiCup here, but the bot never updated my score (should have 80 points now with two GAs), and I don't why that's the case. –MuZemike 01:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Removal of sections from talk:2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash
has removed two sections from the talk page of the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash, claiming WP:NOTFORUM as a reason for the removal. I'm not sure whether this was a good edit or not. Whilst I agree that the talk page is not a forum, I think that on balance it may have been better to leave those sections in. Would you mind taking a look at the edit. I'm not looking to sanction MMN over the edit either case, just a review of the edit and maybe a reversal if it is felt that such reversal would be in order. If you feel the edits were fine then I don't have a problem with them either. Mjroots (talk) 12:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. I wanted a second opinion rather than getting into an argument with MMN over removal/reinstatement of the sections. He can be a pretty awkward person to deal with at times. Mjroots (talk) 12:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)