User talk:MECU/Archive/Archive-Feb2007

WPCFB Talk Page
Saw you switched the shortcut around. I don't know how it looks on your monitor, but on monitors with 1024x768 resolution (such as my work machine I do most of my work on), it does not look good:. Its always best to see what your changes will look like on this resolution as it is the most popular resolution of current monitors. I just thought I'd let you know as you can take whatever action you feel necessary.--NMajdan &bull;talk 14:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks better there than it did where I originally placed it. Thanks.--NMajdan &bull;talk 14:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphan Images
Please delete all orphan images that you can find, This pictures were uploaded by mistake. Thank you.Angel,Isaac 01:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Duff Goldman with cakes.jpg
I thought I gave it the correct tagging. It should be the same as this image here: Image:Giada De Laurentiis2 e.jpg as the two are from the same website. Is this correct? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Junglecat (talk • contribs) 02:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

Source
I provided the image source, and additional information for SeanFarberNew.JPG. What do I do next? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mike5193 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

February Portal CFB rotation
So, if we don't get any more nominations or votes for the next Selected Article and Picture for the Portal, which do you think we should promote? Personally, I'd say the 2005 Texas article (I just don't think the 2006 Florida article is up to the quality standard yet) and the Florida picture. The other picture you have is great, so maybe that can be March. Those would be my suggestions, what are yours?↔NMajdan &bull;talk 19:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I made changes to the nomination page and selected an article and picture for February. I haven't actually created them yet but I have made the changes to the nomination page. Let me know what you think and I'll get them ready for Thursday.↔NMajdan &bull;talk 14:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Help
Mecu, you were kind enough to help me with a template problem once on Template:Infobox NCAA Athlete. I'm hoping you could help me again. I've modified the template to improve it's functionality but the changes I've made hosed up the images which were linked to this template. Everything else is working fine. Could you take a look and see if you could keep my layout but not break the image links? Pepto gecko 05:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

DYK
-- Yomangani talk 09:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey cool! I am honored you chose my photo because you have several great images on the article.   Thanks for letting me know it is on the main page, and congratulations on a supurb job of expanding the article.  Best, Johntex\talk 15:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, they probably just took the top picture then, so I don't feel so special. Oh well, like you said, it is always fun to be on the Main page no matter the reason. Johntex\talk 16:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Another attempt - Point of difference
I re-edited Anderson's rule with your suggestions (except for content - needs research), and also edited Point of difference. Please take a look and critique when you get a chance. Thanks! --LtlKtytalk 05:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. Nope, you're not throwing too much at me.  I like your umm... frankness.  So, I've updated Point of difference again, except for examples.  I'll look around for some good ones.--LtlKtytalk 03:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:Help
Thanks for the reply. Please take a look at the template talk page. Hopefully, I explained it better. Thanks.Image Help Pepto gecko 15:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: AWB
Haha. Sorry, I figured it would help. I know manually changing them can be time consuming and mind numbing. 2007 cat is almost finished.↔NMajdan &bull;talk 16:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

please adopt me!
hi im new to this wikipedia thing and really need help so if you will adopt me please click on my username at the end of this note which will appear when i put 4 tide marks there so plesae tell me very soon if you will adopt me please rhanks soooo much bye!Pjg12 16:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Dores-Inj-diag1.png listed for deletion
Cannot find reason for deletion. CAN YOU HELP PLEASE?

--Dore chakravarty 04:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Image help
You with broadening copyright information for Image:Allison-brewer.jpg. This image is now tagged for deletion, and was tagged as such with no edit summary and an edit marked as minor... the debate on this image is now gone and I am not sure if it will be deleted or not? Can you help? - Jord 18:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks again! - Jord 20:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Notwithstanding our discussions, this image was deleted ... I am not sure why this was done as, as we discussed, the IFD seemed to have failed and proper fair use and copyright information was applied. - Jord 15:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Please disregard, the admin who deleted it has now undeleted it. - Jord 20:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Adoption
I see you have adopted three users, I guess you're a Wikipedia adopter, could you please adopt me? Are there any requirements? I promise not to waste your time with tons of infuriating questions, I will only ask for your instructions when I have trouble editing. Thank you for your time —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Balikem (talk • contribs) 08:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC).


 * I apologise for not signing the comment above. Thank you for guiding me about adoption. Regards Balikem 06:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I have asked one editor, but haven't got a reply. Is it possible for me to ask two users about adoption at the same time? Balikem 12:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Logos
Mecu, since it is in the policy, yes you may make my images smaller to comply, however, images that I or Soxrock upload may not be compressed to where the height or the width, whichever was already 500, is made smaller than 400 pixels. That is our requirement, and it would be appreciated if you and others when compressing could keep them large enough. Thanks TheSportsLogosMaster 16:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Adoption
Thank you for the adoption offer, Mecu. I will accept. I'm fairly new to this, so I don't really even know what questions to ask yet. --Charleca 15:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

low-res fair-use Packer logos
Can you upload a low-res version of Image:GreenBayPackers 1001.png like you did with Image:GreenBayPackers 1000.png? Thanks. &mdash; Zaui (talk) 16:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It was recently removed from an article because an editor thought the image was too high resolution and thus not fair-use. I'll add it back with the assumption you can upload a low-res version. Thanks. &mdash; Zaui (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems that we have a problem with a user who is having trouble understanding FUC rule #3. I warned him previously, but he currently still does not seem to "get it" based on the recent upload log . I also noticed that he has a few sock puppets, compare this, this, and this. If he does not change his ways, more drastic measure will have to be taken. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Trying to avoid an edit war, I tried to file a Requests for mediation/Green Bay Packers request for mediation. I'm completely opposed to the higher resolution images, but I get into an edit war every time I try to tell him and try to change them. I'm not sure what to do, whether to revert him, because I might break WP:3RR.++ aviper2k7 ++ 03:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Dores-Inj-diag1.png listed for deletion
Thanks for the help. This image can be deleted please.

--Dore chakravarty 03:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Adoption
Hi, responding to your kind offer of adoption: I'm happy to accept. Thanks. DanTappan 14:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

RFA
Greetings. I closed your RFA as unsuccessful at 18/29/10. I noticed that there were two major concerns raised, those being your broad interpretations of blocking policy and speedy deletion policy, so you may wish to familiarize yourself with the relevant pages before submitting a new request for adminship. — freak([ talk]) 19:42, Feb. 4, 2007 (UTC)
 * When (not if) you try again, you can count on my support! Stay out of controversy for a few months ... and as some suggested, re-read the blocking policy, and I have no doubt you will get selected the next time. --BigDT 13:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I did see your name go by for an RFA. I remembered when you were brand new which wasn't that long ago.  As I think any admin should be around at least for a year, I couldn't lend my support.  On the other hand, you've done tremendous job since then, which is why I didn't post the valid concern about the lack of time.  So basically if you wait 6 months, I would vote for you.  FWIW, the "reasons" that were thrown against you, both by the same group were absolutely wrong as none of those bands were WP:NOTABLE and all deserved nuking.  -- KelleyCook 19:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Changing page name
Hey, MECU. How do you get the name of a page changed?

Shampoo Horn needs to be changed to Shampoohorn.

--Charleca 18:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

My userbox
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Some of your recent edits have been considered unhelpful or unconstructive and have been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.
 * The above warning was left after MECU removed a fair use from a newer editors userbox. BJ Talk 02:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Tigerliliysuite.gif
Mecu - I am sorry I did nto reply sooner, I was out of town. Thanks so much for your attention and help in this matter. It looks like the file was deleted again - but here we go, let me me answer these questions and hopefully I can get this image problem corrected so I can move on to Dorrie Nossiter and her bio.

re: Public Domain - this picture is not of one of her museum pieces but they are in public catalogs. they suite was worn by Oprah Winfrey. I do have other images of this suite that I took myself as well as other photos.

Since i have contact with the artists and her husband who is the photographer, I may be able to get permission. If email and follow the direction of requesting permission for this image, if I am correct, I would email, once I get the formal go ahead, I post that on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Successful_requests_for_permission - and then I can upload it? I already have an email from her stating I have permission but if I need to re-request that is fine.

My last question is - what exactly do I put on it after i upload it once i get permission. I am terribly sorry - I simply know nothing about copyright law although I would never infringe.

To answer you about Fair use: I have tried to impliment fair use only to be deleted. I think the problem is I simply don't know what rationale to use even though I have permission from the artist and her husband.

I think the best way to proceed is if you let me know which direction I should go and then I will try to upload another image.

Thanks, Archie talk

can you provide something about if these jewelry pieces are available in a museum? Are they only sold on the internet? Are they only held privately and not worn by public figures? You seem to be saying that this jewelry peice is just to show an example of their work, is it possible to find/create an image of any of their work to be fine? This file may be deleted. Thanks for uploading Image:Tigerliliysuite.gif. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. When you use a generic fair use tag such as Fair use or, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 18:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC) You keep saying "these images are in the public domain", but just because they're on a website, doesn't make them in the public domain. For this image, the website you provided as source specifically says "Copyright 2006, 2007, all rights reserved" which means it can't be in the public domain, so fair use is the only route to go here. I think your rationale should provide something about if these jewelry pieces are available in a museum? Are they only sold on the internet? Are they only held privately and not worn by public figures? You seem to be saying that this jewelry peice is just to show an example of their work, is it possible to find/create an image of any of their work to be fine? If you answer all these, I would be fine with your removal of the tag (or you can contact me to do it). As for the other images, if you're getting them from a website, that doesn't mean they're public domain. If the images were taken/published before 1922 in the US, then they may already be public domain. However, I would assume they weren't. Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission may by of some use to this direction. If not, the fair use route would still apply, and this would be an easier sell than the jewelry pieces since she has died. Good luck, and ask me if you need more help or have more questions. --MECU≈talk

Changes to Template:BeaversCoach
I noticed you made some changes to Template:BeaversCoach, eliminating the repeated instance of Mike Riley. Is there a consensus for this? If you look at templates such as Template:IDGovernors, people are repeated if they served on two seperate occasions. Personally, I think it is more informative that way. Thanks, VegaDark 10:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The issues with it being in the governor templates are no different from the issues of it being in the coach templates, so I'd like to see some standardization across Wikipedia in that respect. I'd support doing it which ever way consensus decides, but it is a double standard to do it in one case and not do it in another case. I'm going to look for a place to bring this issue up to see what others think. VegaDark 19:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've brought up the issue at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. VegaDark 20:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Everyking RFA
You were opposing because of difs shown in feb, march, april 2005, in which the fair use policy was much, much lighter, fair use in username space was banned in late 2005/early 2006 if i remembered correctly. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 06:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Ditto with Cuchullain, first dif was an image that wasn't fair use, and the second dif was a year ago, something that the person likely forgot, and when the fair use policy was a tad lighter. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 07:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

IFD of Image:CIMG51582.jpg
Hi. I saw your note that you're new to IFD so I thought I would give you some feedback. This image doesn't have a source or license tag, so nominating it for deletion through IFD isn't the best method. Just marking as "no source" and "no license" would have been better, since those are CSD criteria for images. You can use for no source and  for no license. If you plan to start doing a lot more image work, I strongly recommend this tool: User talk:Howcheng/quickimgdelete.js. Thanks and good luck! --MECU ≈ talk 04:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey. Thanks for the message, it was helpful. So would you recommend that I withdraw IfD, keep IfD and place the tag, or what? BTW, I'm not particularly interested in working with images, although I suppose it would be better to learn about it in the long run. I mostly participate in article stuff (AfD, editing, creation). Templates and images are beyond me :D Hobbeslover talk/contribs 09:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Changes to Template:BeaversCoach
I noticed you made some changes to Template:BeaversCoach, eliminating the repeated instance of Mike Riley. Is there a consensus for this? If you look at templates such as Template:IDGovernors, people are repeated if they served on two seperate occasions. Personally, I think it is more informative that way. Thanks, VegaDark 10:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The issues with it being in the governor templates are no different from the issues of it being in the coach templates, so I'd like to see some standardization across Wikipedia in that respect. I'd support doing it which ever way consensus decides, but it is a double standard to do it in one case and not do it in another case. I'm going to look for a place to bring this issue up to see what others think. VegaDark 19:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've brought up the issue at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. VegaDark 20:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use
Hi. I feel you are being a bit unfair in your grounds for opposing, because those articles in my user space are ancient and have received little or no attention in about two years. Two years ago we did not have the same standards about fair use as we do now; there was a much more liberal interpretation that I followed along with just about everyone else, and nobody complained about it back then. Those userspace articles are relics. Please note that I have no uploaded any images in a long time, primarily because of my concerns about fair use issues. Everyking 05:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It really isn't a matter of confusion or unfamiliarity with policy; it's the fact that those article drafts had drifted so far into the back of my mind that I was barely aware of their continued existence, let alone that they contained fair use images in violation of current policy. Everyking 07:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Everyking RFA
You were opposing because of difs shown in feb, march, april 2005, in which the fair use policy was much, much lighter, fair use in username space was banned in late 2005/early 2006 if i remembered correctly. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 06:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Ditto with Cuchullain, first dif was an image that wasn't fair use, and the second dif was a year ago, something that the person likely forgot, and when the fair use policy was a tad lighter. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 07:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

SFGMCcasualmen
Re this image:

You wrote: "appears to be publicity photo, not GFDL-self MECU≈talk 22:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)"

This is a photograph of chorus members Brian, Clint, Kim and John. The photo was taken under my supervision for publicity purposes for use by the San Francisco Gay Men's Chorus. I am the artistic director of the organization, and as such I have authority and permission to use the image as I see fit and to release it into the public domain. If there is perhaps a different way in which I should indicate this in the licensing notice, please let me know. I'm new to Wikipedia. Thanks for your help. MusicMen 07:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing to my attention the conflict of interest policy. I am a published author who is keenly aware of copyright and conflict issues. I compiled this historic information over the last seven years from a variety of sources and the compiled information has not been published elsewhere. While I am an employee, my role is artistic. I am not a gay man nor am I member of the group. I have invited many others to review and amend the facts in order to ensure continued partiality. I created the page from the point of view of an historian who is interested in the history of the group and have done my utmost to remain impartial. I have provided as many links as possible to strenghthen the facts. To put it bluntly, if I didn't create the page, I'm not sure who would be able to do so with this level of accuracy. MusicMen 16:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

IFD of Image:CIMG51582.jpg
Hi. I saw your note that you're new to IFD so I thought I would give you some feedback. This image doesn't have a source or license tag, so nominating it for deletion through IFD isn't the best method. Just marking as "no source" and "no license" would have been better, since those are CSD criteria for images. You can use for no source and  for no license. If you plan to start doing a lot more image work, I strongly recommend this tool: User talk:Howcheng/quickimgdelete.js. Thanks and good luck! --MECU ≈ talk 04:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey. Thanks for the message, it was helpful. So would you recommend that I withdraw IfD, keep IfD and place the tag, or what? BTW, I'm not particularly interested in working with images, although I suppose it would be better to learn about it in the long run. I mostly participate in article stuff (AfD, editing, creation). Templates and images are beyond me :D Hobbeslover talk/contribs 09:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Fifth Down versus Clipping Penalty in Orange Bowl game
Hi. I noticed that you reverted a small deletion of mine in the Fifth Down article. Specifically, I had removed the sentence about the disputed clipping penalty in the 1991 Orange Bowl game. The penalty in question nullified an apparent punt-return touchdown by Rocket Ismail, and probably changed the outcome of the 1991 Orange Bowl.

I had removed this sentence from the Fifth Down article for the following reasons:


 * This sentence is about details of action in the 1991 Orange Bowl game at Miami. For that reason, it appears to be irrelevant to the Fifth Down game at Columbia, Missouri in October 1990, which is the subject of the Fifth Down article.
 * Disputed clipping penalties on punt returns are not particularly notable in themselves. Such disputes occur very frequently.  It is my impression that a larger number of American football games include such a dispute than the number of games that do not include such a dispute.
 * A clipping penalty is often a judgment call. For that reason, even if the 1991 Orange Bowl clipping call was wrong -- I watched the game on TV and I believe that the chance it was wrong is about 80% -- it is still not comparable to a "fifth down", which is a blatant error about which there is no question of judgment.
 * If the intent of this article is to make a case against the Colorado national championship of 1990, then the "fifth down" fiasco makes the case much more strongly than the Orange Bowl clipping dispute. Indeed, the clipping argument is so much less significant than the "fifth down" argument that including the disputed clip in the "fifth down" article actually weakens the case against Colorado.  The sentence about the clipping dispute looks like anti-Colorado whining.
 * If the intent of this article is to give an even-handed view of the "fifth down" game, then inclusion of the irrelevant clipping dispute from the Orange Bowl is a major NPOV problem. Really, even if you're a big Georgia Tech fan, there is no need to pile on irrelevancies -- this whole situation looks terrible for the 1990 Buffs without throwing in negative POV stuff.

Please reconsider your revert. This sentence really does not belong in this article. It might be appropriate in an article about the 1991 Orange Bowl game, or an article about the 1990 national championship, if such articles exist or if you want to create them.

Thanks for your attention and understanding.

Paul 22:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I want you to adopt me.
Hye, I'm new aroun here, and I havea good knowledge for sports, especially football. I'm mainly all about the pros, but I'll deal with college, so that's about it, and hopefully, I will talke to you later!

Sincerely, Brandon Davis —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bdavis617 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

Need your opinion
Since you are the image master... User:FarmSanctuary uploaded a bunch of images sourced to the Farm Sanctuary Archives and with a GFDL license. I can't verify that these images are GFDL or that this individual in any way is authorized to license these images as such. The one image you tagged had the notice removed by the originator. You know more about this than I do... generally don't require a release sent to the foundation to prove GFDL if it is not stated as such at the source?--Isotope23 21:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

image for delition
why has it been put up for deletion, i dont understand, there seems to be no nationale for this. in addition to the fact that i myselfy took the picture and released it into the public domain. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Qrc2006 (talk • contribs) 09:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

Tag for possible deletion on Derry City-related photos
I notice you have placed a tag for possible deletion on numerous photographs of players at the club. These are personal photos. Some, I have cropped. Maybe I tagged them incorrectly? Could you guide me as to how to tag them or ensure that they stay on the site? Thanks. Johnfullerton 18:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * They were taken by myself from pitch-side bar a few of them, for which I have recieved permission to use freely. I have copies of the full photos available if necessary. Johnfullerton 19:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll have to upload them if that's ok? How should I go about showing you the permission? Thanks. Johnfullerton 19:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, is there any chance you can postpone their deletion for a while? Permission was verbal so I'll have to get that in writing/by e-mail. I'll try and get my own originals up as quickly as possible. Thanks for your patience. Johnfullerton 18:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You'll notice that the following photos (50px and 50px) are from the same game as quite a number of others including 50px, 50px and 50px. 50px corresponds with 50px. 50px derives from 50px. 50px is from the same game as others, including 50px, 50px, 50px and 50px. 50px is derived from 50px. 50px and 50px are from the same game (see 50px). As is 50px (see 50px). 50px is also from that game (see 50px). 50px is from 50px. I'm really going out of my way here and haven't a huge amount of time so I hope that suffices in proving that they are all genuinely my own. As regards those which required permission, they were the following: 50px, 50px and 50px. I'm working on getting an email confirmation for those now. Johnfullerton 19:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to add that the club have used quite a few of my photos in the past for various purposes. Johnfullerton 19:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have fixed up the tags on quite a few of the images. Johnfullerton 00:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I have saved the photos at that size. However, if you bear with me, the 2007 season wll be commencing shortly and I will be able to provide you with new, larger shots. They won't be the same photos, but hopefully they'll fully prove my genuinity to you.
 * I don't work with the press but rather with the club, who give me permission to access the pitch. I have a season ticket/club membership if that would help.
 * Thanks. Johnfullerton 15:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, there is no written agreement. The club is very much community-oriented. I have provided photos for match programmes and such and they let me take some photos from pitch-side. Thanks for all the help. I will take the advice on board for the forthcoming season. Johnfullerton 22:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Dan Knott Image
You mind telling me how to put the file source for this image? User:Killswitch Engage I got the image here. What do you think?

Fist_to_the_head!.jpg
Hello,

Thank you for your attention to the cleanup of unused images on Wikipedia. I'm taking this opportunity, per your implied request, to let you know that I implicitly object to the deletion of any image content I've uploaded to Wikipedia.

Images that I've uploaded for personal use and subsequently de-linked from my userpage without tagging them for attention are by intention available for any editor to use on "my" article (or any other article that can use them, as per Hacker). Consequently, as you may not have previously known, deleting them as UE is out-of-process.

You can check out a typical example of the ensuing deletion discussion.

Thanks for your work in keeping Wikipedia tidy and timely! I sincerely don't intend to criticize your work -- my intention here is to help you focus on those images which _should_ be undergoing deletion discussion :)

—Adrian~enwiki (talk) 2007-02-05 08:38Z 

image up for deletion
good day to you, thank you for informing me of the nomination of for deletion. May i ask why it is up for deletion? Is it because of the fact it is redundant?  DA RR  e  N   TALK

Picture deletion
Why is this picture Image:Northern_Italy_1700.jpg selected for deletion - I will need it sometime in the near future. Raymond Palmer

Dan Hawkins (coach)
But re-visiting the issue in a few years and removal may be appropriate at that time. Notability isn't as mutable as you imply; the incident was covered non-trivially in multiple reliable sources. If you're simply saying that when you feel like it's not so recent, you're going to remove it from the article, let me advise you to reconsider that stance, as it is inappropriate and likely to get you accused of being POV. | Mr. Darcy talk 22:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see another way to interpret your statement on Talk:Dan Hawkins (coach), especially the part I reprinted above. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I read the whole thing, and came away with little doubt that you were not happy with the outcome, and that you intended to remove it down the road. (You didn't just talk about revisiting the matter, but already stated the outcome you wanted from that revisiting.) If you don't remove it, there won't be any problem. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You can't make a vague threat and then hide behind WP:AGF. You had already been fighting and removing the content despite evidence of notability, and then you offer comments about how "in a few years it won't be notable" and that it "may be" removable. You don't get a good-faith assumption when you depict yourself as the loser in a content dispute and then imply that you might revert it down the road (even though notability is firmly established through non-trivial media coverage). Had you closed your participation in that discussion with fewer words, I wouldn't have seen the need to warn you not to start an edit war down the road. | Mr. Darcy talk 00:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Given irrefutable evidence of notability and an ironclad citation, you should not have made any hint that you might remove the content in the future. I can't state it much more plainly than that. Your explanations fall flat; you said what you said, and the interpretation is obvious. Good day. | Mr. Darcy talk 02:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Dodgers_logo.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Dodgers_logo.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 07:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Mecu - thanks
Mecu - thanks - I just emailed the permission, going to try and re-upload as soon as I can. I really appreciate the help. If I would have known that was what i needed to do weeks ago, I would have just emailed the permission then. I put myself up for adoption - If you can, perhaps you can adopt me as I really need an image person. Thanks! Archie, archiemartinArchiemartin

UBX Raptors
Hi Mecu,

Thanks for your work on this and on the image. In the back of my mind I was thinking that the FU image wasn't supposed to be on a User page and originally the UBX had a 2.5" square image! So I reduced it.  It was your further foresight that I needed to just blast it off there completely!

Take care,

Larry

Lmcelhiney 00:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:BreachPoster.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:BreachPoster.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 07:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Latest effort
It's been a while - how are you? This really took me a long time. I'd appreciate you taking a look at the National Black Chamber of Commerce. I first had to organize then expand the article. I added the African American portal. I had to edit the portal to add a section for economic organizations and I added an associated category. I also added links to the general Chamber of Commerce article and the NBCC disambiguation page. There are a couple of external links that I don't think should be there. I want to delete them, but left them for further cleanup. Do you think I can remove the Wikify tag? Also, I've uncovered a deeper cleanup problem - the Chamber of Commerce category needs lots of work. Now that I've seen it, I can't ignore it...--LtlKtytalk 06:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing. I'll make the changes you suggested.  You also helped me make up my mind that I shoud delete the external links.  They are not really relevant to the article.  I'll expand the sponsorship section from just links.  I'm still looking for references other than the website.--LtlKtytalk 04:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've gotten a review and incorporated their comments as well as yours. I think this article is now at the stage where other contributors can help it evolve as well.  Thanks (as always) for your help.--LtlKtytalk 06:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I've added the category to a category.--LtlKtytalk 04:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops! I thought that it was you who flagged the category. Looks like I still have a lot to learn... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KitLouise (talk • contribs) 05:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

Image copyright problem with Image:Bengals_6.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Bengals_6.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 07:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:DisneyPolynesianmap.JPG
Hi. Just wanted to ask you to put "Image:DisneyPolynesianmap.JPG" back. It wasn't my image, but I remember for sure it was not a fair use promotional image. All the other ones were, but that one wasn't. I know I can't replace it, but was wondering if you could since you deleted it. WDWbuff 23:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use images
Hi Mecu. First, I wasn't aware of that policy. But the galleries are really just for my own use. I set them up so I could keep track of the images (in case some were removed). Are you sure the policy applies to Userspace? And can you suggest any other way that I can keep tabs on the images? Thanks. --Rbraunwa 02:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Landaufamily.jpg
I am new to Wikipedia so I have some questions as to why my image has been considered for deletion.

First is that I don't understand the Orphaned comment.

Second, my knowledge of copyrights is limited but why is it that an image is allowed to be altered under copyright and why is this a problem under copyright agreements? If I was to post an original image and someone would like to use it that is fine as long as I have the credit for said image but for them to alter the image should be unquestionable and a matter of changing a factual image.

Thirdly, you have deemed this image unencyclopedic when it states facts and people in a truthful way. An encyclopedia is about the culmination of knowledge and history. This page is the start of a geneology of the Landau family, therefore expanding both knowledge and history. I plan to build on facts of the background of the name and region of southern Germany it comes from. I also intend to show the joint use of said name through France as well. Landau-Hotel 07:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 26th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Broncos_3.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Broncos_3.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 07:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Image marked for deletion Image:Manoviraj_khosla.jpg
Just liked to know why its been marked for deletion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lenish (talk • contribs) 12:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

image reduction
hi how do you over write an uploaded picture with a smaller picture without it going blury?--Empire Earth 13:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Potus7 tagging
Mecu, there is no CSD for "page created by another user." Next time, instead of tagging a page for deletion when you don't understand its purpose, try asking its author. I've been around the wiki long enough that making attack pages is not in my repertoire. JDoorjam    JDiscourse 22:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Potus7 is a friend of mine in the "real world" and I thought it'd help his entry to the project if I put something on his user page, to push his user name from red to blue. As a new user he's not overly Wiki-savvy so I figured I'd give him a hand by sprucing things up a little bit.  This, I suppose, is an excellent example of why off-Wiki communication (in this case between me and my friend) is generally frowned upon; our conversation was more convenient in Google Chat than on-Wiki but I suppose it left a bit of a confusing impact here.  JDoorjam     JDiscourse 23:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Dilley's picture
The picture Image:GRDilley_(6).jpg does not have a copyright violation problem as this image has been scanned by meslef just last night from one of my previous collection of photographs.