User talk:Mahagaja/Archive 20

Image deletions
I'm disputing what you've written on Image talk:Somluck.jpg and Image talk:SombatMetanee.jpg. Particularly on the Somluck ruling, I'm angry and hurt because you've called me a liar, which I recognize won't bring the image back. And perhaps you assumed good faith in believing with all your heart that you are looking at a screenshot, but in that regard you are quite wrong. Anyway, I just wanted to let you know that I'm still disputing the tagging of those images and have issues I'd like to see addressed. I do thank you for taking the time to view the images and offer a response on the talk page, and delete them from their respective articles. That attention to detail is appreciated. – WiseKwai  |  Talk  |  Contribs  07:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't call you a liar, but I'm sorry if it came across that way. I believed you were mistaken about the nature of the image. It happens all the time that someone puts promophoto onto images that aren't publicity photos. —Angr 07:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, I can see how you might've thought I made a mistake, and I accept that. Thanks for your response. – WiseKwai  |  Talk  |  Contribs  08:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Over on Image talk:SombatMetanee.jpg. I'm afraid I used some pretty harsh words that I now recognize were most uncivil and unassuming of good faith. For that, I sincerely apologize. I realize that the work you are doing is not personal, but I still let my attachment to the article about Sombat Metanee and image get the best of me. I'll work in the future to be better. Your actions have actually prompted the article to be improved (the whole idea of discouraging fair-use images), even if the image is not restored, so for that I should thank you. Again, I'm sorry. — WiseKwai 17:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That's okay. Compared to a lot of flak I get for deleting images, you didn't sound uncivil at all! —Angr 18:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Image talk:Somluck.jpg and Image talk:SombatMetanee.jpg, I've implemented the helpful suggestions made in order to keep the images. I'm just wondering where we go from here. — WiseKwai 17:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Once again, I am seeking advice on how to proceed with Image:Somluck.jpg and Image:SombatMetanee.jpg. Suggested improvements have been made to Sombat Metanee that would accommodate that image. Criteria already exist for the Somluck image to be undeleted and included in an article about Fearless (2006 film). What will the next action be? I understand that I may take the matter to Deletion review. If that is the next step, then I am willing to see it through. Please let me know. I am awaiting a response. Thanks. — WiseKwai 21:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, point blank: Are you going to ever respond to me? — WiseKwai 06:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Abu
I saw at this page your wrote: "I still actually haven't seen convincing evidence of Abu acting sneakily or rudely..."

Hmm, well, at (now deleted; talk page still at Image talk:Mikko eloranta.jpg, Abu added a RFU tag, without notifying me, the uploader of the image, that he had done so.  A quick check revealed he had visited many of the images I had uploaded, adding this tag, and failed to notify me in every instance.  I considered this "sneaky."  (And you know I think that kid User:Chowbok is crazy-wrong, but at least he notifies.)

Abu then tracked my contributions to Wikipedia, found an article I had started (completely unrelated to the current fair use policy dispute} and defaced the article with markup so badly that an administrator had to revert the majority of his changes. He also proposed for speedy deletion a separate article I started, for no serious reason other than harassment.  This, too, was undone by an admin, after easily verifying the article did not meet the criteria.

In short, I felt wiki-stalked, and harassed by this editor. I have been a good faith contributor, and I see things much different than User:Abu badali. But User:Abu badali needs to know that chasing other editors across the pages of wikipedia, while "fun" for him, is no fun at all for the other editor. It's also a violation of WP:Stalk. Jenolen 10:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing those things out to me. It does look like wikistalking. —Angr 10:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Canadian Gaelic
Thanks for the comments you left on the Canadian Gaelic page. As you guessed I had experienced difficulty moving the page, but I was unaware that the proper course of action was to get an admin to move the page. In retrospect I could have researched the procedure more thoroughly. Sorry for the inconvenience. You additional comments were much appreciated, also. —Muckapædia 30e nov. 2006, 20h51 (UTC+0900) 머크백과

Deleting RFU images
Hi,

Is there any way, when deleting an image that I or someone else marked RFU, that you can retain the talk page for a few days? At least when there was a discussion about it. I'm thinking specifically of Image talk:Stephanie Kralevich.jpg, which has been specifically referred to at my RFC and a couple other places, but generally I think leaving the talk page up temporarily will help people feel their arguments weren't simply ignored. &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  17:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I usually keep them if the discussion was relatively recent, but not if it's been a while. Anyway, I restored the one you linked to above. —Angr 17:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Photo Matching Service
Thought you might want to know about this, it has the same goals as WikiProject Photography, but is better organized. If you have any questions, please contact me on my talk page. -- Gphoto talk 19:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of [[Image:Stephanie_Kralevich.jpg]]
I don't understand why the image was deleted. There is no note of the deletion made in Image_talk:Stephanie_Kralevich.jpg It seems pretty similar to:


 * Tom_Brokaw screenshot
 * David_Brinkley book cover not used to describe book
 * Gary_Coleman screenshot
 * Howie_Mandel screenshot
 * Katie_Couric screenshot down below in article
 * Regis_Philbin publicity photo

Can I replace it with a screenshot? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fourdee (talk • contribs) 06:32, 1 December 2006   (UTC)


 * I haven't had a chance to examine how each of those is being used, but off the top of my head I'd say it isn't different and those should all be deleted too. Feel free to add   to any fair-use image that's being used only to identify a living person. —Angr 06:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok fair enough. Thanks.  Fourdee 06:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I see David Brinkley is dead, so that's the difference in his case. If no free image of him already exists, then none can be made now. —Angr 06:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the Wikipedia:Fair_use page could be updated to reflect this policy, I don't think it's clear. Makes sense though. Fourdee 06:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Palm-nut Vulture
I don't know of any pd image. jimfbleak 11:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The point is, one could be created. Fair use criterion number 1 says "fair use" images may not be used if a free image could be created (regardless of whether one has already been found). The article on the bird says it's "least concern", so it's not even as though it were rare. —Angr 11:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:Euro birth date and age
Thanks for supporting me in the TFD for euro birth date and age... I really can't believe people are disagreeing with me on this! robwingfield &laquo;T&bull;C&raquo; 11:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Non-free photos of bands
Hello again. I've put some thoughts together at User:Quadell/non-free photos of bands about whether (and when) non-free photos of bands are replaceable. If you have an opinion and want to weigh in, I'd value your input. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

cites in Irish phonology
Hullo,

I noticed you used the templates Harvcol, Harvcolnb &amp; Harvcoltxt in the article Irish phonology. For an alternative formatting for the references, you may want to see Harvrefcol as described on Citation templates.

--Ling.Nut 03:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Pavel.jpg
Hi! I just reduced the resolution of that image in question (for speedy deletion not before 2006-12-08) and put some vine leafs on top of the youth endangering part (the power plug was high enough for mentally sane youth to be considered "safe"). I recommend to use this new image under a "fair use" license in order to illustrate the article (the face and chest is quite characteristic and I did not want to crop the image, because of the hands). --Homer Landskirty 10:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Your edits don't change the reason I marked it. Wikipedia is not censored, so the leaves are completely unnecessary. The point is, Wikipedia's fair use policy excludes fair-use images of living people that only show what they look like, because they can be replaced by freely licensed images. —Angr 11:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... When I was in Florida in April 2001 the hotel had a rule saying: "No naked chests indoors at shared places (like restaurant)." Of course that is not a law, but it shows the ethical code of the people of Florida. I am pretty sure, that the law enforcement people in Florida would have arrested me for showing the shape of certain organs publicly... So clearly -according to your own source: WP:NOT- Wikipedia can temporarily show such obscene material, but Wikipedia must not allow that, since its content has to comply to the law of Florida. --Homer Landskirty 18:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * IIRC "fair use" includes copyrighted material in clearly reduced resolution. --Homer Landskirty 18:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Btw.: I wouldnt know how to get a picture of the "Pavel Novotny"... :-) Possibly he knocks me out, before i can press the trigger... --Homer Landskirty 18:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't find the link now, but somewhere Jimbo has said we could show hardcore pornography on the Main Page (if we wanted to) without breaking any laws of Florida or the U.S., so I wouldn't worry about Pavel showing the bulge in his boxers. Pictures of living people don't violate U.S. fair use laws, but they do violate Wikipedia's fair use policy, which is much stricter. And celebrities almost never punch amateur photographs who want their picture. —Angr 18:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Possibly Jimbo was not quite himself, when he said/wrote that? :-) As u might already guess, I dont care so much, if that image is deleted or not... And I dont know, why Wikipedia should be allowed to go to the borders of legality in puncto erections, while it restricts itself in re "fair use"... --Homer Landskirty 18:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Because it bills itself as the "free encyclopedia", not the "erection-free encyclopedia"! —Angr 19:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Naoko Takeuchi
Justify why you removed the image beyond the fact you felt like it. Please bring it to the talk page if you object. I'm reverting the page. Thank you.--Hitsuji Kinno 03:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Horst Buchholz images
Happy deleting! It seems to be an invigorating activity and, judging by the sheer number of messages of that kind on my talk page, one of the current fads. Best wishes, &lt;KF&gt; 18:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

image deletion templates
Please use Template:Refu-c or Template:Rfu-c on pages (such as Fannie Flagg) using images which you've tagged with Template:Replaceable fair use, not Template:speedy-image-c. The latter is misleading. See and. Thanks. —Steve Summit (talk) 01:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I did put refu-c on Fannie Flagg. (At first I accidentally put replaceable but then I quickly corrected myself.) —Angr 08:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Eh? Fannie Flagg is using speedy-image-c. —Steve Summit (talk) 19:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Image:Phain.jpg
I notice that on 27 November you deleted the image Image:Phain.jpg. This was a Crown Copyright image of a British Cabinet minister, Peter Hain. I was wondering, did this image not have a fair use rationale or did you find its rationale unsatisfactory? If the latter, I was wondering what it was about the fair use rationale you found lacking? Thanks. WJBscribe 04:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's fair use policy (see in particular Counterexample #8) precludes the use of "fair use" images to show what living people look like, because it would be easy to create a free image showing the same thing. —Angr 08:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining. Don't you think that's rather a strict interpretation of the rule? In the case of an important politician, including an image does more than just show what they look like- it is important that this person be recognisable. The fair use replaceable tag requires that a free image could "reasonably be found or created". There are few free photos of British politicians available on the net (I have looked extensively and uploaded what I have located to the relevant articles). Although it is possible to obtain a free image (as the person is still living) it would be extremely difficult without knowing the agenda of that politician and finding a Wikipedian with a camera who happened to be in the area and was willing to post the resultant image. I don't think this qualifies as could "reasonably be created" and hope you will reconsider your policy. WJBscribe 20:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Pavel Novotný
I think I'll speedy close this as the subject is clearly notable (you know what I mean - not to me by WP:PORN) and the issue is moving to another title (or not). Thoughts?  Glen 11:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC) (of, if you could possibly reply on my talk as the vandals are crazy tonight and I may miss otherwise :)

He

 * Okay, thanks! —Angr 12:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Block of User:Fortunefaded
I was going to block indef but since you blocked first, I think an indef would be more appropriate. Aside from the edits to his userspace, all edits have been vandalism. --Chris (talk) 14:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I just did block indef. I made it short first to see whether he had made any good edits. When I saw he hadn't, I upped it to indef. —Angr 14:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, gotcha. Thanks for clarifying.  --Chris (talk) 14:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Your input is requested
Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, not
You removed the semi-protection status from the Horse aticle? Please put it back, ideally forever! That article is vandalized almost daily, it would really help if it could not be edited by unregistered users. Please oh please oh please! Montanabw 00:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Please see Semi-protection policy. There are dozens of articles that get vandalized on a daily basis. Just keep it on your watchlist and revert as necessary. Semiprotection is a short-term response to exceptional circumstances. —Angr 07:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: James Whale Memorial Image
In light of your bringing this up, I just changed the license entirely. It was early days as a Wikipedian when I uploaded this and my sister took it with at least part intent of it being uploaded for Whale's wikipedia page. It is not copyrighted, nor is it employed under fair use. Cheers. Rob 00:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That's great, thanks for changing the license! —Angr 07:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Images
You've listed a number of images for deletion on my talk page, which I uploaded in good faith. I accept that those by Ron Eggert are probably not now acceptable, but those taken by Liz Leyden were, at the time I downloaded them, described as available for any use, with copyright waived. I know her site doesn't say that now, but surely once the image rights are released, the copyright can't then be reapplied retrospectively. If you look at the dates of these uploads, they were uploaded many moons ago, thanks, jimfbleak 06:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, I wasn't doubting your good faith at all, and I know the images were unproblematic at the time. But Wikipedia policy has changed, and now images have to be completely freely licensed in most circumstances. Permission to use on Wikipedia but not for third parties isn't good enough anymore! You're right, once rights have been released, they can't later be claimed back. If the Liz Leyden pictures were described as copyright-free at the time you uploaded them, you can change the license to PD-because with a statement explaining the situation. —Angr 07:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:SombatMetanee on deletion review
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:SombatMetanee. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. — WiseKwai 10:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Smithsonian Images
Thank you for providing the explanation on Image talk:Cymophyllus fraserianus.jpg regarding the three images that you tagged earlier today. Nevertheless, I have to admit that you ruined my day by bringing these issues to my attention. :(  Over the last few months, with a considerable investment of time, I have uploaded several images from the Smithsonian's Plant Image Collection (a/k/a the U.S. National Herbarium Plant Image Collection).  I discovered this source while searching for free plant images on the USDA's PLANTS Database when I noticed that some of the images actually linked to the U.S. National Herbarium Plant Image Collection.  Rather than tag the images I found on the USDA website with   , I instead tried to be more precise and tag the ones that linked to the U.S. National Herbarium Plant Image Collection with   .  Unfortunately, I did not notice at the time that the Smithsonian tag was a "fair use" tag (i.e., not a public domain tag) and did not really think through the fair use rationale.

With respect to the images that are linked to the List of Species of Special Concern in Rabun County, Georgia, the fair use rationale that the plant is difficult or impossible to find growing in the wild may be sufficient (I plan to update the profiles on those particular images to set forth the fair use rationale). However, there are other images not related to the List that now concern me.

My plan is to "self police" my Smithsonian uploads, but I wanted to get your thoughts before I did anything drastic by reviewing a sample image upload. Image:Trillium discolor.jpg was uploaded on November 29, 2006 for the purpose of providing the plant's image for the in the Trillium discolor article. I found the image on the USDA's PLANTS Database here and discovered that the USDA's image linked to the U.S. National Herbarium Plant Image Collection here. So rather than list the source as the USDA's PLANTS Database and use, I listed the source as the Smithsonian's U.S. National Herbarium Plant Image Collection and used. I do not think that this plant is difficult or impossible to find growing in the wild, so I am not sure fair use will hold. Thus, I am inclined to remove the image from the Trillium discolor article and then mark it for speedy deletion with. Am I over-reacting or are there other options? I hate to think that the time I spent finding these images was a wasted effort, but I also want to make sure that I haven't made inappropriate image uploads. --Tlmclain | Talk 16:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how much I can help you. If the photographer was an employee of the U.S. government (including the USDA) and took the photograph as part of his official duties, the image is public domain, even if it's being used on a Smithsonian webpage with Smithsonian's copyright statement. If you can be fairly sure the photo originated with the USDA, then, you can change the tag to the public domain one. —Angr 16:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the headsup re Image:Rickenbackerfryingpan.jpg Gzuckier 21:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Mourning Portrait
The pic on Mourning Portrait is public domain. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JAF1970 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC).
 * I don't doubt it, but it still needs a source. —Angr 06:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Individual Users Role in Copyright checking

 * Has anyone bothered to read this? WP:C
 * It is not the job of rank-and-file Wikipedians to police content for possible copyright infringement, but if you suspect one, you should at the very least bring up the issue on that page's talk page. 
 * Does the recent actions of users clearly violate the copyright policy? My blunt interpretation of above statement is If your strolling down the street and see an unlocked door, lock it.  But don't walk up to every door and check to see if it's locked.  Is this wrong?Hackajar 05:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think so. Saying "it's not your job to police content for possible copyright infringement" doesn't mean "don't do it"; it means "don't feel obligated to do it". —Angr 06:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Minor vandalism
Hi Angr, Please take a peek at my comment on Template talk:Latin kings re a minor act of vandalism by anonymous user 204.60.103.130. Thanks, Pasquale 19:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Your blocking messages
I've seen your blocking messages (such as this one) and I don't find them very friendly. Please be nice or I'll have to club you with a dead fish. Alternatively, simply place on the IP's talk page. --AAA! (AAAA • AAAAAAAA) 22:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

M-theory
Funny. Now I know who was the annom' IP user. Please revert this edit, we really do not want to get into further edit wars. thank you.

BTW, Spaghetti has more than 3 flavours, you should really try them out...keep the menu interesting. --Procrastinating@ talk2me 10:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what you're talking about. I've never edited M-theory before. (I'd never even heard of M-theory until I watched a NOVA rerun last night.) The image is a fair-use image of a living person used only to show what the person looks like and therefore violates Wikipedia's fair use policy. —Angr 10:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was mistaken. --Procrastinating@ talk2me 14:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

German wikipedia
Well, some accusations had been made there already, I added my problem and 'sources' of it. I think it may remain there, let other people be warned! Constanz - Talk 12:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC) PS. Doubtlessly, en.wikipedia standards qualify Berlin-Jurists acts as NPOV violations by admin. That's why my similar edits here have not met such disproportionate opposition. Constanz - Talk 12:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Brian Greene
Hi, I've changed it to GFDL-self, thanks. Later, I was using more general public domain tags because this GNU stuff is like I grant the permission except that the picture must always be used to fight against capitalism - which is a bias I don't really like. ;-) --Lumidek 14:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

wolfmother
not to be a jerk here, but why don't you stop being lazy and find a proper picture instead of just posting up templates? Why are you forcing other people to find a suitable pictures when you are the one with the problem with it? I have no idea where i could find a fair use picture, but i personally think that you should look if you are going to try to delete those two pictures. dposse 17:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The picture is a violation of Wikipedia policy. As an administrator, it's my job to try to keep violations of policy to a minimum. Finding free images of obscure bands isn't my job; I'll leave that to the fans (who could make their own free pictures by, say, going to a concert). —Angr 06:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Image deleted
Hi, you have deleted the image Image:Constantinos Paleologos at the battlements, dawn of the 29th May of 1453.jpg, beacuse i've uploaded it on it.wiki i want know the reason of the deleting, if it was a copyright problem i'll delete from it.wiki. Thenk you in advance --Jacopo86 10:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It didn't have enough source information to support the claim that all rights had been released. It was described as having been painted in 2003, which suggests that it is still under the artist's copyright, unless some very specific information to the contrary (i.e. a statement from the artists announcing that all rights have been released) can be provided. —Angr 10:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you. I'm going to delete it on it.wiki. Bye --Jacopo86 13:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

USHMM
Hi. I am going there on Monday, and should have more to report then. Danny 20:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

deleting images
Instead of deleting images without a fair use rationale, why don't you ADD a rationale? It would be a lot more useful than deleting images from articles. I know its easier to delete something than to fix it, but making a useful encyclopedia isn't supposed to be easy. If its too much work to fix the rationale, take the time to write on my user page before you delete something. Its a nice courtesy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
 * Why, and above all how, should I add a rationale I myself can't believe? Also, when I delete an image without a fair-use rationale, it's because it's been tagged as such for at least 7 days. In most cases, the tagger has notified the uploader, who then has 7 days to remedy the situation. If still no rationale has been added, the image gets deleted. —Angr 06:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Savage Islands on Macaronesia article
I removed your text after the Savage Islands on the list, solely because it should go in the article, not the list, but would need to be worked in with a geographical description of the locations of all of the islands relative to each other. I also placed the Savage Islands in the list in their latitudinal order, rather than last, as this is the way the list was ordered before. I don't know enough about the locations, or the relevance of this, to be able to incorporate your parenthetical comment into the text. KP Botany 18:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Anglican Eucharistic theology
As the editor rpimarily responsible, thanks for your commendation! It made me feel very affirmed, and I will work on it to get the references, having never created an article designated "good" before. Fishhead64 00:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Coos County, NH
Thank you for your help with the pronunciation. I love IPA!--Whhalbert 07:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Rudy
perhaps I could ask you to? I am unwise in the ways of the commons - I am sure you would do a better job. Thanks. - crz crztalk 19:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Basque
I've put in a request at the Language ref desk for a minimal pair. If nobody can come up with one, I can probably find a word that uses both. Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 21:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Map1024.gif
Thanks for the heads up Angr. I decided to replace it with Image:Alameda County.png, an image I created myself. I've since deleted the copyrighted one. Cheers, Khoikhoi 05:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Reversion
Hi Angr. Thanks for letting me know about my incorrect reversion - I'll be more careful in future :). Ck l o stsw o rd|queta!|Suggestions? 17:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Image replaceability guidelines
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Daniel Case 22:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I made no personal attack against any user. —Angr 05:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I beg to differ. --Irpen 05:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Not "user" in the singular, to be sure. Users, or rather a category of users, is a different matter. Daniel Case 06:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Irish nominals (strong/weak plurals)
Hi

Nice work on the Irish nominals thing. Very impressed. But there's one thing I need to pull you over on.

You've mixed up the strong and weak plurals. Functionally it makes no difference - "a rose by any other name" etc. Nonetheless I've researched it and everywhere I look, strong plurals are those whose nominative and genitive plurals are the same, and weak ones are those whose genitive plurals equal their nominative singulars. I figure one of us is gonna have to change it!!! So, you or I?

Good job nonetheless. Do you have a background in lingusitics?

All the best

DellusMaximus 07:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I have a Ph.D. in linguistics, and my dissertation was on Irish (phonology, though, not morphology). Can you tell me some sources that describe nom=gen as strong and nom≠gen as weak? (Not all gen.pl.s that are distinct from nom.pl.s are identical to nom.sg.s though: gen.pl. ban is distinct from both mná and bean, while gen.pl. lachan = gen.sg. lachan. —Angr 07:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Unspecified source for Image:Prodata-media.jpg
I haven't been keeping up to date with all changes regarding fair-use images, and am quite confused as to what info/templates I'm supposed to add to that image. Basically I think I took the picture directly from some Sony website (can't remember which one). Isn't there some template for recommending a replacement of a fair-use image? I'd prefer to have that on the article as I'd be surprised if anyone ever bothers supplying an image to an apparently obscure format. --Zilog Jones 00:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow that oriental porn star is really hot!! on the unknown copywright list. Is such an image really allowed on wikipedia if sourced and fair use rationale given? Ernst Stavro Blofeld 10:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So long as it isn't an image of a living person being used only to show what they look like, yes. —Angr 10:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

METU
Why did you removed a picture from Middle East Technical University?? I didn't wish to revert it before contacting you. ThanksCaglarkoca 13:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The image was deleted because it was a replaceable fair-use image. Wikipedia policy doesn't allow fair-use images to show outdoor public places, because it's easy for someone to make a free image of the place. —Angr 13:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Tom Monroe article
I'm presenting the wiki to Tom as a suprise 60th birthday present. As I am incidentally Tom's webmaster, the gnu statement has been added on the page http://www.discgolfwarehouse.com/history/ therefore no plagiarism has been committed.

Please revert your edit, I will fix anything required but dont wish to ruin the birthday surprise. The images are provided as the same such license by Lavone Wolfe of the disc golf hall of fame, but the license choices at the time of submission did not fit as I likely misunderstood what I was reading. Nonetheless, I'd be happy to have him email you personally, whatever it takes to have the article appear as it was before. Get quad 07:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the restore and advice! Get quad 20:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Fiber optic bundle.jpg
Have you decided what you want to do with Image:Fiber optic bundle.jpg ? It should be labeled as all the other sandia images are currently with pd or all the other images should be labeled copyright restricted as the fiber optic currently image is. --Deglr6328 22:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use preamble
Regarding this diff. I am the original author of that text (well, along with the help of some other folks). I just wanted you to know that I'm perfectly happy with the character of the changes you have made. Although I do believe that in some cases we can not adequately fulfill our encyclopedic mission (for example discussing the character and qualities of a painting without including an excerpt), I do not object to your rewording. No matter how important non-free works are to our quality, they are at odds with our free content mission and are thus never an entitlement.

If you are on a campaign against 'fair use' material in enwiki, I'd encourage you to compare articles with dewiki. In some places they have done a great job, but in other places they simply provide a prominent external link to a third parties copyright violation... and I just don't see how thats better than allowing fair use. Just something to keep in mind.--Gmaxwell 02:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Fairusereplace/Replacethisimage
Hello!

I noticed that you removed Fairusereplace from Image:Wheatus 2005.jpg and Replacethisimage from Wheatus (diff).

Fair use criteria criterion #1 says "Eventually we may have a way to identify images as more restricted than GFDL on the article pages, to make the desire for a more free image more obvious." I placed these templates in order to advertise the possibility that the image could be replaced and to encourage the procurement of a photo under a free license, without asserting the notion that the images should be deleted. Maybe I was too bold in doing so, but the article is a great place to advertise the need for a free image. --Oden 08:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that the image is replaceable, but on the talk page the processing admin said it wasn't. Either the image is replaceable, in which case the processing admin should have deleted it, or it isn't, in which case it shouldn't have Fairusereplace on it. I'm going through Category:Fair use image replacement request and tagging all the images for deletion; since the Wheatus picture was already tagged and the decision was made to keep it, it shouldn't remain in a category consisting of images slotted for deletion. There is no "replaceable, but we shouldn't delete it". —Angr 08:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand your reasoning regarding replaceable fair use images. What is your interpretation of the section of WP:FUC quoted above? Does it serve any purpose? (Perhaps it is in relation to images licensed as permission/withpermission). --Oden 09:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how old that section is; with-permission images (without a separate fair use rationale) haven't been allowed since May 2005. As far as I know, the only way to identify images more restricted than GFDL in articles is replacethisimage. —Angr 09:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Sanskrit / Hindi
Hi Angr, I don't know what happened with the revert to the Sanskrit article regarding the addition of Hindi information. I think my browser experienced some issues in connecting to the Wikipedia server. Thanks for actually carrying out the revert I intented to do. Sarayuparin 09:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

John MacArthur image deletion
Subject is a private yet public figure who only provides promo photos. The image or one like it is unrepeatable, i.e. a free image cannot be created to replace this one. I would not have uploaded this one in the first place if a free one were available! CyberAnth 08:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * According to his article, he makes predictable public appearances (he's a minister at a church), so it would be possible for someone to make a free image of him. —Angr 09:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Your uncivil action and POV pushing exhibited at Wikipedia_talk:Replaceability_of_fair-use_images as demonstrated in you dealings with Image_talk:John_F._MacArthur%2C_Jr.jpg are reprehensible and I will now address it in the most fitting manner.

It seems like anyone who would assert what you have about this image needs to seriously undergo psychotherapy for False World Delusional Disorder and to read Don't be a dick.

It is not even close to "possible" but insanely improbable and only VERY, VERY, VERY remotely possible on Wikipedia.

Did you know it is "possible" that green aliens will land on earth tomorrow? That science will discover a way to make a male pregnant?

However, I do have a PayPal account through which you could slide me cash for a plane ticket, several night's hotel stay, and $100 $175 per day per-diem to go to California. I could then attend MacArthur's church and take the snapshot. Otherwise, you could pay a professional photographer in the area to do this. Put your money where your mouth is.

Are you one of those "admins" talked about HERE?

BTW, when and where was said discussion even held??? Do you normally make it a practice to "have discussions" without allowing the image uploader to even respond to the irrationalities you posted? By inviting only yourself?

Did I mention you might want to read Don't be a dick?

<B>Did you also notice there is currently a proposal for Elimination of Fair Use Rationale in Promotional Photos? Did you notice this is a promotional photo? Oh wait! Your pushy-standards are Wikipedia_talk:Replaceability_of_fair-use_images, that's right.

<B>Do you normally make it part of your mission in life to drive good editors like myself away from Wikipedia, to add to the list of missing Wikipedians? How's that power feel to ya'!? Feeling weak in other areas lately, eh?

<B>Oh, did I mention you might want to read Don't be a dick?

<B>Kindly restore the image and quite living out your, as consensus about you at Wikipedia_talk:Replaceability_of_fair-use_images is, "absolute radical fringe" position toward images.

CyberAnth 11:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)</B>

Image:WKCMAWayfinding.jpg
You tagged the Image:WKCMAWayfinding.jpg which I had uploaded under the wayfinding licensing. I reread Wayfinding and now realize that it is not a wayfinding system and the license doesn't apply. Please feel free to speedy delete the image. Good catch. -- Jreferee 15:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Car photos
I must respectfully disagree with your decisions on those Bugatti photos. Just because they haven't been produced since the 1920s doesn't mean they can't be replaced. Any Bugatti collectors' show will have them on display. I grew up going to car conventions with my father, and you would see all kinds of extremely rare cars on display. You don't have to buy one to take a picture of it. &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  16:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you drop me a line about this when you have a chance? Thanks... &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  02:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Image removal
Dear Angr,

We do not understand the reason why you have removed the picture of HASCO online volunteer which was selected by UNV as Volunteer of the Year 2006. Could you please tell us the reason? The picture belongs to HASCO like the other pictures.

Thank you, HASCO —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.47.125.55 (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC).
 * Can you provide me the full name of the image you mean? I've deleted a lot of images today. —Angr 18:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, The exact name of the file is "2006_Rajaa.jpg". You deleted it on December 21st from HASCO site.

Thanks, HASCO


 * When the image was uploaded, it was marked as being a fair use image of a living person. However, Wikipedia's fair use policy excludes images of living people used only to show what they look like, because it would be possible for someone to make a freely licensed picture of the person instead. —Angr 18:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, How can we solve this problem and upload it again?

HASCO
 * Do you know who the photographer was? If the photographer agrees to license the photograph under the terms of the GFDL and/or a Wikipedia-compatible Creative Commons License such as CC-BY or CC-BY-SA, then the image can be restored. (You don't have to upload it again; if you get authorization from the photographer to license the photograph freely, let me know and I can undelete it.) —Angr 18:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The Photo belongs to HASCO volunteer Mrs. Rajaa. The same photo is on HASCO website. Please visit www.help-afghan-school-children.org to see the photo.
 * The question is, who holds the copyright? In most cases it will be the photographer or the photographer's employer. If HASCO owns the copyright, and you can speak on behalf of HASCO, then all you have to do is agree to license the image as I stated above. —Angr 19:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I speak in behalf of HASCO and I agree to license the photgraph. Thank you for your co-operation.
 * Okay, I've restored the image. You'll need to log back in as User:Hafiz Ahmad, go to Image:2006 Rajaa.jpg, and add the terms under which you license the image. If you release all rights, add PD-self. If you want to license it under the GFDL, add GFDL-self. If you want to license it under both the GFDL and CC-BY-SA (which is best if you want to restrict usage to encyclopedic use), write . —Angr 19:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I have licensed it under GFDL and CC-BY-SA.

-I was planning to hand these out on the 22nd of Dec. but things got in the way....  Happy holidays! &mdash; ¡ Rand fan  !  <sup style="font-family:papyrus; color:darkred;">Sign here?  20:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Timor
Thanks - i just had a look at an Age article from early 1975 - the west is marked as Indonesian Timor and their half is red - the Portuguese half being green of course. For the Dutch Timor era before 1949 you'd use orange on western Timor. PMA 12:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There's no universal color coding for countries. Different publishers use different colors. —Angr 12:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Deletion review for Image:Mayj.jpg
Hello!

The uploader has uploaded the image again and also asked for a deletion review of Image:Mayj.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for you might want to participate in the deletion review. (I was notified by the uploader, but I'm not an admin.)

Cheers! --Oden 12:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Help with IPA
Hello. Hope you're well and keeping up the good fight against FU abuse. Rather you than me. I would like to beg a favour. Since you are the man for Old/Middle Irish and IPA, would it be possible to do an IPA transcription of Áedán mac Gabráin (or Aedhan mac Gabhrain)? I'm quite content to go through life blissfully unaware of the right way to pronounce things, but not everyone takes the same lackadaisical approach as I've found at featured article review. If you're up to your eyes in it, I can try Mr MacUidhir. Season's greetings and best wishes, Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much indeed. Cheers! Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Help with another user
I'm not sure of the proper method of administrators advising others to be civil but if you could help me with Strabismus I would appreciate it. He recently made some fairly uncivil comments in his talk page to me and deleted my reply that he ought to be civil (no surprise). Any help is appreciated. Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 22:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Ian Hancock
Hello, Angr. I found an image of Dr. Ian Hancock and added it to his page. I noticed that you are the major contributor to the page. I see that you have described him as a “Rom scholar.” I am not an expert on the subject, but would it not be more correct to say he is a “Roma scholar.” As I understand it, Rom is the singular for one Roma person, whereas Roma is the word for the people. He is Rom but he is also a scholar on the subject of the Roma people. •DanMS 23:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Is he really a scholar on the subject of the people? He's a linguist, not a sociologist or anthropologist. The article originally described him as a Romani scholar; I changed it when I added the Romani form of his name so that there would be separate links to Romani language and Roma people. Also, I'm not sure how accurate it is to describe him as a "Romani scholar" alone; while he certainly knows and studies Romani, I think he's better known for his work on Angloromani and creoles like Gullah. —Angr 08:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Change to Common.css
Per recent discussions, the way in which Persondata is viewed by Wikipedia editors has changed. In order to continue viewing Persondata in Wikipedia articles, please edit your user CSS file to display table.persondata rather than table.metadata. More specific instructions can be found on the Persondata page. -- ShakingSpirit <sup style="color:#000000;">talk  on behalf of Kaldari 00:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Katie Greenwood photo
Hello Angr, why exactly did you delete this photograph (KatieHolly.jpg) ? I felt it made a good accompaniment to my article. Oh, and by the way, Merry Xmas. Hiyahiyahiya 02:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * When it was uploaded, it was tagged as being a fair-use image of a living person. In general, Wikipedia policy doesn't allow fair-use images of living people, because it's possible to get freely licensed images of them. —Angr 08:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
<div style="align: center; width: 75%; padding: 1em; border: solid 2px black; background-color: ForestGreen;"> '''
 * Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays ! | <b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:black;">A</b> ndonic <b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:Black; font-size:small;">O</b> <i style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:Tan;">Talk</i> 01:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

. 

And from Vermont, best wishes for a very merry Christmas... Malangali 12:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Learn English
I spent a couple of hours doing this page plus lots of redirects to it from unused yet popular related phrases and you deleted it without telling me first. You say the reason was because the page had only internal and external links which is true but I disagree that it had no encyclopediac content since those links are content and useful for someone trying to learn english. Wikipedia doesn't cover this topic well and I had thought to try and improve it so that people typing in various phrases related to learning english (e.g. study English) could at least be redirected to the Learn English page to get some idea. What is the point of deleting all that work and replacing it with nothing!

The idea that Wikipedia has to rigidly stick to being an Encyclopedia is wrong when many people are starting to use it as a first stop search engine before using Google. Pages that just provide internal/external links to other pages are very useful and encyclopediac content can always be added later.

Please reply to this, especially I would like to know how to contact the people who make the rules for Wikipedia.


 * This is an encyclopedia, not a resource for people wanting to learn English. You might read the essay called "Wikipedia is not Google" as well as the more general policy page "What Wikipedia is not". The rules are made by consensus of Wikipedia editors; there is no legislative body. I assure you your opinion that "the idea that Wikipedia has to rigidly stick to being an Encyclopedia is wrong" is not shared by the majority of Wikipedians. —Angr 18:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm done with Wikipedia. Many people haven't the time to dredge through your rules and will waste their time like me putting up info only to have it deleted without appeal. You replaced useful content with nothing and that is not right whatever you say. —User:Plexos, 26 December 2006

Images from Star Trek: New Voyages
Hi, you deleted a number of images today that were used on Star Trek: New Voyages with the deletion summary, "I6 (missing fair-use rationale)". This has caused at least one problem - you did not remove them from Star Trek: New Voyages and the article now looks rather bad. Would you consider restoring them and either (1) adding a rationale yourself or (2) allowing me to add a rationale? The rationale from the six episode posters (Image:NewVoyagesComeWhatMay.jpg, Image:NewVoyagesInHarmsWay.jpg, etc) should be, "This poster provides the primary method of identification for a television show episode. No free version can be created because any such free version would inevitably be a derivative of a copyrighted work.  All episodes of Star Trek: New Voyages are distributed freely, so use of this promotional poster causes no loss of income to the copyright holder." The rationale for the character screenshots (eg, Image:NewVoyagesKirk.jpg, Image:NewVoyagesJohnCarrigan.jpg, etc) should be, "This screenshot (or promotional poster) from Star Trek: New Voyages is used for the purpose of identifying a character for in the article about the episode. No free version can be created because any such free version would inevitably be a derivative of a copyrighted work.  All episodes of Star Trek: New Voyages are distributed freely, so use of this promotional poster causes no loss of income to the copyright holder." Thanks. BigDT 03:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry about not removing them from the article, but doing so gets pushed to the bottom of my priority list when there's an enormous backlog of images awaiting deletion, as there is in this case. But I will undelete them so you can add a rationale. —Angr 05:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I have added rationales to the ones that you have undeleted. BigDT 05:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I really appreciate your help. Everything should now have a correct rationale. BigDT 05:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Chloe Vevrier.jpg
Two questions: Why did you delete it (the summary is not exactly verbose, and if a barely-above thumbnail size picture does not qualify for the exemptions as stated on the corresponding DVD cover copyright tag, what then, ever does? Why even have the tag?)? Second, what the hell is watchlisting images worth, when people can just delete them (without telling me as the uploader, too!) and the watchlist feature doesn't notify me? MadMaxDog 08:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The DVD cover tag states that DVD covers can only be used to discuss the DVD in question. In particular, they cannot be used to illustrate the person appearing on the DVD cover. Since the image was being used in a way inconsistent with its tagging, it is deletable under WP:CSD. And fair use images can't be used to show what living people look like anyway. —Angr 09:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay. Thanks for the first clarification. Does the second mean that only public domain pictures, or pictures a Wikipedian took himself would qualify to illustrate a biographic article? MadMaxDog 09:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Public domain, or images licensed under a free license like the GFDL or one of the Creative Commons Licenses that permits commercial reuse and derivatives (CC-BY, CC-BY-SA). They could be taken by a Wikipedian, they could be found at Flickr (which allows you to search specifically for images with the correct CC license), or they could be provided by the celebrity or their agent with a statement licensing them under the GFDL or the right CC license. Many celebs realize Wikipedia's importance by now, and are happy to release images with licenses that Wikipedia can use in order to have a picture on their Wikipedia article. —Angr 11:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

image:kandagawa.jpg
greetings! i noticed this morning in my watch list that the talk page for an image I uploaded had been edited. when i got there, i found the archived "discussion" of your comment, along with the image having been deleted. now that its gone, i can't tell if the image page itself had been marked as a candidate for speedy or even regular deletion, however, i feel that this deletion was carried out too quickly and without enough input from wikipedians other than yourself. i'd love to hear a little more from you on why you think it should have been deleted without anyone else getting the chance to comment. – Fʀijølɛ ( tɐlk • ¢ ʘ ɴ†ʀi β s ) 19:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The image was tagged for speedy deletion the moment you uploaded it, because you marked it as a fair use image of a living person, which automatically adds the AutoReplaceable fair use people tag. In other words, it had been tagged for speedy deletion for 12 days; under normal circumstances it would have been deleted already after 7 days. It's unfortunate there was no real discussion of the matter, but Wikipedia policy is quite clear on the issue of images of living people: if a free image could be made, then fair-use images are not to be used. And since Wikipedia is not limited to the U.S., it really isn't unreasonable to expect a Wikipedian in Japan to be able to take a picture of Mr. Kandagawa, especially since Japanese Wikipedia has an article on him (which will give them an incentive to do so). If you still feel that a wider discussion is necessary, feel free to address the issue at deletion review. —Angr 19:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

About 51627bl0tx.jpg
You can delete that picture for some other user, apparently uploaded a newer image under a different name. I admit to having been careless as to save it as a random string of numbers and letters, so it is only proper it gets deleted. Thank you very much for pointing it out to me and keep up the good work. --Ishikawa Minoru 22:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Image: Shuhei Fujioka
The has been re-uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons under the CC-by-SA 2.5 license. If you still have problems with the usage, please let me know and wait at least 24 hours before deleting it so that I may remedy the problems you point out. -- Emana 19:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's great that it's been made available under a free license! No problems. —Angr 22:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Irish pronunciation
As someone who knows about both Irish and phonetics, is there any chance you could have a look at Family_name some time, as there is pronunciation info there that could do with conversion to IPA. Cheers. 86.134.215.99 23:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

"Consensus" Question
You deleted. After reading Image_talk:Fairchild_channel-f.gif, I'm genuinely curious about policy -- there's obviously a presumtion that a tagged image will be deleted, right? Because the talk page indicates no kind of consensus. Also, there's no real response to the proper claim of fair use - I take it, with your deletion, you think the 1-1 "vote," as it were, is tie-broken by you, and you endorse Chowbok's argument in favor of deletion?

But the person who uploaded the image made it pretty clear that "...it is a product that has not yet been released to the market, or is sold only in extremely limited quantities, or has been off the market for a long enough period of time that only limited quantities exist." Chowbok seems to agree, suggesting eBay (photos from eBay, of course, would be off limits), or "collectors shows" that may or may not have the item in question. Which would seem to make it hardly "pretty simple" to replace...

Also - what context was the image being used in? Did you find its context "unfair"? Could you have instead improved the context of the image?

Or is there not really consensus needed on these types of deletions? Jenolen   speak it!  12:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * As ever with deletion debates, there is no "voting". When only two people have participated in the discussion, the closing admin simply has to decide who has made the more compelling argument. In this case, Chowbok's argument that the device is not hard to find and that an image exists on Flickr that only needs a license change was more compelling than Maury's claim that a copyrighted image of the device is unreplaceable. —Angr 12:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * But "unreplaceability" wasn't Maury's claim. The WP:REFU criteria, ever helpfully, suggest that we would allow fair use of photos of items that have been off the market for a long enough period of time that only limited quantities exist.  Nowhere in that sentence does it talk about the replaceability of the image.  And that's not what Maury claimed.  This claim - that the item had been off the market for a long enough period of time, etc. - was, in fact, unchallenged on the talk page.  (If I can go to Target or Wal-Mart and buy something, limited quantities probably don't exist.  If I have to go to eBay and "collectors shows," I would say limited quantities probably exist.  Oh, and this particular console hasn't been made since the 1970's...)


 * Further, do you have any idea when it comes to the context the image was being used in? As I think we've learned from this debate, no Wikipedia fair use claim can really be removed from the key issue of the context of the useage.  Anything?  Or did you look at the page using the image?


 * Again, I'm just curious -- since there was no consensus for deletion, it just surprises me that stuff like this gets nuked. And while it doesn't surprise me that you'd find a Chowbok argument automatically more persuasive, I just don't see the actual facts in this image's case supporting it.  It's just annoying that this appears to be another example of a Wikipedian trying to meet our pretzel-like fair use standards, and arbitrarily falling short.   Jenolen    speak it!  13:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If Maury's claim was based on WP:REFU, then unreplaceability certainly was what was at issue. WP:REFU, however, is neither a policy nor a guideline, and is unlikely ever to become either, so any argument for keeping a fair use image that relies on WP:REFU is already pretty tenuous. The issue of context arises almost exclusively with replaceable fair-use images of people; images of devices really do only show what the device looks like. The image was used in an infobox at Fairchild Channel F and decoratively at 1976 in video gaming at History of video game consoles (second generation). No use where a free image of the device wouldn't be adequate.
 * Also, keep in mind that all aspects of Wikipedia's fair use policy revolve around the basic premise that fair use images are allowed only under limited, strictly defined circumstances. For this reason, it seems reasonable that when a fair use image is being considered for deletion, one errs on the side of deletion when the debate is underdiscussed or consensus is lacking. This is of course different from the policy in the case of free content such as articles, where "no consensus" defaults to "keep". Fair use images really require a compelling reason to be kept, and the discussion on the image's talk page revealed no such compelling reason. If you really think that wider discussion might have resulted in a different outcome, feel free to take it to deletion review. —Angr 13:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Image deletion
Hi, I am just curious why did you delete this file please Image_talk:A_Theoben_Gas_Ram.jpg (original ).  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 15:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Because it was a picture used under a "fair use" claim that could be replaced by a freely licensed image. —Angr 15:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:007Moore.jpg
How does this fail the criteria? It is sourced, it has rationale, it's promotional released from United Artists, and to my knowledge you can't find a "freely licensed image" of Roger Moore as James Bond. That's the point to the picture. It's not illustrating Roger Moore so much as it illustrates Roger Moore as James Bond. How can Wikipedia really call itself a good encyclopedia if it decides to delete images that are far more apt for articles. We allow and apparently reward (FA) images of Natalie Portman as Queen Amidala, but not Roger Moore as James Bond? It's placement on Moore's article may be questionable for our fair use purposes, but surely you can fix that without resorting to a warning of deletion? Right? Maybe I got it all wrong. Perhaps you can state your case to me again. K1Bond007 18:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If you look at Roger Moore, the image is in the infobox at the very top of the page, in other words, it's being used to show what Roger Moore looks like. As such, it is replaceable because a free image of him would do the same. If you want to argue the image is being used to show "Roger Moore as James Bond", it has to be used in a different way -- in the "James Bond" section of the article, for example, or in the article For Your Eyes Only (film). But not in the identificatory infobox for Roger Moore. Compare this with the article Natalie Portman, where the infobox contains not a fair-use image of her as Queen Amidala, but rather a freely licensed photo of her made at an awards ceremony. —Angr 18:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So, as I stated, you went to delete it instead of just moving it yourself to make it sure it still qualified? When I uploaded and put it on that page it was used correctly. I can't babysit it 24/7 ensuring that it always qualifies and I shouldn't have to - that is the point of a collaborative project. I'm grateful there are people out there like yourself watching images to make sure they meet the criteria, but this was a simple fix. Seeing as I moved the picture on Moore's article, I would appreciate it if you could remove the deletion notice on the image page unless you still have any objections to its use. K1Bond007 19:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I personally am opposed to the presence of any fair use images on Wikipedia, so I'm not going to work to make them qualify. If you want to keep the image, you can find a way to use it in a way that complies with policy. —Angr 20:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Everyone: remember to assume good faith.
 * K1Bond007: you are a sysop, so you should at least be aware of WP:IUP (policy), WP:FUC (policy) and WP:FAIR (guideline).
 * I checked the page history for Roger Moore and found the following:
 * The image in question was placed in the article on August 6, 2006 (diff) and moved to the top on August 18, 2006 (diff).
 * This edit shows that K1Bond007 should have been aware that the image was in the infobox on August 28, 2006 (diff). Fair use images are not permitted in infoboxes, this violates WP:FUC criterion 8 since images in the infobox can only serve a decorative purpose illustrating what the person looks or looked like, and if the person is still alive then the image in question fails our first fair use criteria. Images which are not in compliance can be deleted after 48 hours.
 * Yamla placed a hidden message in the article when this fair use image was removed from the article last time (diff on November 8, 2006). The very next day an anonymous editor tried to place a image in the infobox (diff). 12 days later the same image was back in the infobox (diff).
 * In my opinion the image in question is not suitable image for illustrating the actor in question in the character in question (fair use criterion 8). I have placed a disputed tag on the image page and written a comment on the talk page. I will try to find a replacement and then orphan the image in question.
 * Finding a free image to place in the infobox was not very hard, I found one in commons:Category:Roger Moore.

Sincerely, Oden 20:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Science Museum bernoulli exhibit.jpg
If you can find or create a replacement image, be my guest. I may or may not have time to do it myself. Rsduhamel 01:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Woah! Get down from there
Switch to decaf you nutjob. My edits are sincere. 58.178.141.147 13:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

img tagging
thanks for the warning. __earth (Talk) 14:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Laurentian Library
I just returned my blobbly little postcard image to the page on Renaissance architecture, with an explanation that this is the only presently available photo of this building.

Yes, there is an exterior longshot- but the exterior is of no significance whatsoever in the history of Renaissance architecture. There are also numerous pictures of illuminated and early printed books that the library holds- these are of no architectural importance either. There is also an engraving of one of the library desks. .... What the article needs is a really good interior view (probably three different views) of this uniquely significant interior. As you are located about 8000 miles closer than I am, perhaps you would like to pop down to Florence and get some good shots.

Happy New Year!

--Amandajm 15:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sure there are Wikipedians in Florence who could take a picture of it for you. You might ask some of the people in Category:Wikipedians in Italy. As it is, right now the image doesn't have any source or copyright information, and could be deleted in 48 hours for that reason alone. If you want to claim fair use on it (which will be difficult if you don't know at least what company produced the postcard or what year it's from), you'll also have to make a fair use rationale, which will have to assert not that no free image of the interior of the library is currently available, but rather than no free image of the interior of the library could be made. If one could be made, the picture is considered replaceable and will be deleted for that reason. I know it's frustrating, but part of Wikipedia's mission is to be an encyclopedia whose content can be freely reused, and having images of unknown provenance and date severely impedes that mission. —Angr 16:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Henry S. Taylor Image
Thanks for your help! Rmj12345 17:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)