User talk:Mahagaja/Archive 28

Mark Hucko AfD, take 2
Hello,

I nominated Mark Hucko for deletion again. Previous AfD was closed as "no consensus". In the meantime the sources for the article have not become any better and it is still unverifiable.

Your opinion will be appreciated at Articles for deletion/Mark Hucko (2nd nomination).

Thanks in advance. --Amir E. Aharoni 12:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:25656.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:25656.jpg. 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. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, 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. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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 non-free media 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. Videmus Omnia Talk  17:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Voßstraße
Hello to you and sorry to drop in like that; I don't know if you're still interested in this, but there seems to be another move-war on the way (with a little pecking at ProhibitOnions at WP:ANI). Cheers. Lectonar 20:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I just noticed that now. Nice the way User:Pmanderson labeled me a "nationalist" (along with unnamed others)... real class. He could have at least mentioned he was opening up a dispute. Now it's in the archives: here. Pro hib it O ni o ns  (T) 21:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If you're interested, he has moved the focus of his little crusade to Wilhelmstraße, and appears to have canvassed the usual gang. Pro hib it O ni o ns  (T) 13:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello :)
Hello :) Okay, notice i put the tag around the image

Thanks! --Giggity Giggity GOO! 02:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:McQueen Large.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:McQueen Large.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:40 year old virgin ver2.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:40 year old virgin ver2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Quake,gif, a question.
According to the log for

12:56, 1 August 2007 Angr (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Quake.gif" (In category Disputed non-free images as of 6 June 2007; not edited for 57 days)

Now since the category is gone. I wanted to ask you why you deleted such an image?. As far as I know. It qualifies as fair-use. Being to illustrate the product, not infringing on the copyright owners ability to sell the product. And also no free alternative is available. I would go to the time and trouble of scanning in my old copy of Quake. But I'd like your reasons for deleting this image.

Sincerely, Nateland 05:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No fair use rationale was given. All nonfree images must include a rationale explaining why our use of them is justifiable under a fair-use claim. —Angr 12:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:ENLANG
.. thanks for removing the "inactive" tag that the alleged Wikipedia contributor put on WP:ENLANG. If anyone ever tries to delete it, for sure User talk:A R King will help; many others also.. thanks... Ling.Nut 13:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Torment-caligula.jpg
This image is in the public domain - so can you please tell me why you tagged the photo for deletion. Is Swedish copyright law your profession in any way? --Odengatan 21:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Where is the evidence the image is in the public domain? The tag on the image says images "of an artistic or scientific significance" (and I trust a still from a movie has artistic significance!) that were created before January 1, 1944, are in the public domain, but the image description says the image was made in March 1944, putting it three months after the deadline. —Angr 21:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Evidence? You don't seem to understand the issue. Whe are talking about application of the Swedish copyright law, and whatever you think about the artistic value of the photo in question, it doesn't fall under that category, mainly because it wasn't created as an artistic work, but as a promotional image for the artistic work (the film). Odengatan 22:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Where's the evidence that promotional images are not considered artistic works under Swedish law? From working at Commons I know that Germany and Italy also have distinctions between artistic photographs and simple photographic works, but for those countries, only things like passport photos that have no creativity at all (any photographer would have shot exactly the same photo) count as simple photographic works with a short copyright duration. Anyway, the place to discuss this is at WP:PUI, not my talk page. —Angr 05:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

David Duchovny image
Hi, I saw you removed the image from the David Duchovny article. Do you know what was wrong with the image? I am not sure anymore but I thought it was a flickr image under an allowable license. Strangely enough I can't check it out since, for some reason, I can't see page/file history for the image. Garion96 (talk) 20:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I deleted it from Commons because it was a copyvio. The Flickr page of that image said "All rights reserved". —Angr 20:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Duh. Commons, now why didn't I thought of that. No wonder I couldn't see the deleted edits. Thanks, Garion96 (talk) 20:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually that picture had nothing to do with Flickr, that was a photo that I personally asked permission to use here on Wikipedia. Lighthead 23:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't use images by permission, though; we use images that are freely licensed. And since Flickr is where the image was published, it has everything to do with Flickr. —Angr 04:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Irish census
Yes, the new version is better. Of course it might still be a bit misleading for those who are not familiar with how people answer the question in the census, but that's a matter for the people putting together the census, not for us :-) Cheers and keep up the good work! JdeJ 20:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello
Please forgive me, as I am VERY new to wikipedia. What suitable pics am I allowed to use for the type of pages I am editing. Notably, news reporters?

Thank you Gareth Jordan
 * Hi, pictures of living people need to be freely licensed, which means they have to be either licensed as free content or in the public domain. There are a few ways of getting freely licensed images of living people. (1) You can go someplace where the person is going to be appearing and photograph them yourself. Then you can license the photograph freely by putting one of the tags listed at Image copyright tags on it. (2) You can go to http://www.flickr.com/search/advanced/, tick the boxes saying "Only search within Creative Commons-licensed photos", "Find content to use commercially", and "Find content to modify, adapt, or build upon", and then search for the name. (3) For politicians and some celebrities (but probably not BBC reporters) you can see if they've ever been photographed by a White House photographer or at a performance for the U.S. military, because photographs made by employees of the U.S. Federal Government are all in the public domain. (4) You can contact the person (or, more likely, their agent or publicity representative) and request an image to be licensed under the GFDL. Some samples of how to write the letter are at WP:ERP. In this case it's important to remember (1) Not to ask permission to use the image on Wikipedia--that's not free enough for us! They have to agree to the terms of the GFDL, and say so explicitly in their answer, and (2) they have to send their permission not only to you but also to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. If you have more questions, you can ask at WP:MCQ or Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use.... —Angr 16:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism at Finno-Ugric languages
An anonymous vandal (85.238.74.102) has been posting rubbish on the Finno-Ugric languages. He seems to be very aggressive. Please do something to stop him. Pasquale 16:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The same person is now using 195.38.112.38. He makes several contributions eevry day. Raving mad, I might add. Pasquale 18:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I may need assistance figuring out what to do
With Image:Akira Toriyama.jpg, it was originally marked promotional which I tagged as replaceable, he is still alive and not in hiding. The uploader changed the license to a creative commons one, but the source seems to indicate non-commercial, so that still needs to meet WP:NFCC to be used, right? Jay32183 21:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see what is wrong with Image:Toriyama.jpg. What does that signify, "irreplaceable"? How I properly replace it is what i'm wondering. Lord Sesshomaru 07:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policy does not allow nonfree images to show what living people look like, because such images could be replaced with freely licensed images. —Angr 14:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What license would you suggest for living people? Lord Sesshomaru 17:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The license depends on the photographer, who is the copyright holder. He gets to decide how the image is licensed. —Angr 18:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Images for deletion
If more reasons for speedy deletion apply, should I add all templates like you did for Image:Mickeymouseheadfeature.jpg? I don't want to spam the uploader with all these notifications. – Ilse@ 15:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I would, and do. If there are several reasons to speedy delete, and you only tag and notify the uploader of one, then if he fixes that one but doesn't fix the other reasons, you have to tag it and notify him again, and getting two notices about the same image a few days apart is even more spammy (IMHO) than getting two notices at once. (I usually open a new section on their talk page and add all the notification messages with one edit.) And if there are reasons to speedy, you should use the speedy tags rather than taking it to IFD, which is crowded enough without having speedyable images on it. —Angr 15:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Re:John McCarthy, or John McCarthy?
Grrr, I knew that one too, I must have been looking at the next page, and dabbed the wrong way. Good catch. Burzmali 19:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Shaun Casey
Please explain how the non-free image of Shaun Casey as photographed by Victor Skrebneski for an Estée Lauder ad campaign can be replaced by a new free image that "would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image." Thank you. Crypticfirefly 22:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The image is only being used to show what she looks like. The article has no discussion of this particular photograph, so a free one would do just as well. —Angr 06:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Image Deletion
Hi there. You recently deleted one of my image that, in my opinion, was serving great purpose in a featured article. After it was flagged for deletion, I appealed it. I placed, and I stated my rational on the image's talk page, to which no one replied. Oran e  (talk)  23:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as I could tell, there was no discussion of this particular image in the article. It was only being used in a vague way to support the statement that Dion used to make music closer to the "hard rock" end of the spectrum than what she currently does. I don't see how an image could really support that at all. —Angr 06:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, a reply like this would have served well to my appeal. Once someone challenges the nomination, you are not supposed to ignore it and delete because you disagree. That defeats the entire purpose of challenging nominations for deletions. Next time, please be more careful&mdash; and considerate. Oran e   (talk)  23:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Undeletion of Image:Fergie single fergalicious.jpg
Would you mind undeleting this image for use in the Fergalicious article? I'll of course make sure that it gets a fair use rationale, but I consider it a bit pointless to find and upload the cover once more (a casual glance at the latest history indicates at least three versions). --Pekaje 14:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Draconian1.jpg
Not sure why you found it necessary to remove this image from all articles, and slate it for deletion, but I would like to point out that the original author of this game (Mike Hughey) has apparently released this game (and others that he authored) to the public, so if the game itself was publicly released, I don't see any problem in use of a screenshot graphic image. --Thoric 21:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It depends a great deal on what "released it to the public" means. If he released it under a free license or into the public domain (i.e. relinquishing all authorship rights to it), then it can be used wherever you like, but it needs to be tagged correctly. If he still retains rights to it, especially the right to refuse commercial re-use or derivatives, then it is a non-free image for Wikipedia's purposes and is subject to WP:NFC. —Angr 21:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

belated birthday greetings
Thanks for the cake! I've mostly checked out of en.wikipedia because there's only so much fun I can have reverting vandalism. So, I just saw your message. My birthday was tiring, on the road all day to get to a wedding. But YOUR birthday was a blast, at the wedding in Aranda de Duero. Since I don't check in much my talk page, drop me a line at first.last@aya.yale.edu - there's a linguistic project I'd like to talk with you about, as well as just saying hi. Malangali 15:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Rephrased the question
I've Rephrased the question http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language#Sanskrit Let me know if you have understood it... :) BalanceRestored 06:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Anna Svidersky
Howdy! Back in May 2006 you participated in an AfD discussion on the Anna Svidersky article. There is currently a Request for comment on the talk page of the Svidersky article aimed at resolving a disagreement over the state of the article and the use of the Anna Svidersky title as a redirect to the Mourning Sickness article that was created during the 2nd Svidersky AfD. I hope you don't mind the interruption. Any additional or outside input would be greatly appreciated by all the editors on the Svidersky page. Thank you for your time. AgneCheese/Wine 14:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Voßstraße
How close is this to being correct: ? Stefán 17:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Not as close as . —Angr/talk 17:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Stefán 18:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Accent
Angr, I agree of course with your re-instating that link. But how long can we keep on without having it brought to discussion? Strothra has now erased it no less than three times.... · Michel 19:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

correct spelling
Who "taught" you how to spell? "Colonization" is wrong and I don't care what you say about "American" English because this is an encyclopaedia that is read by people all over the world. Do you really think that it's appropriate to use local dialects rather than the proper version of a language when you expect all sorts of people to read it? The correct way to spell it is "colonisation", so you better not vandalise any more articles by changing words that were already spelt correctly. Huey45 09:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Both versions are correct and acceptable at Wikipedia. If an article started out using American spelling, and it isn't an article on a distinctly British/Irish/Australian/etc. topic, then Wikipedia policy is to consistently use the spelling system the original author used. American English, of course, is written in American English. (And incidentally, the "-ization" spellings are correct even in British English, just look at anything published by Oxford University Press.) —Angr/talk 04:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not correct just because you say it is and it isn't correct just because someone from Wikipedia says so either. If the original author of an article used American English, the article should be corrected. You are using the unjustified view that American English is just as correct and valid as British English. Why do you think a different version was created? Americans were too stupid and lazy to write correctly so they started writing things in the way that they thought was more logical.Huey45 13:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

McCheyne
His name is pronounced, well, McCheyne, like McDonald, only with "cheyne" instead of "donald". Marnanel 13:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Botswana Defence Force
Before you say this things, you should check first That's a Brazilian soccer site; hardly likely to be the source of a Botswanan military logo Calapez 18:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * D'oh! Well, the Brazilian soccer site still isn't the copyright holder of the image, which is what needs to be provided as source info. —Angr/talk 18:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Wowereit.jpg
Hi, I noticed that you removed Image:Wowereit.jpg from Berlin, presumably because of the template stating that the source of the image is missing and it may be deleted. Now, I am sure I will never be able to understand the relationship between commons and the wikipedias but I think the image should be allowed. The summary of the image says "Author Olga Bandelowa". Now seems to imply that de:Benutzer:Frau Olga uploaded it to the German wikipedia and that it is here own work. Note Image:Kriegerdenkmal_Ober-Flörsheim.jpg is uploaded by the same user, is taken with the same type of camera (see the metadata) and has Olga Bandelowa listed as copyright holder. Shouldn't this be enough to have it kept and how would I go about ensuring that. Stefán 04:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If de:Benutzer:Frau Olga is still around, you could go to her user talk page and ask her, and if she is, she should go to Commons:Image:Wowereit.jpg and clarify that. —Angr/talk 04:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I have left a message at the talk page. However, it seems quite probable that the image may be deleted in the meantime as there seems to be months between contributions of this user. Is it reasonable for me to remove the deleteion template and add what I believe is the correct source information and a note that I have contacted the original uploader for verifcation? (Sorry for leaving the image on your talkpage in my last post, I was going to preview it but then I had to dash and I didn't want to lose what I had already written.) Stefán 05:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I went ahead and did what I suggested. If it is inappropriate, I will revert myself tomorrow morning (I guess that has already arrived where you are). Stefán 06:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * She edited Commons only four days ago, so she hasn't completely disappeared. I tried e-mailing her, but she hasn't specified an e-mail address either at Commons or at de-wiki. I left her a note at her Commons talk page too. —Angr/talk 15:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Iamge:BWS_Badge.jpg
Could you please re-instate the image. I can provide source information for it MHDIV  ɪŋglɪʃnɜː(r)d  ( Suggestion? | wanna chat? ) 11:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Languages of North America
Yes, more sources are needed for this article. It is a bit more than just a so-called "overview." That's all it needs, though. Realkyhick 17:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The article was written on the basis of existing Wikipedia articles, which can't be cited as references, and the articles linked from the external source cited. But if it makes you happy I'll google together some external links to use as references. —Angr 17:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent job. References go a long way in establishing Wikipedia's overall credibility, which as you know is a continuing battle. In your small way, you just made the battle much easier. Thanks. Realkyhick 18:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well actually, no I didn't. The article is not one jot more verifiable now than it was before, but whatever. —Angr 18:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)