User talk:Oden/Archive 3

Image:DSC 0714.JPG
I found a replacement image and asked the author to release it under GFDL. Image:Timschafer.jpg The picture is a bit silly, making it inferior to the publicity shot, but at least it's got the required license. Technitai 11:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In regard to Image:Timschafer.jpg, the copyright holder has to release the rights for the image for any use by anyone, including commercial and/or derivative use. Acceptable license include GFDL, cc-by-2.5 and cc-by-sa-2.5. You have to e-mail the copyright holder and ask for permission and then e-mail the response to Wikipedia. There is more information, including examples of requests, at Requesting copyright permission. --Oden 11:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Fala do Trono.jpg
Hi there; actually, there is no sense to consider the above image of restricted copyright, since it was painted in the XIX century. The Imperial Museum of Petropolis cannot hold the copyright of it - the author died more than 70 years ago. I do not know how to proceed anyway, since this "fair use" is nonsense. Thanks. --Tonyjeff 17:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I changed the license to PD art. --Oden 00:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, question from a newbie about fair use pictures
Hello, I saw your edit to Sonia Vergara. Fair use really trips me. I am working on ten projects I want to post in the next. Here are links to two: Image: Image:Sabor latino 3.jpg and Image:Voz voto 3.jpg. What would you think of them? The other question I have is: if I were to take a picture of their building with its logo would I and Wikipedia have free use to the picture. I have gone back and forth on those question. I'd like a media savvy opinion from you if you don't mind (and yes, I have read the articles on fair use). I just keep tripping up myself saying yes, no, yes, no etc. Thanks, Ronbo76 21:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW, they come directly from KUVS's website which is hosted by Univision which its parent company and are tagged as with license unknown. Ronbo76 21:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If you write the article text first I can give you advice on suitable images. --Oden 22:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't take it personally
But I know my way around with copyrights...roughly, I must say you have chosen one hell of a task for yourself... Anyway its Russian Christmas right now...So take no offense from me.--Kuban Cossack 00:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I will leave it up to you to use your good judgement and apply our image use policy and fair use policy on the images you have uploaded. --Oden 00:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Its not you, but after User:Lupo's merciless crusade against Soviet PD image licensing in the commons and in here, we are naturally defensive of any attacks, even minor ones...So I do apologise for the rough remarks thrown at you by me...--Kuban Cossack 00:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No offence taken, I've been called worse things (diff). --Oden 00:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Princess Diana Institute of Peace
Hi,

I kindly request you to have a look on the Princess Diana Institute of Peace whether the details I have submitted are meeting the criteria for citation. Thanks Rajsingam 11:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do not target
I understand that you have taken upon yourself a war on inappropriate fair use rationales, but you appear to have targeted images uploaded by some users more than others and to have received warnings over this in the past. Please extend good faith toward users such as user:Irpen and do not seek conflict by going through their contributions to tag their images. Given past questions with images he or she uploaded being fully answered, you should be turning your attention elsewhere. Paying undue attention to users with whom you have been in conflict can become a matter of stalking, and therefore a matter for Arbitration. If you are in conflict with user:Irpen, please consider mediation. If not, then extend that effort effort and try to communicate with the user before you apply a dispute tag on images he has uploaded. You can always ask people first and listen to what they say. Geogre 14:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The term "war" would suggest an antagonistic approach, I would rather prefer the term cleanup or maintenance. I would also object to the statement that I target specific users, when I find a questionable image (such as this diff or this page history) I review the upload logs of any editor which appears in the page history.


 * As regards User:Irpen, two images which I have tagged have subsequently been deleted, which would suggest that my edits were correct. I could of course contact an administrator instead of interacting with the user directly (like i did here). I am also not the only one to have issues with User:Irpen, see for instance Requests for comment/Irpen or the block log. --Oden 16:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

In other words, because someone had enough of an issue with the user as to lodge an RFC, you are justified in having "issues" with him? It seems to me that you are essentially admitting to targeting that user's image uploads because you dislike him. That is inappropriate behavior. Let it go and concentrate on issues, not people. If you cannot work out your "issues," then it's best to just look elsewhere: it's a very big project. Geogre 18:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No personal attacks says:
 * "Comment on content, not on the contributor."
 * I would suggest that you concentrate your efforts on examining the content in question (see Copyright problems/2007 January 6/Images, Image talk:Chornovil Vyacheslav.jpg and Image:Ruslana pub.jpg) and not the contributors. Your statements above also indicate a misunderstanding of cleanup and maintenance, if a contributor uploads unsuitable material then it is natural to examine other contributions from that contributor. If you want to examine my contributions feel free to do so. --Oden 21:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Trolling?
In re this; I don't think that the user is strictly trolling, in that my impression is that they think they're trying to help and aren't here just to argue. Nevertheless, Wikipedia talk:Fair use has become somewhat of a forum for pissing and moaning, or grandstanding, instead of a place to have reasonable conversations about the guideline or to help people who have questions about it. User:Jenolen is not, to my mind, even the worst offender in this regard. I would like to see the trend reversed, and so I broke my habit of ignoring the stuff to comment on the behaviour. That shouldn't be taken as my thinking that further engagement is likely to be useful. Jkelly 23:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I usually try to ignore comments which I regard to violate WP:CIVIL per WP:DENY, but in this instance User:Jenolen was simply talking nonsense. I am probably fanning the flames, but I didn't like the straw man argument that was presented by comparing physical and intellectual property. Denying or minimizing the existence of charitable contributions on the talk page for a encyclopedia written by users as a charitable contribution and funded and operated by a not-for-profit foundation really is taking things too far. --Oden 23:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

No personal attacks
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. --Oden 22:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Then consider giving slack and working with people instead of bureaucratizing everything down to the thinnest line. I, along with those against these current policies, have tried to work with you guys. You won't work with us. I think you need to reconsider your own approach before you criticize mine.
 * I mean, when you push another editor to his limit, as many of you have done with those against your policies, what do you expect? I find your way of leaving posts going out of their way to not deal with people and instead hiding behind policy to be much worse than any personal attacks. You've done this before to me, as well, and I didn't appreciate it then, either. You have a problem with something I'm criticizing, work with me, not around me. - Stick Fig 23:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Noted. --Oden 23:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Formatting
Hey there, quick note: did you know you can indent your speaks in talks with colons at the beginning of the paragraph? I noticed you usually deindent conversations, putting your talks against the margin instead of moving it below the message you are replying. That makes it very hard to follow conversations; if possible indent your talks. Thanks! -- ReyBrujo 00:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I know, but sometimes I restart the indent so that it does not end up in the right margin.

Cheers! :-) Oden 00:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Fridtjof Nansen (F310) 650x446.jpg
Unlike U.S. military vessels, free images of the vessels of other nations are difficult to find. That's why this one was used. &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 03:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a free image in the article, Image:KNM Fridtjof Nansen-2006-06-01-side.jpg. --Oden 03:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A search on Flickr turned up several images, so it should be possible to replace any fair use images used only to show what the ship looks like.--Oden 04:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And now you're tagging press-release images from Boeing which are intended to be used for sites like Wikipedia? It's not even fair use -- the terms are more liberal than that. One image you have tagged (Image:Air India 737-777-787 Fleet.jpg) is of an aircraft that doesn't exist yet, and thus no fair use version is available. In fact, several of you tagging types seem to like to tag future aircraft images and then wind up rescinding them for this reason. I don't get it. &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 04:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

See Fair use and Fair use criteria #1. --Oden 04:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That's nice. At the time, no suitable image for Fridtjof Nansen existed. It is also useful to be able to see different angles on vessels of this size. They are not Volkswagen Golfs where a single image can convey the entire story. And for the airliner images, there is no free version and will not be for years, therefore Criteria #1 as you have mentioned is invalid. The press release images are covered as both press articles and under fair use, the latter covering downstream use. &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 05:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Regarding your comments at User talk:Fresheneesz, the particular Air India image you tagged will not be replaceable merely once the 787 enters production, but only when an example specifically for Air India is produced. This covers the similar images used throughout WP:Air pages. &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 05:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Fair use does not cover downstream use. WP:FUC criterion #1 also says "Always use a more free alternative if one is available."
 * 2) Boeing has begun deliveries of 737s to Air India (see ), so in that regard the image is replaceable. --Oden 05:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Yes, but two of those models haven't been delivered yet. &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 05:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

If the image can be replaced then it does not meet the fair use criteria. Fair use criteria #3 says "The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible." The image in question depicts four aircraft models belonging to three families: the Boeing 737, 777 and 787. The 737 and 777 have been delivered to Air India (B737 and B777). So it would be sufficient with a fair use image which only depicts the Boeing 787, like this one. And when the 787 has been delivered then all promotional material will have to be deleted (when that happens you can tag it yourself with {{subst:rfu}}). --Oden 05:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That 777 in your free image is not the same variant in the Boeing rendering (there are substantial differences.) It is also the old vs. new livery. In any case, your purported link comes back with a 403. And right now, I would assert that a) the image should be of an Air India 787, not just any 787 and that b) as a pre-production aircraft, the only reliable images come from BCA. &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 05:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I saw that you updated the link. It is a BCA image and has the same terms. The only reason the 787 represented in your link looks different from the 787 in the photo I posted is because of revisions in the 787 design. You will not find a reasonable quality image of the 787 that is copyright-free. I went to the root of the site you suggested earlier and it had BCA images used under the same terms, as well as similar ones for future Airbus products. I still don't see why you can't accept that you cannot find free versions of some images. &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 05:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:FUC criterion #1: "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information ." It does not have to be identical information. Also it does not require that a replacement be procured, merely that one could be found ("could be created"). Fair use criteria #3 says "The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible ." The Boeing 787 is fine (for now) but the B737 and B777 do not meet our fair use criteria, since a free equivalent could be created. --Oden 05:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Jan Björklund
With regard to the image in Jan Björklund, sometimes the software that resizes the image (ImageMagick) has some kind of bug and does not show the resized image. Changing the parameters slightly, like reducing the size by 1 pixel, can solve this (diff). After a while it might be possible to resize the image to the original size. I also removed the height parameter, since the width is sufficient. The proportions of the image will adjust automagically. --Oden 01:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * OOoo. Nifty. Thank you. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 01:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to keep you updated: I have also found out that it is possible to purge the cache if the thumbnail does not load correctly. (see Purge). Cheers! --Oden 01:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Airbus fair-use pic
Hi! Please see my reply here - Adrian Pingstone 18:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use image crusade
You said: "I have been reported to WP:AN/I for removing fair use images from infoboxes (I have been removing them from the article completely after a serial fair use uploader). Check out WP:ANI.  There is also an editor who questions why fair use images are not permitted in the infobox of a living persons biography and an administrator question whether repeatedly inserting such images constitutes vandalism."


 * I have piped up on the noticeboard, thanks for bringing my attention to it. I normally only skim ANI and would probably have missed the mention.  I'm sure you are aware that enforcing WP:FU is one of the least likely ways on the Wikipedia to make friends.  It looks to me like you aren't doing anything wrong, though, and Jimbo Wales has previously spoken up in support of other people (at least one of whom suffered an RfC) doing the same thing.  That is, enforcing WP:FU.  Thanks!  --Yamla 01:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your support! --Oden 06:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Karen McDougal.jpg
Can you help me out a little bit here by addressing this: Tagger: Please do not forget to explain specific reasons why you consider the image to be replaceable in the context of the specific article to which the Fair Use is claimed. The tag added without an explanation or with a frivolous explanation can be deleted. I don't mind the picture getting deleted, but I just want to understand how it fails FUC #1 or how it is replacable when there are no free images of her outthere? Fool156 02:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:FUC#1 says that as long as the subject is still alive, a free image could be created. See also WP:FU#8. --Oden 02:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

So what this means is that if I take a picture of a living subject and release it through wikicommon, it would have worked as a free image? But what if the living subject grant wikipedia use of the fair use image? Would that have worked? Fool156 02:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Free images are those which have licenses which allow for commercial and/or derivative use. The license has to allow anyone, and not just Wikipedia, to use the image. See Requesting copyright permission. --Oden 02:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think I understand this concept of fair use and license better. Thanks! At this juncture, I think I'll let this pic go and maybe work with her website to get a license for a pic in the future as this approval thing sounds like a long term project. Fool156 03:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

RFU images
Could you point me to the discussion about all the images that you're removing from the Playmate articles? Thanks, Dismas|(talk) 09:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:IUP, WP:FUC and Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive176. --Oden 09:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:BobMcEwenforCongress.jpg
Image:BobMcEwenforCongress.jpg, which you deleted as WP:CSD I7, was restored.(log). I have tagged it as {{subst:rfu}}. Just letting you know. --Oden 04:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've redeleted it (under CSD I7 and G4). Proto ::  ►  09:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use criteria
I think that you've misinterpreted clause 9 ("Fair use images may be used only in the article namespace..."). Infioboxes are in articles, and so in the article namespace. They mustn't be used in templates, which are then in turn added to articles. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 18:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair use criteria # 8:
 * "The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose."
 * A image in the infobox only serves a decorative purpose. Image:Kosmalla.jpg also fails fair use criteria # 1.--Oden 19:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

What is the basis of your claim that it serves only a decorative purpose? --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 19:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It cannot illustrate specific points of text because it is inside of a infobox. It cannot be used for identification since it is replaceable in that context. The only reason left is a decorative purpose. --Oden 19:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, just to let you know that this matter has been listed by Mel Etitis at WP:ANI in case you wish to comment there. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 19:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know -- if nothing else, I hope you could acknowledge that the issue of whether or not an image in an infobox serves a useful purpose or a merely decorative one is controversial, and should be discussed on talk pages. And, further, do not characterize edits that you disagree with as vandalism as you did here.  Mango juice talk 20:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding the use of fair use images in infoboxes, I can agree that the issue is controversial. However, WP:FUC criterion # 1 is specific when it comes to replaceability, so the image would be deleted regardless of where it was positioned in the article.


 * As regards the insertion of inappropriate images, I disagree. I would characterize editors who repeatedly insert images which they know to be inappropriate as vandals. On example is the article on Jennifer Morrison where fair use images have been removed from the infobox five times since December 6, 2006 (diff 1 diff 2 diff 3 diff 4 diff 5).


 * WP:VANDALISM says: "Intentionally making non-constructive edits to Wikipedia will result in a block or permanent ban." Removing a message which says and adding a fair use image is in my opinion a non-constructive edit. I can admit though that I should be more forgiving on first-time offenders (I have a zero-tolerance policy on vandalism). --Oden 00:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The point is, you may consider it a non-constructive edit, but you should assume good faith, and view that edit as an attempted improvement. From someone else's perspective, you're removing a totally legitimate image, which weakens the article.  And your message about "only freely-licensed images are permitted here" is not something that has consensus necessarily, so removing it is appropriate if others disagree with it.  The proper way to read that quotation is to interpret that edits which are meant to be non-constructive are vandalism, as opposed to intentionally-made edits that someone may view as non-constructive.  Mango juice talk 01:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, the fact that only freely-licensed images are permitted to depict living people has the force of official Wikipedia policy (WP:FU, policy #1 and counterexample #8) and has specifically been upheld in at least one RfC and by explicit comment from Jimbo Wales and (although I'm not sure on this point) by the Wikipedia Foundation. Note that in Mr. Wales's case, this is a compromise from his preferred position which is a much stronger stance against fair-use image use.  --Yamla 01:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If the image is merely a depiction, then I agree, consensus backs that pretty well. However, it's quite reasonable to identify an actor or actress with an image of them in a famous role, because that does more than identify the subject, it also illustrates something they're famous for.  Although this would be better illustrated with a caption, this kind of thing is pretty routine.  Just because an image appears in an infobox does not mean it is only shown for purposes of identification of the person.  Therefore, simply insisting that "only freely-licensed images are permitted here" does not have undisputable consensus.  Mango juice talk 20:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I will assume good faith. However, the fair use criteria at present has strong community support. If the person is still alive, then a fair use image which only serves to illustrate what that person looks like is generally not permitted regardless of where it is placed in the article. I will try to stress this point in the future. --Oden 01:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "It cannot illustrate specific points of text because it is inside of a infobox. It cannot be used for identification since it is replaceable in that context. The only reason left is a decorative purpose." The first is a non sequitur.  So is the second (only more so).  The third is thus unsupported.
 * Illustrations are often not exactly next to the text that they illustrate; given the shortness of most of these articles (certainly the ones that I saw), the infobox is always on the same screen as the descriptive text.
 * The property of being replaceable is completely unconnected to the use of the image.
 * Thus you have offered no grounds to believe that the image is merely decorative. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 09:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:FUC criterion #1 addresses the issue of replaceability. A fair use image has to meet all the fair use criteria. Any image which fails the fair use criteria can be speedily deleted after 48 hours per WP:CSD I7 (etiquette is to wait 7 days).
 * The contents of the infobox serves to represent the entire article, and cannot be used to illustrate any specific part of the article. You wouldn't put a picture of a Saturn rocket or the mission badge for Apollo 11 in the infobox in Neil Armstrong? Or a picture of Homer Simpson in the infobox in Dan Castellaneta?
 * The reference to the image being decorative refers to the fact that it fails WP:FUC criterion #8. A simpler way to put it is that the image fails WP:FUC criterion #1 and WP:FU#8, since the subject is still alive. --Oden 09:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I know about replaceability (though I think it's usually a peculiar claim; few fair-use images are in fact replaceable, even though it's remotely possible that they be replaced); the point is that replaceability is unconnected to how an image is used. The fact that an image is replaceable can't mean that it isn't used for identification.  I don't really see why you think that it does.
 * With regard to etiquette, one of my main concerns was that you were simply removing images with a vague reference to WP:FUC, with no waiting period at all.
 * The contents of the infobox are general, but in an article about a person, the generality concerns that person. An image of that person is therefore pretty representative, ifentificatory, and illustrative.  It you'd deleted a fair-use image of her handbag, her car, or her pekinese, I'd have understood.
 * I think that the term "decorative" should be dropped, therefore, as it's clearly being used in a way that bears no relation to its meaning. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 10:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) If the image depicts a unrepeatable event it is not replaceable. An image that is only used for identification (to show what the subject looks like) is with a few exceptions always considered replaceable if the subject is a living person. That is the connection.
 * 2) The etiquette refers to the deletion of images, articles can be edited at any time. If removing an image is wrong it will be returned.
 * 3) I cannot delete anything, since I am not a sysop. I can tag an image, but the processing admin will make an independent assessment. However, when dealing with a contributor who has uploaded multiple fair use images which all fail the fair use criteria it is fairly obvious what the outcome will be. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, the most efficient method of dealing with an editor who has uploaded 50 or 100 fair use images in a short period of time is in my opinion to remove them from the articles immediately.
 * 4) Suggestions on changes in policy should be discussed on the appropriate policy talk page. --Oden 10:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's a thought -- what if we change the infobox template to allow for captions, and start adding them so that articles don't simply splash a picture up every time they use an infobox? This could skirt your concern in a lot of cases, and has the nice benefit that it would actually improve the encyclopedia. Mango juice talk 20:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The primary use of an image in an infobox is for identification. Fair use images are allowed in infoboxes if they cannot be replaced, while decorative use is not permitted (fair use criterion #1 and 8 and counterexample #8). However, more often than not the subject of the article is a living person or the article is on a topic where a replacement could be obtained under a free license (window blinds for instance or the Mission District, see this e-mail).


 * The main reason why images available under a non-free license should be replaced has to do with downstream use. More often than not this means removing the image in question without an immediate replacement, which is less than satisfactory as regards article quality. On the other hand the removal of an image without replacing it could increase the incentive for finding a replacement under a free license.


 * It is also worth remembering that the primary purpose of Wikipedia is to produce high-quality article text, and not to find and upload a bunch of pretty pictures with little regard to licensing. It is possible that some versions of Wikipedia will be reproduced with no images in order to save space (one image can take up as much space as an entire article, see also WP:ASR, 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection and Children's Machine). --Oden 18:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Sprouse Bros.png
Please inform me how a free image that illustrates a TV show can be found? The only way to get a picture from one is a screenshot making the picture fairuse. So how can a free image be found?? --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The image is at present being used to identify what the subjects of the article Dylan and Cole Sprouse look like, and in that context it is replaceable since the subjects are still alive (fair use criterion #1). If the image was moved to a section of the article which describes the event depicted it might be considered differently. --Oden 01:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The image is also used in That's So Suite Life of Hannah Montana. The image that was used before this one was also a fairuse image. If you can provide a free image for them I'd be glad to see it in the article. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Our fair use policy only requires that a free image could be created, not that it must exist in order to delete a fair use image (fair use criterion #1). --Oden 01:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * yes, but a picture was requested as there has been controversy amongst fans about the length of their hair. I believe that qualifies use of a fairuse image doesn't it? --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of pictures elsewhere on the internet (such as IMDb). If you want to request copyright permission see Requesting copyright permission. --Oden 02:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have just sent a request for a free image as you suggested. Hopefully we can get one and this will solve the problem :) --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 03:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lenna.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Lenna.png. The image description 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.

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.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 02:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed. --Oden 02:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Standard test images
Hello - This probably won't affect your attitude towards the Standard test image article, but at least you will know where I am coming from.

I had a project involving image processing and I wanted to compare my results with the results in the literature. I spent hours digging up standard test images on which to run my algorithms, and then comparing the results to the literature. Not copies of copies of portions of standard test images, but the images themselves. I then wrote the Wikipedia article and included the images for the benefit of any one else who might be faced with the same problem.

About a year ago, the article was threatened with destruction because I was using a generic fair use template on the images. I then had to spend a lot of time learning about how to generate a new "standard image" tag from scratch, which I then applied to the images. Now you come along and want to delete the tag, delete the images, while recommending that a "free version" be substituted instead. Now I have to study up and become a Wikipedia lawyer all over again. Do you understand why this drives me up a wall?

I will try to be less territorial about my contribution here, if you will focus more on what constitutes a good "Standard test image" article, and less on a blanket removal of images that on first glance look suspicious. PAR 17:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately it does not matter which tag is used, the fair use criteria are the same for all fair use images. That this article has been allowed to exist like this for so long is unfortunate, since it gives the impression that the use of fair use images in this manner is acceptable. --Oden 17:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyright paranoia
I agree with your statement, and caution is of course needed, but it is too often these days that images are marked for deletion when they do indeed meet fair use guidelines. I do not refer to just the image I am defending currently. A perfectly good fair use image should not be replaced for a lower quality one. Doing so as often as it is being done now only serves to lower the quality of Wikipedia itself. --Twigge 07:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There is also the issue of copyright versus free image (a free image trumps a copyrighted image, even if the quality of the free image is lower). Sometimes removing a copyrighted image makes way for a free image, even if one does not exist at the time. As a final note, it is entirely possible that some versions of this encyclopedia will be reproduced without any images at all. The quality of the article text is really our most important contribution. --Oden 07:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, so
I probably shouldn't have let my personal life get in the way, but i was already pretty angry last night seeing pretty much half of what i've done here for the past 25 months up for deletion didn't help, but either way i didn't attack you personally, so sorry, anyway... goodbye. -- SmthManly  / ManlyTalk  / ManlyContribs  14:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia
Hi, Oden. Twice, now, you have removed " Some Wikipedia users, or Wikipedians, maintain (non-comprehensive) lists of such uses. " from Wikipedia. You described the first removal as "removing self-reference". I think that this whole article Wikipedia is self-reference, but on-topic. Is it not appropriate to refer in another encyclopedia to Wikipedia users and the lists of references to Wikipedia that they maintain? If it is appropriate there, why not in Wikipedia itself, specifically in Wikipedia? Thanks! -- Jeff G. 15:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course the article concerns this encyclopedia, so in a manner of speaking it is a self-reference. However, I removed a statement which referred to a particular page on Wikipedia, and used that page as reference. Avoid self-references says:
 * "To ease reusability, never allow the text of an article to assume that the reader is viewing it at Wikipedia, and try to avoid even assuming that the reader is viewing the article at a website."
 * The Wikipedia article on Wikipedia should not use Wikipedia as a primary source. One of the requirements for notability is that the subject of the article has been cited in multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other. The guideline on notability can also serve as arough idea of what should be included in an article. --Oden 15:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I see, so now you have changed your objection to one of notability. I don't think notability applies for a single sentence, instead I think it only applies for an entire article.  I propose new text to be appended to the first paragraph of Wikipedia, as follows: " Wikipedia maintains a (non-comprehensive) list of such uses on its page Wikipedia as a source." -- Jeff G. 16:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I use the notability guideline as a rough indication of what warrants inclusion, and the statemenet in question is in my opinion trivial and lacks relevance without the supporting link. It also looks like self-promotion rather than encyclopedical content. --Oden 00:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Lena images
Thanks for the comments on my talk page about some Lena images. Is your belief that the image is only appropriate on the Lenna page and not on other pages? I agree it is not necessary on lossy data compression, but its use as a de-facto standard for image processing techniques does make it nice to use on those kinds of pages. - grubber 17:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have proposed that the article on Lenna be merged into Standard test image. --Oden 22:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That merger is totally inappropriate - and it looks like comments from contributors on Talk:Standard test image back that up 100% - a similar result is happening on the Template deletion request you put in for the standard test image template. Oden - I'm curious as to why you seem to have taken to diving in to all of these image processing articles.  It's pretty clear from your comments and actions that you don't understand the nature of test images or of the image processing world.  I've been working in computer graphics for 35+ years and these images are very familiar to me.  I'd be very happy to answer any questions you have about them - but it would be much more productive for everyone if you talked first and reverted/fired off TfD's/etc only after we've had a chance to carefully explain the things you so clearly don't understand.  These test images are reproduced in literally thousands of articles and books on the subject of image processing - and they are rarely if ever credited.  In many cases (such as the Lenna image), we know that the photo has always been a copyright violation.  It's pretty clear that copyright belongs to some original photographer - who in most cases is lost to the sands of time.  Nobody knows where they came from.  But their status as 'fair use' images is clear - that's why so many books and professional journals publish them.  The discussion is always about the images - because their value as art or as test images is not being abused, we aren't subtracting commercial value - and because only that PRECISE image will do the job, there is 100% certainty that no free alternative (or alternative of any kind) could ever be possible.  Heck, even another scan of the original photo at HIGHER resolution would be utterly useless.  Test images are a truly special case - quite utterly different from any other use of images in Wikipedia.  SteveBaker 05:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's fair use criteria does not make any exceptions for this case. Images are divided into two categories: free images and fair use images. It's that simple. --Oden 05:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Dave keuning.jpg
Is there a CC 2.5 template for self-taken images, similar to gdfl-self? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 03:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no need, but the source needs to be provided. If the copyright holder is identical with the uploader then this has to be stated, since it is not presumed. Also, if the image is available on a website this should also be stated in order for the license to be verified.


 * With regard to the image in question, the upload log says "CC Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5". This license is not a free license, so the image will most likely be speedily deleted unless the copyright issue can be resolved. --Oden 03:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This is the license I use for all of my photos (this photo WAS taken by me) and it allows for use as-is in non-commercial works (like Wikipedia) as long as it's attributed. I know for a fact that it was attributed, since I am the image creator, I uploaded it, and I most certainly attributed myself in the description. The license I use on my photos is an extended version of CC Attribution 2.5 and IS a free license. I don't currently have all of my photos uploaded to a website because there are so many, and I certainly don't have the time to sort through and upload the ones that I would ever plan to use or want anyone to even see. I uploaded this photo as a free-use replacement to a fair use image that was not in line with the new WP fair use guidelines. Next time you go off the hinge with a newly uploaded CC-licensed image, bother to look into what the precise license MEANS before you try to get it deleted. That really should go for whatever admin went along with it and blindly deleted this image. It's overzealous deletionists like you who alienate an otherwise well-meaning community of contributors who are usually more than happy to share their work freely and openly as I have tried to do. LaMenta3 08:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia only allows image under a license which permits commercial and/or derivative use. cc-nc or cc-nd is not a compatible license. If you want to upload your own work under a compatible license I would recommend GFDL or cc-by-sa-2.5. My own photos (commons:User:Oden) are public domain, but I happen to be a big fan of free content (it's the cat's pajamas!). --Oden 08:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:NYC subway riders with their newspapers.jpg
I have removed the permission template from Image:NYC subway riders with their newspapers.jpg becuase that template have not been valid since May 19, 2005. Any image uploaded after that date that uses the permission template will be deleted. -- Donald Albury 03:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Noted. --Oden 03:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You have violated the 3-revert rule on Standard test image page
No formal report this time. Next time I file a formal report. PAR 03:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3RR does not apply to removing vandalism. --Oden 03:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not true, as contentious vandalism reverts may still fall under 3RR, and this issue is not obvious. Please stop the revert war and take the dispute to the Talk pages. - grubber 03:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked you for 24 hours because you are edit warring on standard test image. You have initiated a TFD and IFD to resolve this issue and edit warring is wholly unnecessary. I don't see any reason to think PAR or Dicklyon is editing in bad faith. Do you? Editting in good faith, is by definition, not vandalism.

Edit warring is never the solution. Take a break and come back in 24 hours. Let TFD and IFD resolve the issue at hand in a civil manner. Cburnett 03:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not true for good-faith edits. However, per Copyright problems blatant copyright infringements should be reverted to a clean revision. Images which fail the fair use criteria can be considered copyright infringements. Apparent bad-faith reinsertion of copyrighted material can therefore be considered vandalism. --Oden 03:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You need to read WP:3RR more closely. Proven copyright violations....  No copyright owner has complained and an image under fair use, by definition, is not a copyright infringement nor a copyright violation.  The fair use criteria are under discussion under the IFD so it is obviously not blatant.  Just because you think the FUC isn't met doesn't mean you are right and are free to consider others' edits as bad faith. Cburnett 04:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * For those of you just joining us, the TFD referred to above is at Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 12 and the IFD referred to above is at Images and media for deletion/2007 January 14. I think both should be kept.  -- Jeff G. 05:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, an image which fails the fair use test is, by definition, a copyright infringement. See the articles on copyright and fair use. Either an image falls under the doctrine of fair use or it does not. There is not gray zone. This is not an edit war. See also our policy on photo montages. --Oden 04:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This is why you need to take a short break. You think it fails and there are clearly editors that disagree with you so it is not a blatant issue  Your answer is to revert.  This is not how things should be solved.  I myself am on the fence about it being a montage.  Things are clearly not blatant nor obvious to anyone but you and you're also the one edit warring. Cburnett 04:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I rewrote the article on Lenna to comply with WP:FU (diff) and my changes were partially reverted (diff). I reverted back (diff) because such a long passage which can be rewritten does not meet our guideline. Maybe I should also avoid doing that in the future? --Oden 04:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The same editor who reintroduced the copyrighted material in Lenna (diff) also restored the copyrighted material in Standard test image (diff).--Oden 04:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This is what you don't understand, reverting doesn't solve content disputes. Take it to the talk page and continue content disputes down the channels wikipedia has created.  Sorry you don't see this.  I have zero problems with you trying to improve wikipedia.  None.  And I hope this block doesn't discourage you, but reverting isn't the answer in content disputs as it just disrupts things.


 * Also note that your issue two posts above is a guideline. Disrupting wikipedia and edit warring is against policy. Cburnett 05:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use criteria, which is policy, says:
 * "If unfree material can be transformed into free material, it should be done instead of using a "fair use" defense. For example, the information in a newspaper article can easily be used as a basis of an original article and then cited as a reference. [..]  Always use a more free alternative if one is available." (Criterion #1)

I usually reference Fair use because many editors I encounter, including sysops, seem to have difficulties understanding Fair use criteria. --Oden 05:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Free Use Images
I was unaware until just a few minutes ago that the license under which I release my images by default is incompatible with WP policy. However, instead of flagging it for speedy deletion immediately, you could have contacted me regarding the license, as I am the image creator and have the power to change such things. (If I'd decided to be an ass and say no, I won't change the license, then I could see flagging for deletion as acceptable.) Further, the admin that handled the speedy deletion of the image did not allow the requisite 48 hours for any issues such as these to be rectified. I have contacted them regarding this issue as well. I feel that both of you failed to follow WP:AGF in some degree. Please show more discretion in the future. LaMenta3 08:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

CSD I7
I have rm. Your db-i7 tagging of a bunch of images as the CSD criteria (I7) was not applicable. Please wait for the IFD discussion to run its course and only apply CSD tags when You are sure that they are correct. Thanks, feydey 12:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

unblock
See diff 1 diff 2. --Oden 04:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no conflict of interest here. I happen to disagree with Oden's position but that is not impairing my ability to recognize his edit warring.  If it was PAR or Dicklyon edit warring I'd block them too but they aren't.  Oden assumes bad faith on their part (see above) and is assuming bad faith/conflict of interest on my part. Cburnett 04:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I will also note that the first diff he links above is a neutral removal to make the table correct syntactically.  I neither removed nor added the content in dispute.  Removing an extra cell does not count as a conflict of interest. Cburnett 04:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

However our policy on photo montages is clear: this type of material should not be used in this manner. Removing inappropriate content used in violation of policy on the use of copyrighted material is excluded from (WP:3RR). --Oden 04:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Your request for unblocking is that I have a conflict of interest. Fixing a syntactical error does not make a conflict of interest. Are you changing your reason from conflict of interest? Cburnett 04:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you did not remove the material which apparently violates policy, instead you improved it and blocked me for removing it. I could of course chalk it up to ignorance of our policies rather than malice (Hanlon's razor). I removed it from my reason to place more emphasis on the copyright violation. --Oden 04:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Now that you've changed your reason, I will point out to any other admin reviewing my block that the fair use images are in dispute. If they were such blatant policy violations then IFD wouldn't be necessary, would they?  And, in my judgment, the only violated issue here is Oden's edit warring not image use policy.  Oden has claimed montage in several locations and that is disputed.  What makes his interpretation right?  IFD is supposed to settle the differences not his edit warring.  Cburnett 04:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I listed them at WP:IFD in order to allow for a thorough examination. I could also have tagged them with db-i7. --Oden 04:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I am also a table fiend (see my talk page and my contributions). I didn't remove the images because it was being solved by the IFD.  I never added the images nor have I ever removed them; nor will I touch them until the IFD is done.  The why is the lesson you need to learn. Cburnett 04:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

So you are teaching me a lesson? Where is that listed in Blocking policy? --Oden 04:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Edit warring disrupts wikipedia. That is what you need to learn and you clearly haven't yet.  Cburnett 04:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not an edit war (WP:3RR). --Oden 04:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What you link says "proven". If other others disagree with your interpretation and no author of said images has complained then I hardly consider this proven.  I am tired of repeating myself and this will be my last post if I have to keep repeating myself regarding this. Cburnett 05:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your interpretation. -- Jeff G. 06:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your view, as well. This is not clear-cut. - grubber 17:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can have an opinion, one should weigh the arguments for and against. I listed these images as a courtesy at WP:IFD in order to allow the article to be improved, I could simply have tagged them as db-i7. I also made suggestions on improvement on the talk page, including a suggested merge and I rewrote large sections on the article which I suggested to be merged. That does not sound like a series of bad-faith edits, does it? --Oden 05:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:AN/I - The edits I made to the article in question and for which I was blocked are similar to a previous incident: Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive176. --Oden 05:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This is in response to your previous comment made before I started writing this.


 * I haven't confused anything and fully understand your argument. In a nutshell, you're saying that your opinion supersedes the IFD and TFD.  To which you will note that the only support for deleting the template or the images, at this time, is yourself.  Such strong opposition would indicate to me that your interpretation is wrong, ergo you were not removing "copyright violations" but enforcing your opinion despite being the minority in both the IFD & TFD.  Cburnett 05:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Cburnett: there is no simple vandalism here (IMHO, no vandalism at all, the copyright status of the standard images are unclear and should be discussed on IfD but a huge number of quite responsible organizations use them as PD). Vague relation with the FU policy is not a justification of violation of the WP:3RR and disruption. I had disagreements with Oden before, so if somebody true neutral will review the matter it would help. I would unblock Oden if he would promise not to edit war over this image Alex Bakharev 05:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Heck, I'd unblock him myself (or support an unblock) if he seemed to understand that by removing the images he's asserting his opinion over the IFD he started which clearly contradicts his interpretation of FUC. I'm just not seeing that he understands this. Cburnett 05:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I will not edit the article Standard test image until 03:50, 15 January 2007. Is that acceptable? --Oden 06:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That's 3 hours ago. Just not editing is insufficient for me: let the IFD settle the issue. Cburnett 06:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I meant 24 hours from 03:50, 15 January 2007. --Oden 06:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Cburnett. I have already unblocked Oden. Please obey the policies of Wikipedia including WP:3RR. Alex Bakharev 06:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I should make it clear that I intend to contribute to talk:Standard test image unless that is also prohibited. --Oden 06:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You are very welcome to contribute to the talk pages. Alex Bakharev 06:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Very well. No hard feelings on my end toward anyone. Cburnett 07:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I have started a new thread on this subject at Administrators%27_noticeboard. --Oden 07:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for the barnstar! Why are you leaving? &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  18:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Infobox removal and comment
Per a request on WP:AN/I I've removed your infobox above. User:Cburnett considers it a personal attack and while I'm not sure I see it as such, it is not really helping the situation much and I am simply asking that you please don't add it back; at this point it is probably best just to let the whole thing go. On an unrelated note (or maybe it is related), I hope that after you have some time away you will reconsider your retirement. I don't think we've ever crossed paths here, but from reviewing your edit history you do the (what I consider to be) horrible, tedious, image tagging gruntwork that not alot of editors are willing to do and Wikipedia is better for your contributions.--Isotope23 21:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Stalking of User:Cburnett
You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your |talk page by adding the text. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org. I have to block you per this. Me and many other people (see Administrators%27_noticeboard) asked you many time not to use the copyright as a weapon of a personal conflict. Cburnett blocked you for the 3RR and then you started to "examine his upload logs". Sorry but I have to upheld the WP:STALK policy Alex Bakharev 21:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Interaction with other users
Planting npa templates on experienced users, or referring such users to WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:AGF--policies that they're highly likely, or in the case of admins certain, to be already familiar with--never cooled the recipient down yet. I see you got a bull's eye, but not in a good way, by posting all three policies and a template on CBurnett here. Please don't interact with other users in such a fashion. Speak in a human voice to established users. The templates are intended for anonymous vandals. And avoid aggravating users by informing them of our best-known policies. P. S. The so-called Personal Attack you refer to looks extremely harmless to me. P.P.S. Yes, I do see that you announce your imminent departure, but that doesn't malke me think this advice redundant. Most people who make such announcements, in my experience, tend to retract them pretty soon. Bishonen | talk 21:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

Lena images
Thanks for the comments on my talk page about some Lena images. Is your belief that the image is only appropriate on the Lenna page and not on other pages? I agree it is not necessary on lossy data compression, but its use as a de-facto standard for image processing techniques does make it nice to use on those kinds of pages. - grubber 17:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have proposed that the article on Lenna be merged into Standard test image. --Oden 22:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That merger is totally inappropriate - and it looks like comments from contributors on Talk:Standard test image back that up 100% - a similar result is happening on the Template deletion request you put in for the standard test image template. Oden - I'm curious as to why you seem to have taken to diving in to all of these image processing articles.  It's pretty clear from your comments and actions that you don't understand the nature of test images or of the image processing world.  I've been working in computer graphics for 35+ years and these images are very familiar to me.  I'd be very happy to answer any questions you have about them - but it would be much more productive for everyone if you talked first and reverted/fired off TfD's/etc only after we've had a chance to carefully explain the things you so clearly don't understand.  These test images are reproduced in literally thousands of articles and books on the subject of image processing - and they are rarely if ever credited.  In many cases (such as the Lenna image), we know that the photo has always been a copyright violation.  It's pretty clear that copyright belongs to some original photographer - who in most cases is lost to the sands of time.  Nobody knows where they came from.  But their status as 'fair use' images is clear - that's why so many books and professional journals publish them.  The discussion is always about the images - because their value as art or as test images is not being abused, we aren't subtracting commercial value - and because only that PRECISE image will do the job, there is 100% certainty that no free alternative (or alternative of any kind) could ever be possible.  Heck, even another scan of the original photo at HIGHER resolution would be utterly useless.  Test images are a truly special case - quite utterly different from any other use of images in Wikipedia.  SteveBaker 05:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's fair use criteria does not make any exceptions for this case. Images are divided into two categories: free images and fair use images. It's that simple. --Oden 05:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What? This is (of course) a fair use image. No debate about that - the debate is whether there is a reasonable way to make a substitute (there isn't) whether we are causing an economic impact to the copyright owners (there isn't) and whether these images are being discussed in the articles they are referred to (the Lenna image most certainly is). These are all sufficient grounds for using them under fair use. End of story - please stop annoying the heck out of people who are trying to write some decent articles here. SteveBaker 12:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The previous comment (revision 100859879) was removed by Oden at 12:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC) with the explanation "Personal attack". I do not agree that it was a personal attack.  It was a request for a user, Oden, to stop doing something.  I am annoyed by:
 * Oden's aggressive campaign to rid Wikipedia of images that are (in the opinion of all voters but him on the IfD) legitimate fair use.
 * Oden's edit warring
 * Oden's removal of legitimate criticism from Oden's user talk page via both unwarranted reversion and aggressive use of Werdnabot.
 * -- Jeff G. 22:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Retirement
I'm sorry to see you go. Wikipedia is diminished by your absence. --Yamla 22:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey
Hey, don't worry about it, Sunday for me was a very bad, tense day in my life. I reacted in an uncivil manner and took my tensions out on something dumb. I actually felt stupid for lashing out later, and a bit humiliated, but now I'm past it, and all the problems in my life, and so, since everything has passed I feel better and had all that not been happening, so I should apologize to you instead because I shouldn't have let my personal problems affect my feelings towards others. Thank you for your concerns however. -- SmthManly  / ManlyTalk  / ManlyContribs  22:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Stop
It seems that you're considering leaving; I hope you don't, as we always need every willing contributor we can get. But this isn't why I'm here. I am, as you know, no opponent of image tagging when it is done properly. This being the case, I hope you will pay attention when I say that your approach to image tagging and to conflicts on Wikipedia in general needs to change. Policies are not weapons to use against those you dislike. If you have been in conflict with someone, your response should be to deal with the content of the dispute and otherwise treat them as you would any other editor. Digging through their contributions for against-policy images, or posting minor complaints to the administrators' noticeboard is not the way to go. In particular, responding to a disagreement by digging through the other party's contributions for images to tag is (aside from being the absolute least productive way to go about the job of tagging, given the anger and dispute it is sure to engender) inappropriate and harms the legitimate enforcement of the policy. (I was initially skeptical of claims that you were acting in this way, since these ten to be flung around casually in any image-tagging situation, but have now seen enough evidence to be convinced.) In the future, please do not respond in this way to conflicts. --RobthTalk 00:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Anton Balasingham
Hi,

The above personality did a lot for a lasting solution in the island though he suffered from diabetes, Motor Neurone Disease, a degenerative disease of the nervous system, and possibly medicine-induced bile duct cancer.

Now putting his Bio "Terrorist Tag", I feel unreasonable and removing it, please take necessary action on this.

I have discussed my points at Talk:Anton Balasingham.Rajsingam 09:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales Oden RaveenS Bakasuprman SiobhanHansa Wackymacs Seraphimblade Freedom skies Rumpelstiltskin223 Dangerous-Boy Ccscott Dennisthe2 DoDoBirds Mariano Anto Bruno Mascarenhas Tarinth

Retirement
Hi Oden,

Thanks for all your helps.

I hope you will return back.

My email is rajsingam@mail.com, please contact me.

With best wishes.Rajsingam 13:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Why remove phoatos in Il Divo pages?
Oden, you leave a message asking me about one photo and I said, please remove it. But, seem to me like that photo is still there but other photos have been removed. Please justify why. Those photos are from THE CHRISTMAS COLLECTION CD. Since when album cover photos are not allowed? I have given the justification but did not received any comments from the admin. I believe I deserve some answer or at least feedback before the photos been removed.Jay 04:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Rajkumar Kanagasingam
Hi I couldn't understand why this user User:Netmonger is raising the above problem which totally irrelevant to Talk:Rajkumar Kanagasingam Page. As this is my Bio, could you help me to sort out this matter with him. Rajsingam 13:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Oden RaveenS Bakasuprman SiobhanHansa Wackymacs Seraphimblade Freedom skies Rumpelstiltskin223 Dangerous-Boy Ccscott Dennisthe2 DoDoBirds Mariano Anto Bruno Mascarenhas Tarinth

Something Quite Interesting

 * Something Quite Interesting

Oden RaveenS Bakasuprman SiobhanHansa Wackymacs Seraphimblade Freedom skies Rumpelstiltskin223 Dangerous-Boy Ccscott Dennisthe2 Mariano Anto Bruno Mascarenhas TarinthRajsingam 05:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What thing? And what's the deal with all those User talk links?   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 09:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I only posted a simple question: "Are you Arsath?"
Hi

I only posted a simple question: "Are you Arsath?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Netmonger#Are_you_Arsath.3F

But He has come out with the following lenghthy statement about me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Rajsingam

Kingrom Oden RaveenS Bakasuprman SiobhanHansa Wackymacs Seraphimblade Freedom skies Rumpelstiltskin223 Dangerous-Boy Ccscott Dennisthe2 Mariano Anto Bruno Mascarenhas TarinthRajsingam Rajsingam 02:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I just read your retirement statement
or suicide note, or whatever and while there is a 50/50 chance that you'll never read this, I'll plop it down anyway. I'm one of the content (i.e., writes content in articles) folks here and am also realizing that a HUGE amount of time and effort is going into the Bureaucracy  of Wikipedia. I have about a 1,000 articles on my Watch List and more and more of the edits made are not content ones but rather what phylum and subphylum and order and species a particular article goes into or, even more annoying, (opinion) what some editor thinks another editor should do about the article. For me this is joyless thing, but I'm a live-and-let-live sort of a fellow UNTILL this stuff starts crowding me - which it is. As New Agers are found of saying, I feel your pain! Sort of, anyway. But please consider returning, oh Prodigal Son. I'll kill the fatted calf and we can get on with our vision of what wikipedia is. Carptrash 18:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Stalking of User:Cburnett
You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your |talk page by adding the text. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org. I have to block you per this. Me and many other people (see Administrators%27_noticeboard) asked you many time not to use the copyright as a weapon of a personal conflict. Cburnett blocked you for the 3RR and then you started to "examine his upload logs". Sorry but I have to upheld the WP:STALK policy Alex Bakharev 21:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree on this one, though i have never crossed paths with Oden,. but looking at the history of edits he has stalked and offended many users using Copyright images tags for speedy deletion as a defense and thus cause many users to retaliate... Especially this user YuRiPa whom he attacked juz because he/she was a new user, that poor person was subjected under bullying... and therefore has caused alot of grievances which perhaps caused the user to create multiple accounts to retaliate... though what Yuripa wasn't correct, but would you blame him/her for doing that? She was provoked and stgalked by Oden who kept on tagging on Yuripa and accused him/her of sockpuppetry.

Perhaps Oden needs to be taught a lesson and retire from Wikipedia... because though he kept saying he assume good faith, but he has countlessly poke his nose in other people's businesses and very disruptive to the Wikipedian culture... we certainly don not need people like him. A self proclaim administrator who needs to chill ALOT! Apollolancer 08:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Rajkumar Kanagasingam
Hi,

An editor is continuously vandalising my Bio over dispute related to Talk:Anton Balasingham. The editor tried hard to delete my Bio from wikipedia. You can see the evidence here(1) and here(2)' The editor is taking an undue interest over my Bio and deleted over Citation. I have restored the information. I requested an Administrator to check my Bio whether Citations are enough. I also taken this matter for Request for Comment. Though I have off-line media archives(which are attached on Talk:Rajkumar Kanagasingam, I couldn't bring it to the articles. Now I am very much frustrated. Please help me on this matter.Rajkumar Kanagasingam 05:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Oden RaveenS Bakasuprman SiobhanHansa Wackymacs Seraphimblade Freedom skies Rumpelstiltskin223 Dangerous-Boy Ccscott Mariano Anto Bruno Mascarenhas Tarinth

Thanks
Hey, thanks for retiring this account, good ridence. 70.69.43.138 07:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Lenna.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Lenna.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted after seven days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. OsamaK 14:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Singapore Airlines fleet up for discussion
As an editor who has participated on the Singapore Airlines fleet talk page, this is a friendly notice to advise you that the Singapore Airlines fleet article has been nominated for discussion and review. If you would like to provide your opinion, refer to the discussion page. This notice is being provided for all editors who have participated on the article talk page. --Russavia 05:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)