User talk:Quadell/Archive 18

Re image
I removed the image because theres a dispute about its fair use status and its under fair use review. Storm05 19:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Image:Calder Flamingo.jpg
Hi Quadell! I wish what you say about this image were true—unfortunately I don't think that it is. I am the administrator that deleted my photo from the commons… when I first uploaded it there I was under the impression that, as a general rule in the U.S., if you can see something from a public place you can photograph it. This is basically true, but problems arise when you try to publish the resulting photos. This article in cs monitor and this article at chicagoist detail some of the issues that have arisen from commercial publication of photographs of Cloud Gate in Chicago. After reading these articles I decided to investigate further, because I had already uploaded a few photos of sculptures in Chicago to the commons. My current understanding of U.S. copyright law is that sculptural works are indeed subject to copyright protection, and therefore the publication of photographs of such copyrighted sculptures, being derivative works, requires the authorisation of the copyright holder. commons:Commons:Derivative works expands more on this subject. I am not a lawyer, so if you believe my understanding to be incorrect I would appreciate it if you could point me to an article (or other text) that explains U.S. copyright law with respect to public art. Thanks, —JeremyA 22:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Please let me know if you find out anything on this. Although I generally support the rights of artists to copyright protection over their work, I personally think that when a work is commissioned for a public space it should be understood (or even in the contract) that the resulting work will become public property. One thing that might interest you is footnote 17 in this court case—to me this suggests that the judge in this case felt the same as me. I looked up the case referenced in that footnote (Carns, et al. v. Keefe Bros (1917)) and it contains this statement:
 * Copyright, in analogy to patents, is to reward originality and inventive genius, and to encourage it to put out its productions for public enjoyment and benefit, which otherwise the author proprietor might withhold, having right and power to do so, for his exclusive use and pleasure. If, however, the production is intended for or bound to be given free and unrestricted public exhibition—to attract the public to come and enjoy without price—and, if it is so displayed, there is publication of the thing and dedication to the public, again in analogy to patents, defeating copyright.
 * To me this seems to contradict itself a little, and as it is from 1917 I am not sure how much relevance it has today. —JeremyA 00:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Threshing-board translation from Spanish to English
Quadell, sure. It might take a while though, due to the length of the article ;) &mdash; Webdinger BLAH 00:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Catholic encyclopedia
Thanks for the heads up on this, learn something new everyday! :) Appreciated - GI e n 12:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:CP
See what happens when you take off? Welcome back, and good work on that terrible backlog. Jkelly 20:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, get to it, Quadell. We've had quite enough of your slacking. [[image:tongue.png]] SlimVirgin (talk) 21:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks for working on WP:CP. That page even hit the new Template limits that Tim installed (this was the reason I took notice of that page — shame on me :-). Huzzah to you! --Ligulem 22:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Issuing warnings
Just noticed the terrific job you are doing on the encyclopedia, but wanted to give you a wee reminder abiut issuing warning to vandals. For example here you reverted but did not warn, which meant the vandal continued his destructive path. Remember warning in most cases is even more important than reverting itself. Thanks heaps, - GI e n 15:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I said I wouldn't argue this but . ..
I was was trying to find this discussion on the copyvio of Suicide in the Trenches and all I found was this. Now I understand why you think this is acceptable at WP, but certainly you must admit it is a grey area as the author was a Britsh citizen. Especially since Copyrights asks contributors to respect copyright of some foriegn nations and no where gives the impression that we should disregard everything except US law. Don't you think that the borderline cases should be dicussed somewhat? I mean someone posts a copyright problem and an admin agrees and deletes; this makes sense to me. But if the admin disagrees I don't see why they should just remove all evidence of the alleged problem from WP:CP. Not only did you give no one at WP:CP a chance to object to your reason, you didn't even leave a note on the articles talk page that there had been any concerns over the copyright. Please try to look at your admin functions to be part of the collaborative effort here and less as if you were a lone sheriff. You express on your user page you like to "fire and forget", I find such a philosphy completely at odds with what Wikipedia stands for. If you want to edit articles that way fine, but please, please act a little more responsibly as an admin.-- Birgitte§β ʈ  Talk  16:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I am quite surprised you find me hostile! Be assured you miscontrue me.  I never meant to imply you have tried to hide anything.  I rather thought you actions were careless.  I do think in general if you disgree with someone about a copyvio it should be opened for discussion rather than immediately closed on one person's opinion.  In any event if an editor misunderstands WP policy an effort should certainly be made to educate them rather than just close the item and move on.  Otherwise they will continue to make the same mistakes about policy repeatedly.  I do believe it is irresponsible to not have such a disscusion regarding a mistaken policy.  I certainly do not understand how I have worsened the situation.  Or even what the "situation" is.-- Birgitte§β  ʈ  Talk  17:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I looked over a few these sorts of notes that I tend to leave on talk pages. And I do feel that the above note is definately more extreme than my usual style. I apologize that I was so harsh in expressing my opinions. I am afraid the philosophy on your user page hit a raw nerve with me. My biggest pet peeve at WP is when people believe I have an incorrect opinion on something and dismiss me without explaining what information I might be missing or what my misconceptions might be on the matter. I should have done a better job of hiding my annoyance and toned down the delivery of my thoughts. I can only imagine you thought I meant to be hostile because you have been the target of past attacks. I am sorry if you have had that sort of experience here as you obviously are a person that is diving into the unpleasant work. I do realize what a chore researching copyvios is. My opinion of my own experience in doing such research unfortunately led me to be dogmatic above. And I think this combined with my momentary annoyance is also why I neglected to thank you for all the unappealing work you are taking on regarding copyvios. I do greatly appreciate that you are doing this work. There have been times in the past when I gave up on reporting copyvios because of the time it took the page to load. I am sorry that you have felt unappreciated, especially any part of it that was due to my actions. I don't mean to cause anyone stress over so minor an issue as poem that no one particularly cares about. So please take my best practice suggestions above as opinions that I will not mind if you ignore and forgive the harshness of my delivery.-- Birgitte§β ʈ  Talk  21:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back!
Good to see you back, Quadell. That's a nice surprise (saw the above note to you zip by on recent changes). Happy editing, as always, Antandrus (talk) 16:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Marked a review complete for you
Thanks for conducting the fair use review for Image:University of Ulster.png per my request at Fair use review. You removed the fair use box, but didn't add the 'review complete' notice. I added it for you. I hope you don't mind. If not, please revert and reply on my Talk page --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Pleasant surprises
I don't know which is better; seeing the copyright problems page back to a condition where I'll consider using it again, or seeing one of the first users who made me feel welcome at Wikipedia back in action! Is there any clerical-type work I can do to help you with processing the copyright problems page? I was quite concerned by the backlog when I first saw it, and now that I see there's an admin committed to miniminizing it, I want to know if there's anything I can do to make your work easier. Let me know if there are any useful tasks to perform. Thanks, --RobthTalk 05:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Copyright question
Hi, I saw you around on WP:CP and was hoping you could help me something. I recently removed copyrighted text from Cold Fire (Koontz novel). It was a copy and paste from the backpage of the pocket version of the book. I just saw that the same counts for almost all the other articles in Category:Dean Koontz novels. I can't imagine it's not a copyright violation, but I thought i'd better check to be 100 percent sure before I change all those articles to super stubs and warn the original editor. Cheers, Garion96 (talk) 20:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your answer on my talk. I removed all the copyright violations (a lot) and warned the editor in question. Garion96 (talk) 00:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

re: clearing WP:CP backlog
Hey there, sorry for the late reply but I was out of town on holiday. Unfortunately, personal circumstances are going to induce a long wikibreak for me, and I won't be able to participate at WP:CP for the time being. We made a serious dent in that backlog, though!

On the issue of Suicide in the Trenches, I absolutely think you made the right decision. I would have done the same thing. I take the view that discussion can be warranted before deleting a borderline case, but certainly not before keeping. Take care! -- Aguerriero  ( talk ) 16:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:White p.jpg
You may want to have a chat with Tony1 regarding WP policy against the placement of fair use images on user pages, such as the above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.72.77.114 (talk • contribs)

Image question
I understand you're one of the custodians (I love that term, BTW) who are knowledgeable on the ins and outs of copyright issues with images. I am in the process of discussing with Northrop Grumman permission to use several of their press release images on WP. These are images that are released as a part of specific news releases, and are intended to be reproduced. I have read and think I understand that WP's position on these, which is why I approached NG for further permission rather than trying to rely on just the implied license that's inherent in a press release. The reply I've received from NG reads: "Northrop Grumman would be willing to license Wikipedia’s use of the photograph of the Proteus on a no-fee basis (although not under the GNU Free Documentation license). Are you authorized to sign such a license on behalf of Wikipedia? If so, I will prepare a draft agreement and send it to you for review."

So, a couple of questions...1) is their specific license to us sufficient (I haven't seen the draft yet, will try to get it), and 2) is an humble editor like me "authorized" to sign an agreement? Thanks for the help! (I'm watching this page, if you prefer to answer here rather than on my talk page...your choice.) Akradecki 15:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks much! Will proceed that way, and respond to NG thanking them, and reiterating the GFDL necessity. Akradecki 16:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Administration
Erm. Let me think about this. I try hard not to get over-involved in maintenance chores to the point of running out of time to write my own material--something which happened for a large part of the summer, when a vicious case of writer's block prompted by an overambitious rewrite attempt collided with my discovery of the hypnotic nature of the cleanup queue. I am worried that having the option of going and doing admin work would be another distraction and make these bouts of writer's block more frequent and severe. On the other hand, I do think I could make good use of the delete button. So let me get back to you about this; I don't know if you have any experience that would be relevant to this particular dilemma, but if you do, your guidance could be helpful. --RobthTalk 20:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I find that Wikipedia is big enough that I can shift from task to task. I might go a month and do solid writing, and then spend a month doing mindless cleanup tasks to unwind. It's good to have options.
 * You know, I'd never really thought about it that way before, but I like that approach (not least because it means I don't have to feel bad about all the stuff I've started and not quite finished). It seems like a very healthy way to go about things.  So with that in mind, yes, I would accept a nomination. --RobthTalk 23:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, and thank you for the kind words. I have to run to class now, but I'll fill out my part in a few hours when I get back.  --RobthTalk 14:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the Cheeses!
I used your picture in my blog for an article entitled "Avoiding the Grocery Store Ambush." You can see it here if you're interested. Feel free to use any of my own travel photos that I have posted or will post to the blog. Eventually, when my main site is up and I have enough photos ready to justify the batch effort, I will either upload those images here or GNU-tag them on a separate photos page on that site—or both. I'm fairly new at this and am still trying to figure out the proper netiquette for dealing with photos.

Alt text for copyvio-tagged article
Hi Quadell, since you're a copyvio mop guy, I thought I'd ask you about this: A while back, while doing some cleanup chores, I came across an article about Peter Kaiser that was tagged as a copyvio. In looking into it, I felt that the subject was worth keeping, so I wrote some from-scratch non-copy-vio text, improved the refs and posted it on the temp page back on Aug 31. It's been more than 5 days, and it hasn't been disposed of. I'm not an admin, so I can't do it. If you have the time, would you please look into this and see if my text is sufficient and, if so, do the necessary moving around? Thanks! Akradecki 17:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back!
Hi,

It's great to see you've returned! I can say that without mixed feelings, although I do confess that I'll miss your goodbye notice, which was an absolute comedy classic! ;) Best wishes, Xoloz 23:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep, I've never had a problem feeling "commonplace," that is certain! :) You came fairly close to paraphrasing the self-description on my business card, actually, although you missed "ugly", and I tend to leave "fetishist" out when people know my real name! ;)  Sometimes, I feel guilty about being a heterosexual male: GLBT is really the last frontier I haven't crossed, although I support gay rights, naturally.  I've been trying to train myself to be bisexual by thinking arousing thoughts about Leonard Nimoy and Patrick Stewart, with some success.  I'm afraid I'm not truly bisexual yet, though, since a Starfleet uniform (and a television role) are so far prerequisites for me and man-love! ;)  Still, I work at it.


 * I'm familiar with the early Johnson writings, but not the spiritual ones -- I came to Buddhism by way of studying Japanese history, really, so "race" has never figured prominently in that investigation, such as it is. In no way am I orthodox, as you might guess, so my own views on spirituality are highly eclectic.  At Wikipedia, I try to keep self-musings to a minimum, but my userpage gives folks a taste of what they're in for if we cross paths: fair warning, here be weirdo! :)  Best wishes, Xoloz 15:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Giving you some sugar and babies (this message brought to you by edit comments and lack of sleep)
&larr; Sugar, Baby &rarr;




 * Um. . . thanks, I think. I'll, er, try to enjoy the infant and the granularized sweetener. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 16:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

York City images
I noticed you removed the York City player images from their articles. Did you delete the images, or did you simply delete the links? If it wasn't you who deleted the images, could you please tell me who did? Thanks. -- Mattythewhite

Magneto
Aren't you supposed to notify the uploader before deleting their images? You removed a lot of relevant images of the character's history from the article. --DrBat 17:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you should have removed some of the other images first. Magneto's Holocaust background, his trial, and his friendship with Xavier are all more crucial to his character's history than two covers and the AoA Magneto. Is it possible those images can be removed and three I mentioned be restored? --DrBat 17:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --DrBat 17:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you also restore Image:Xavmags.png? --DrBat 01:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

CFL USA
I'm curious as to why you deleted CFL USA for having a copyright violation. Sure the page had a copyright violation, but the copied text was no longer there, it was removed and replaced with that notice; so no longer was it a copyright violation. And secondly, the page had other, non-copyvio content on it which was (correctly) not removed and replaced with the copyvio tag. If I knew exactly what the correct procedure was I could have just replace the copyvio tag with a short paragraph describing the articles subject, much like almost any other Wikipedia article is started, and the article could grow over time, just like every Wikipedia page. But instead you just up and deleted it. Why is that?

Futher, would you mind undeleting the talk page of the article? I don't think it had an copyvio problems, and the article is now recreated. Qutezuce 10:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleted Image
Why did you delete that Image of Castle tioram. I had even gone to the trouble of contacting the owner and getting all the right copywrite terms and conditions agreed to. 195.137.109.177 10:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Por Favor
I'm going to be gone for a couple days, and I notice User:Peephole has nominated a lot of images surrounding the hijackers for deletion, ie, so I would appreciate if you could keep an eye on this for me until Tuesday- I'd hate for information to be lost. US-PD-FBI is source information on such things.Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 15:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of images
You deleted Image:Chandragiri.jpg, Image:Techpark01.jpg, Image:Technopark02.jpg and Image:Technopark03.jpg.

But you did not inform the creator before doing so. Also, those pictures were tagged under "fair use", as those were like promotional photographs. Further, I added the FAIR USE tag in the articles also. eg:- " -   -  "

Can you please explain me the norms behind the deletion of those images ?

-- Rajith Mohan (Talk to me...) :-) 07:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Reqphoto template
A few people (including me) are having a discussion on the Talk page of the reqphoto template which you set up a few months ago, wondering why it is that the tag has to go on articles' Talk pages, even though it's effectively a rather specialised form of cleanup tag. If an editor tries to place it on an article itself, they're told in no uncertain terms that that's inappropriate... but why is it so? Surely it would be much more obvious to user that an article needed a photo if, as with other cleanup tags, the tag was placed in the most visible place? Loganberry (Talk) 12:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Adding to my above comment... it seems particularly strange that the diagram needed template is supposed to go in the article itself. So requesting a diagram is done in a different place to requesting a photo; this seems inconsistent. Loganberry (Talk) 14:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

☆
Your fruity efforts are an example to all aspiring featured article writers. You are hereby my hero of the day and here is a gold star (an occasional personal award - I hope you won't take offence at being awarded an ex-Soviet honour). -- ALoan (Talk) 20:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
I've always wanted to be mediocrely corrupt! Thanks for the note, and for prompting me to request the tools. I'll be pitching in for real at WP:CP now (I already went and did a little trial run); hopefully I'll be a help. Oh, and I saw ALoan's note above; nice job on fruit; I'm going have to put some serious work in if I'm hoping to match that. --RobthTalk 22:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:MOS-AR
Hi, you previously commented at WP:MOS-AR. Would you be interested in participating in a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Arabic)? Cheers, —Ruud 10:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Image Wahkeenah-wiki.JPG
The "free" photo does not show the upper part of the falls, so it is not a particularly "fine" photo. Wahkeenah 00:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I scanned one of my own, not as good, but it shows the upper falls. However, the upload didn't seem to overlay properly, so I uploaded it under a different name. Therefore, you are now free to delete Wahkeenah-wiki.JPG Wahkeenah 01:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I was able to replace it in-place with the free photo. It seemed to take awhile. There must be some administrative process involved when one photo replaces another with the same name. Wahkeenah 20:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Now what do you think?
Could use some good images, and of course, the article could be 10 pages long discussing all the movements of the shoulder and their accompanying muslces, tendons and ligaments, shoulder injuries, shoulder exercises, shoulders in other animals, etc. However, I think it is a big improvement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoulder

Pet Skunk images
Any luck on the free license for Pet skunk images? If not, I would like to delete them. -Thanks Nv8200p talk 00:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Max Weber
Tnx for the help with individual page numbers. I added them in the edit mode to the next section, I'd appreciate if you'd transform them into proper cite.php. I will try to find time to add more page numbers over the next few days, but I have some other things to do, also in RL, so any more you can do yourself would be appreciated.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Sigh
What is with your absolute obsession with removing date links? I find it absolutely disingenuous that you would resort to blatantly lying to people on WP:PR to try and get your way. As such, I will now treat you exactly the same way as I have Bobblewik, and beginning rollbacking your mass removals on sight. Rebecca 01:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I apologise for this comment - I reacted too harshly, and hadn't looked through enough of your contributions to come to that conclusion. That said, you were misrepresenting the MOS to people on WP:PR, stating that it "indicates that years shouldn't be linked unless they are part of a date", when it says no such thing. Rebecca 23:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Maraba Coffee introduction
Hi Quadell -

I've reverted the hacking of the intro back to the slightly shortened version that was there before. I don't know if it needs shortening any more, but as User:Mark Dingemanse says you can't crop it too much more while still adequately summarising the article. Are you able to reinstate your support, anyway? Cheers &mdash; SteveRwanda 15:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, sorry - I didn't read your comment in full. If you can create a better version of the Lede then all the better, although personally I didn't see that much wrong with it. Also thanks for any copy editing... This seems to be the main objection so the more people on hand to clean it up the better! I'll look into your question about reviews of the coffee itself. Cheers &mdash; SteveRwanda 15:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:CP stuff
First, thank you for the astronaut award; that was very nice of you, and well received on this end, I assure you. Second, I don't know how on Earth you plowed through that massive backlog that had built up on the page in early August. I am in awe. Third, some questions:
 * 1) Do you know how we get confirmation that emails have been received by permissions@wikimedia.org? Are they archived somewhere visible or something? Or do I have to go ask somebody?
 * 2) How long do you generally let things that we've asked for confirmation of ownership on wait before deleting them if no confirmation is received?

Thanks, --RobthTalk 05:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Faerun
Regarding your edit to Faerun, why did you delete these images? --Russoc4 17:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explaination. I've added links to the maps. --Russoc4 18:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Copyright
Creative Commons ounds the best, but what would it entail? As in, what rights could be reatined, and what rights would be, you know, given away?--Le Grey Intellectual 18:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 18:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Nat Turner
Well, there is this sentence in particular "On August 13, there was an atmospheric disturbance in which the sun appeared bluish-green." And much of the rest of the article tends to use the same structure, just abbreviated or loosely rewritten from that PBS page. Maybe I'm wrong though, and I'm just misreading, but it feels iffy enough I'd prefer a rewrite. FrozenPurpleCube 23:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

GA
Islam and Slavery has been listed as a good article after being nominated as AFD by the usual suspects, I started it, and welcome back. --The Brain 12:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Gomphothere
You are welcome. I am trying to flesh up articles about fossil mammals a bit starting with the elephants. Generally speaking, the amount of existing info about prehistoric mammals is poor compared to dinosaurs, an injustice that needs to be repaired... Hope others will contribute as well. ArthurWeasley 22:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * A few year ago there was talk about cloning the wooly mammoth. I wonder whatever became of that? I was looking forward to having a mammothburger. Wahkeenah 22:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use second opinion
Could you take a look at at the large stack of images I just moved over to Copyright_problems/Fair_use_claims? It's a tricky case, and I'd like to get your opinion. --RobthTalk 19:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use in portals
As you might know, I've created an amendment for fair use in portals after the discussion, on Wikipedia talk:Fair use. It would be great if you could express your opinion, in support or against. ddcc 01:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Smile
I know this was brought up earlier this year but I wanted to go over it again. This image, the earlier larger image, has a photographer's seal (imprint bottom left). According to this the poster cannot find a source. I still believe this is a copyvio and the original poster has possible solutions for finding another image.

Even if it was taken for the US wildlife service, like the image is tagged as being, and it was done at a professional photography studio the image would still be considered part of the photographers copyright, not the US government's. Binarypower 07:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Open source Unix
are you sure this fits the criteria for DAB?

It's a term that the page wants to explain; the OSes listed are examples. But I do like formatting the list that way.

(there's another guy who thinks the whole page should be a redirect to Unix-like; I don't agree with him, but that's because I think the term deserves a page) --Alvestrand 14:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Optical fiber connector Panduit edit
Hi. I deleted your Panduit edit from the Optical fiber connector -- it just seemed a bit too commercial.This article has been plagued with spammers pushing various proprietary designs and spam links; if we include the Panduit connector, we'll just be deluged with more. (Having said that, I see you're a prolific contributor and no spammer, so I know this was a good faith edit.

The connectors currently shown are all generic standards.

--A. B. 14:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I suggest leaving "Opti-Jack" out of Wikipedia altogether and deleting it from the list of missing articles. Many thanks for your work on that list. --A. B. 15:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair Use again
I put two images on Fred Thomson which I believe should be Fair Use, but I don't know. Both images are from 1927 +/- one year. The first one is a postcard published in Germany and has the Paramount logo. The second one is a reproduction card from the 1980s without any copyright or publisher's name. I have many cards in my collection and can choose others. If they can be 'saved' by putting the correct citation, what text do I add and where does it go? Thanks Sliss 04:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Armenia
Please visit the Talk: Armenia and Talk: Armenians pages http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Armenia&action=edit&section=3 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Armenians&action=edit&section=36 please voice your view on the current discussion, there is a small minority that are promoting and point of view that Armenia is geographically in Europe and Armenians are a European people. It is best to serve the factual truth and your support is desperately needed.

Promotional images
Greetings. I appreciate the work you've been doing with promotional images. This is certainly the most abused type of fairuse image. But I would respectfully submit that you're focusing on the wrong thing. You seem to be nominating for deletion images that are tagged promotional, but that do not fit the definition as being released by a press kit. There is value in that, but I'd like to draw your attention to a much more serious (and related) problem: "replaceable" images.

For instance, today you nominated these two images for deletion, since they are not actually promotional in nature and did not come from a press kit. This is true. But it is possible that they could still be used under a Non-free fair use in tag (although that's debatable). On the other hand, I nominated for deletion about a hundred photos uploaded by User:Marc Lacoste which were also tagged promotional. His photos actually were promotional, and came from press kits -- however, we can not use the images under our fair use criteria, since anyone could take a photo of the objects in question and release the photo under a free license. The problem with these images is not that the promotional tag was used, but that the images were used at all.

Could I interest you in working with me to get rid of replaceable "promotional" images? The Category:Promotional images has thousands of images in it, many (most?) of which should be deleted.

Thanks, and all the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, Quadell. Thanks for you message. Indeed, I usually just report image problems as I stumble upon them, not really focusing in one kind of violation. These two images you mentioned, for instance, came to my attetion because the articles they are being use in is a featured article candidate. By the time I first looked at this article, it was almost passing the FAC with still about 7 or 8 problematic images (most of them were deleted). The article got completly cleaned up (at which time I removed my opposition to its FAC) but latter this two images got added (and some free images removed!) (at which point I readded my opposition to its FAC).


 * I accept you invitation to try to cleanup the Category:Promotional images category from FUC#1 violations. I'll be taking a look at this category.


 * Also, I would like to suggest a different approach for this violaitions. We could have something like a   template, that would put the image on a    category, where it could be deleted on spot by admins. Orphanbot could be used to help us to remove the images from the articles. What do you think of this approach? And if you like it,  how hard do you think it would be for us to put this in pratice?


 * Best regards, --Abu Badali 18:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a great idea. I guess giving a week would be a good idea. I've created Template:Replaceable fair use for this purpose, and I was hoping it would work sort-of like Template:No copyright holder or Template:No rationale. To this end, I also created Category:Replaceable fair use images and its subcategories, and Template:Replaceable fair use disputed if there is disagreement. The only problem now is how to get the date-specific subpages created. I guess those will have to be done by hand. I'm not sure how that's done on the others. – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I liked that. I just did a small change in the text to make it explicity that images of objects, accessible buidings and living people are usually considered to fail fuc#1, so that editors don't bother contesting such cases.
 * The daily categories for no-source and no-license images are created semi-mannually. I copyied the explanation into the catergory page. Also, I created f1d, based on nsd, that will automatically put the image on the current day's tag. The name comes from FUC #1 violators by Date, but if you don't like it and can think of a better one, feel free to change.
 * Also, I made Category:Replaceable fair use images a sub-category of Category:Disputed fair use images.
 * We probably also need to create a template for warning the uploader about the dispute. The text should gently explain him that, we understand he acted in good faith, that we know that there are thousand other violations like that in other articles, but that we still believe our goal to build a free encyclopedia may be hurt by the use of such images.
 * I would take this opportunity to try to fix what I consider a problem with the other image deletion warning templates, like idw or image source. It should be possible to put how many images we wanted in only one warning. Most users feel outraged when they see a flood of repeated messages on their talk pages. I would like to have someting like and have a message says "Some images you've upload may have a problem. They are Image:aaa.jpg. Image:bbb.jpg, etc...".
 * Too much brainstorming already. I have to go now. See you! --Abu Badali 21:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)