User talk:Roguegeek/Archive20070127

Guidance
Hello Roguegeek, Apologies if I sound a bit dim, but I'm new to all this:-) I see you've edited my article 'Track day', and in so doing removed some of the references I had used to corroborate and illustrate various issues dealt with in the article. You've tagged the article and asked that I provide references, so now I'm quite confused. I understand the need to control spam, but I have absolutely no commercial connections with the links I gave, and believe their inclusion as valid references is warranted in this case, (indeed two of them were cross links to other Wikipedia articles!?)

I also see you've tagged image files Image:YZ125F.jpg and Image:Phillip Island pb.jpg. The former, is tagged with a failed fair use, which leaves me somewhat bemused; as if I had a photo of this type of bike with a more robust copyright criteria I would have used it, so I would appreciate some guidance on this. (Perhaps, as a proclaimed source of motorcycling images, would you have a suitable photo of a 'playbike' to which the article related?) I assume the second image is now under review as a result of the parent article being deleted, which leads me to my final problem.

I've had the article 'playbike' removed by a user (Description here: User talk:Coredesat) on the grounds of advertising. It was deleted without any proposals or discussion, and I truly believe it was removed in error, as the term and concept of 'playbike' is one deserving of definition. If you read my request to User talk:Coredesat, you'll appreciate where I'm coming from, and I'm sure as an American who has an interest and knowledge of Motorcycles you must agree with me that this article does not warrant being dismissed so lightly (I assume you demonstrated as much in not deleting or tagging the article yourself?)

Thank you for your time.

playbike 16:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit - I didn't get any help from the chap who deleted my article, and to be honest I'm quite disappointed he didn't help me or expand on his position, so hopefully a fellow motorcyclist will save the day;-) I'm not sure how to go about having it considered for un-deletion, or even how to get a copy of it, or store it in my own space for now, so I would be grateful for your help and advice. Thank you playbike 00:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look forward to hearing from you when you get a chance. I've had a look into the un-delete procedure, and think I know what to do, but I'm happy to wait until guided by someone who really knows what they're doing. Much appreciated - playbike 00:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the advice, I'm very busy for the next few days, but I'll look into putting the term on the motorcycles main page like you suggest; I think that sounds like a viable compromise. In the meantime, I mentioned earlier, that I had no copy of my original article, so could you please re-instate my user page and place a copy of my original article on it, in order that I can use it as a template for the new insertion (minus any contentious bits of course). Regards, playbike 15:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Honda Fit
Hey, I see that you removed a link, but that link is not to a commerical site. Please don't remove it as the page doesn't sell anything, it just showcase a list of body kits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deedeedum (talk • contribs)
 * I will continue to remove it as it is considered WP:SPAM. Roguegeek (talk) 09:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Can't you see that I don't sell body kits? Look at my site. I purpose made that section just to showcase body kits and not sell anything through it. It shouldn't be considered commerical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deedeedum (talk • contribs)

F4 Photos
I'm new to this whole wikipedia thing so thanks for cleaing up the article I put together. I was trying to get some photos up there of the F4, and I saw the ZX-14 article had just used the stock kawasaki photo, so I figured I could do the same. It's too bad since I really don't have the time to contact the owners of the dozen or so different special editions and ask for permission to post photos they've taken. The main photo I took myself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Psperl (talk • contribs).

Opps
Roguegeek. Wiki_righter here. Sorry about not correctly uploading images for the wiki page on "California Special Mustang". I'm new to this (today). First time I uploaded I forgot to include the copyright/license tag. When the pics vanished I thought it was something *I* had done and reentered them w/a different name. Anyway, the photos are from P. Newitt who handles the GT/CS California Special registry (similar to the Shelby registry). My understanding from him is that there are no copyright issues with them. Next step would be???... Actually, I'm not even sure this is the correct way to "talk"... :(

Thanks...
... for your kind words regarding the Alive & Well AIDS Alternatives page. Although as a Stanford grad, I was pained to see the USC userbox on your page... MastCell 04:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Stanford, hmm. I guess no one can be perfect. Keep up the great work here. I'm sure the entire Wikipedia community appreciates your contributions. I know I do. Roguegeek 05:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Yamaha YZF-R1
Hi Rouguegeek - hope this finds you well! From the article that existed pre-the neutrality tag you put up (which I thoroughly agreed with), the article thanks mainly to your efforts is very much changed/more encyclopedic. What else do you think needs doing, and when should the neutrality tag be pulled? Best Regards, - Trident13 10:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Been watching your edits. Everything looks pretty clean right now. I'll go over it a little more later today when I have time. Can you check all of the info I've added for the 2007 model of the CBR600RR? Roguegeek 16:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not getting back sooner, but I like the CBR600RR article! A couple of thoughts on minor development (1) Most tend to put the technical sections/specifications to the bottom, which allows the reader a clear "flow" of reading. Wiki is often used as base material for other websites, and they won't pick up the article if it don't look right = less revenue for Wiki (2) Some editors don't include full technicals, just what has changed year on year. In this case I think it is worth doing, as the bike develops in leaps and bounds (3) There a few photo-police-editors around here, who (rightly) check licensing. They also pick-up on over use of photo's which can inadvertently break a license - so one publicity photo is OK, while a secondary photo needs specific justification. If one of these people comes across the article as it stands, then the four colours of 2007 model will probably break those licensing rules. Pick the one you like, and stick with that one. Remove the others using an edit note type removal, so at least if the one you choose has license issues, then someone else can quickly insert another picture. Look forward to liasing on a motorcycle article/chatting soon - look after yourself! Rgds, - Trident13 11:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

GSX-R1000
Thanks for editing the article but I "suggest" you read everything carefully before tagging it like that!!! http://www.topgear.com/content/features/stories/2006/02/stories/04/1.html Hope this helps! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fireblade (talk • contribs)

Why was the info removed from the page??? when there is a clear reliable source available??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fireblade (talk • contribs)


 * For every one article you can find that has one type of info, you can find another one that will contradict it. In cases like these where multiple sources can contradict each other, it's best to just stay neutral and offer only facts that can not be disputed. Roguegeek (talk) 19:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it correct to alter someones statement in a discussion Page?? (fireblade)


 * Absolutely not. It is ok, however, to remove personal attacks, which you did do. Roguegeek (talk) 06:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Ahh so does that mean I can remove anything from a discussion page that is personal attack and please define who decies when and what is a personal attack? (fireblade)


 * That's exactly what that means. And this policy defines what it is and what it isn't. Roguegeek (talk) 17:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly! thats the point there is a difference between stating the facts and making personal attacks keep this in mind thanks (fireblade)


 * I don't quite get why this is such a huge deal. Personally I believe catagorizing particular bike specs might be beyond the scope of wikipedia, as The UK version of this bike is very likely to have different specs than the US version.  I agree specs are useful to the public but very hard to put into a concise format on wikipedia.--Budlight 18:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Changing discussion sequence
Please refrain from changing sequence of events on user pages thanks (fireblade)
 * I was confused when I first read this, but I think I understand what you're talking about now. I'll explain where I think you're getting confused. You think just because I put a statement before a statement that you wrote earlier, that I was trying to show I actually replied first. Actually, that's not the case and that's not really now conversations are suppose to be followed. I was responding to the other user's comments and not yours. It went next to his comments because they were meant for him. Most editors here will probably be able to see that just fine. Everything would also be pretty clear if you just signed your posts correctly AND added the time stamp like everyone else does. I've already guided you to where you can learn about signing posts correctly, but just in case... here again. I would highly recommend you start time stamping your comments to avoid confusion like this in the future. Roguegeek (talk) 06:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well in future avoid replying like that, its that simple (fireblade)
 * No. Read it correctly and sign posts the way you're suppose to. Roguegeek (talk) 17:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:Camaro-concept 01.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Camaro-concept 01.jpg, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 00:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC) (Obsoleted by free-use image Image:2006 NYIAS Camaro back.jpg)

Image:Camaro-annoucement-01.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Camaro-annoucement-01.jpg, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 00:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC) (Obsoleted by free-use image Image:2006 NYIAS Camaro.jpg)

Chevrolet Camaro concept images
I understand your opposition to using the new Camaro concept photographs, they were taken at a car show by an amateur and are therefore of a lesser quality than the promotional shots you uploaded. However the new images were uploaded to comply with Wikipedia editorial policy regarding fair use images, please check out WP:FUC: "Any non-free media used on Wikipedia must meet all of these criteria:


 * 1) No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information. 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.  Maps and diagrams can often be redrawn from original sources, though simply "tracing" copyrighted material does not make it free.  Neither photographs nor sound clips, however, can usually be "transformed" in this way.  However, if the subject of the photograph still exists, a free photograph could be taken.
 * 2) *Always use a more free alternative if one is available. Such images can often be used more readily outside the U.S. If you see a fair use image and know of an alternative more free equivalent, please replace it, so the Wikipedia can become as free as possible. Eventually we may have a way to identify images as more restricted than GFDL on the article pages, to make the desire for a more free image more obvious."

Since cc-by-sa licensed photographs of the car are readily available, usage of copyrighted promotional material, even with permission, goes directly against the free-use principles that govern Wikipedia. If you would like to comment on the deletion of the promotional pics, please do so at. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 21:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This was my mistake. I should have read through the policy completely first. Thanks for point this out to me. Roguegeek (talk) 04:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:06YZF600R.jpg
Do not remove the replaceable fair use tag from images. Read the tag for instructions if you object to it's application. ed g2s &bull; talk 10:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If you want to object you must give a reason on the talk page. Your objections for the 2007 models are valid, but you have given no reasons for the other photos. ed g2s &bull; talk 10:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You have a whole seven days to object to a listing, and images are always undeleteable. But unless your reason for fair use includes the image being unrepeatable then they will have to be deleted. ed g2s &bull; talk 20:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the Notification 2 Days Ago
Like I said, thank you for that notification on the 350Z 35th anniversary I submitted a while back. I added the template. Thanks again. The Helper S 04:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No worries. Don't forget to add your fair use rationale to the talk page. Roguegeek (talk) 05:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Holden Commodore
I noticed that you left a message on my talk page indicating that I need to replace the fair use images for the images used on the Holden Commodore articles (i.e. VE Holden Commodore). I understand why you have done so, but I see no harm in using them seeing thought Holden released them to the public so companies, organisations, etc can use them. If you go to any one of the images you will notice that they all have similar equalities. That’s because they all come directly from Holden. Another thing you would notice is that they all come from a variety of websites. This clearly indicates that Holden has released these images under the free license, otherwise they would object to all these third party sources using them.

Another thing is that if you look in the motoring section of any Australian news paper you can again see these images being used by non-Holden car dealerships that sell these cars. So I don’t see why these images have to be deleted. Also there are many other articles which have these images that are directly from the manufacturer, but these are allowed. OSX 00:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Reply posted on your talk page. Roguegeek (talk) 02:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Concert Images
Maybe those pics can be used as free use alternatives to all of the failed fair use images that are on the articles right now. They just need to be clear enough so we can see the subjects. Roguegeek (talk) 17:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a great idea bro. I'll see what I can do, although to be honest I don't have high expectations for these pictures... they were taken on a camera phone, from a dark area into an extremely light and multi-colored one. I expect them to be horrible... but I still want bragging rights. ;) —Lantoka ( talk 06:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

"MAZDA3"
Where did you find that the name is properly written in caps?--ase 13:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Non-free images
Please do not upload any more non-free images of vehicles to Wikipedia. There are only a limited number of situations in which we can accept non-free images, and promotional photographs of existing vehicles are not acceptable. They will all have to be deleted, sadly. Feel free to upload any images that you own the copyright to, or those that you know to be in the public domain. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It has been a while since I've done this and after I read the policies fully, I haven't uploaded a single image that would violate any Wikipedia policy. You would know this if you bothered to look at my history. I will upload what I want to upload as long at they quality as fair or free use as per Wikipedia policies. Please don't place unwarranted warnings on user's talk pages. This could be considered vandalism as per Wikipedia policies. Roguegeek (talk) 16:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I did look through your history, and I saw that you uploaded such images just yesterday. You really think the above message is vandalism? – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Upon closer inspection, I could be wrong about that. Developing. ..
 * Okay, it looks like, in addition to the terrific photos of your own that you uploaded, you uploaded Image:Honda RC212V.jpg on November 1. Of course your history doesn't show when you read the policies, so I didn't know if you had decided to stop or not. I just wanted you to know, if you didn't already, that copyrighted images of existing vehicles all fail WP:FUC criterion #1. I didn't mean to be condescending or rude, and I apologize if I came across that way. – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, so the motorcycle hasn't been made publicly available yet. Well, looks like I was wrong about that too. Sorry again. Peace, – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:PicooZ-front.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:PicooZ-front.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. 01:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:PicooZ-rear.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:PicooZ-rear.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. 11:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Ford Mustang SSP Pictures
In the future, use the provided links in the image page itself to understand that such images can never be freely replicated ever, as many are dated and the subsequent disposal of such units by the respective agencies means such images are unique. You are more than welcome to find suitable alternatives. I'm calling for your tags to be removed immediately. --293.xx.xxx.xx 06:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Please allow another user or administrator to answer my helpme request seeing you put the tags in the first place and are thereby bias in your response.--293.xx.xxx.xx 06:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

And I am more than allowed to seek a second opinion. I feel your answering of a query about your actions is technically bias.--293.xx.xxx.xx 06:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I find your last post implying that I am dumb to be offensive. --293.xx.xxx.xx 06:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Mobile 9970 from 9971 Alconbury.jpg problem
Image:Mobile 9970 from 9971 Alconbury.jpg

If your are gonna nominate an image for deletion, note which articles are linked to said image before requesting deletion of the image. This image above has also been linked to Lockheed U-2 spyplane as well. While the useage in Ford Mustang SSP can be disputed, the useage in Lockheed U-2 article is legit, as one of the images is a GDFL file, while others are the work of US Goverment Employees and thereby aren't eligible for copyright. Please review your deletion request again and/or find a free source image that can be used in the U-2 article to replace said image. --Cesario (JPN) 20:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and BTW, you also need to list the images you want for deletion here. --Cesario (JPN) 20:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey
why are u deleting all the Evanescence images, why don't you go and delete some Nightwish images ? And aren't all the images used on ur profile a violation of the fair use image criteria? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eacz12 (talk • contribs)


 * I've uploaded a new Amy Lee image, and I think i've tagged it correctly, so plz verify it. A r m a n d o ( talk 01:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * K, thnx for the explanation, but I got all my profile images erased (just from my profile) and the deletor told me I was violating the fair use image criteria.


 * So the Evanescence, t.A.T.u, anime, etc. images are fair use images, and your car images are free use images...ok...but why?


 * Well, really thnx again

Images for deletion nomination
Hi there...

I just moved the nomination for Image:HHR Panel.JPG from the bottom of the Nov 2nd IfD page to the correct page, Nov 8th. If you could please be careful about applying the nomination to the correct date, it will prevent any possible issues with early deletion. If there are any questions, please feel free to leave me a note on my talk page. Thanks.--Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 22:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * your timeline is not quite correct about the date. On Nov 2nd the image was tagged as replacable fair use which places the image into category Category:Replaceable fair use images as of 2 November 2006, it was on Nov 8th you added the ifd template.  The IfD tag is suppost to notifiy users of a place where discussion is happening (though rarely does for most images).  The analogy from the article space is the replacable fair use tag is a speedy tag and its placement is all that is required but the Articles for deletion template requires multiple steps and a collecting of notices on to a specific day's page.  At this point, I am going to leave it on the 8th.  --Gay Cdn  (talk) (Contr.) 22:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry bro
Hey man,

I went ahead and slept on our discussion on the Evanescence talk page and when looking at it again this morning, am quite embarrassed. I was excessively rude. I apologize, and hope that we can continue to collaborate on the article together in the future. —Lantoka ( talk 21:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:1994ChevroletBlazer.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:1994ChevroletBlazer.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. 03:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

CMWYS Aussie error
I saw your removal of the image associated with that error, and contacted the original uploader. He confirmed that he took this image. Because of this, it does not qualify as Fair Use anymore, and the image has been replaced.

Just remember during your purge (which is *not* a bad thing!) that, as I understand it, if an image is a photograph taken by an editor and uploaded for free use, it is no longer considered Fair Use because it was not released under copyright, even if the subject of the photo is a product or object. This may be a valuable solution, in that (where possible) high quality photographs could be taken of the album covers to remove them from the Fair Use clause. I'd do this myself if I had a digital camera of decent quality, but alas, I don't. Thoughts? -- Huntster  T • @ • C 03:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:2007 CBR1000RR red.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:2007 CBR1000RR red.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. When you use a generic fair use tag such as or , you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu Badali 11:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images in user page gallery
Hi there...

In reviewing for fair use orphans, I came across your page, User:Roguegeek/Uploaded. There are three images in your gallery that are fair use and as such should not be shown. They can be listed as a text link below the gallery. --Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 23:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

speedy image tagged being listed at IfD
Hi there...

You added several images to the Images and media for deletion/2006 November 17 list. These items were marked as having no source. These images are not required to be listed at IfD, they are captured in the "images without a source" category automatically and speedied after seven days. By listing the images at IfD, you are duplicating the listing and increasing the administration work. Any of the following reasons for deletion automatically sort the image into the appropirate daily category; you can see the category at the bottom of the image after tagging.


 * Mark as no source
 * Mark as no license
 * Mark as no rationale
 * Mark as orphaned fairuse
 * Mark as replaceable fairuse

The only images that are required to be listed at IfD are those that are released or are under public domain, released under GFDL or other unrestricted re-use license. It is also advisable to list items that may be considered contentious. Only images that have the ifd template applied should be listed at Images and media for deletion. Items with any of the above 5 speedy tags should just be categorized. If there are any questions, please drop me a note on my talk page.--Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 02:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Motorcycling Wikiproject
Welcome to the Motorcycling WikiProject. Hopefully you have a good time, start many new articles and can contribute lots to the existing ones as we need that. Cheers ww2censor 16:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Norton Commando
Hi - I hope this finds you well! Having appreciated your input before on motorcycle articles, can ask a favour for you check this article out for me, presently held on a personal stub page. Thank you! Rgds, - Ian 23:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Arizona-sunset.jpg
Hey there. Can you identify which Arizona lake is shown in Image:Arizona-sunset.jpg? I assume it's either Lake Havasu, Lake Mohave, or Lake Mead (possibly Lake Powell, but it doesn't look like it). Nice picture, BTW. Mike Dillon 16:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

PanoTools Group
rv. Information removed is notable to this article due to the technology's unique history. Discuss changes to avoid edit wars.)

Thanks for being fair and reverting the page back to it current state. John Spikowski 21:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

GraemeL is back at it again and didn't listen to your warnings. Can you put him on editting ban for a while till he stops this? I have to revert the page again. John Spikowski 02:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Metallica Disputed!?
I did not find anything about it in the discussion page, which part is disputed? Put something in the discussion page as to WHY your putting the disputed tag. Otherwise it doesn't belong there. Akeeq 10:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There is only ONE [neutrality disputed] line, which too is taken from the "MTV Icon Show" And for the citations, the tag, this article does not cite its references IS used, and the one in the top is not appropriate. Akeeq 10:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Dont get on my nerves mate. I have adressed the issue on the Metallica;Talk page. Discuss it there. Place your claim there as to why you are putting it up. I have already explained why I removed the tag at your talk page and Metallica's talk page. If you cant read its not my fault. Akeeq 10:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Two of those links refer to the same thing. Third one is towards your talk page. I do NOT find anything as to which is offensive, YOU threatened me first. Seconldy the first two links i do know i got a bit uncivil there. The issue is not about being civil, the issue is YOU putting a tag on the article WITHOUT giving any apparent reason. Akeeq 11:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Every article has a "discussion page" why? For people to reason, and to put why they are adding/removing content. Which you did not do, amazingly I did. My talk page is not the right place to state why your putting a neutrality dispute tag on Metallica's article. If you put it up its fine, but there should be a valid explanation in the discussion page, which is no where to be found. I have also reported your threat to one of the admins recently. We will see what happens, whatever is the case I'm fine with it, because whoever is on the wrong should be treated likewise. Akeeq 11:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

i believe now you get my point, if you take a look at the discussion page for that article, just wanted to remind you, peace. Akeeq 04:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what makes you think I was uncivil, yes I lost my temper at one point in Metallica discussion page, but that was not relevant or was in anyway towards you, secondly, you have put those 4 links most of them which lead to the same thing in my talk page and giving me warnings on those. In my last message to, it was just a plain message just for 'your' knowledge that you should go and see that and you would understand what I was trying to tell you. I was no way rude or uncivil in any of my posts to you, I find it rather interesting that you want to take it to some board, whereas I'm the one who you were offending. But as I have already cleared out, i was not rude towards you the last word "peace" was there just to make sure you understand. But if you think otherwise, I leave it upto you. Do what you feel is right. Have fun, and takecare. Akeeq 05:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Were those comments uncivil? Akeeq 05:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Abida
As far as the image of Abida is concerned, if you read my summary it says if it violates let me know, and if it does I have no problem delete it. Thank you for letting me know. Akeeq 11:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

uncivil
Okay now, I just wanted to tell you something, One of my post was uncivil, I edited it the moment you pointed it. You want an apology for me flaming you? I dont think i've done that so I wont, on the contrary If I had been uncivil with you, you would have had an apology before you even felt the need to ask. So I think we or atleast I should bury this matter now. Bye and Happy editing. Akeeq 05:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I had the same issue brought up here regarding "uncivil" remarks, to which my response was given here. I never cared to read other user's talk pages, but it seems that I am not the only one that has had this form of interaction with Roguegeek after reading the long list of other users who have voiced their opinions. I thoroughly enjoyed editing on Wikipedia until this past month, which is unfortunate.Pumapayam 20:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with you, if you find any of my editings which can have negative effect, please point them to me. As I really dont know which one's your talking about. I would gladly remove/edit them. Akeeq 05:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Your Commons photos
I happened to notice that the Commons images you've categorized as "misc" on your user page are probably derivative works. The photo of the camera box is the most obvious one, as this is your photo of someone else's photo printed on the box, but I believe the model helicoptor is also a copyrighted "sculpture." You probably have a fair use rationale for these derivatives, however, so I'd suggest uploading them to Wikipedia before tagging them for deletion on Commons. Cheers, Postdlf 15:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: CBR1000RR tagged, but no discussion
Heh, I didn't get the chance to create the section in the discussion right then. I went ahead and put the tag back and created the discussion too. Thanks! --Ioeth 20:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Evanescence covers
Hey Rogue. Regarding the images, I've been told multiple times that scans of a cover would be acceptable, as it is not the same as a released promo or similar image; this is similar to how one can take a photograph of a product and it not be considered fair use. This is the whole point of getting rid of promotional imagry...the actual photo (and a scan is just a digital photo) is not owned by a company, only the product represented. Otherwise you couldn't take a photo of an automobile or deck of cards without it being fair use. I'd consult with an administrator before continuing to remove images (and please direct them to me if they require an opposing argument :) Thanks! -- Huntster  T • @ • C 19:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Responded
Please see my talk page for a response to your comment. Mrand 15:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Evanescence Article Image
Hi Roguegeek,

Now that we seem to have the green flag for using multiple fair use images (properly justified with a fair use rationale, of course), we're currently trying to decide which image of the band to use in the infobox. You're welcome to chime in at Talk:Evanescence. Thanks in advance for the input! —Lantoka ( talk 23:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Scheduled deletion of Ducati bike photos
How about when you schedule deletion of photos which are linked in an article, you post it in the article discussion. I uploaded those pics, but there are other stake-holders who might be interested.

Also, several of the fair-use pics posted are irreplaceable as the subject matter either no longer exists or is unavailable for photographing, and is the direct subject of the article (or section) of discussion.

I plan to remove the ifd tag on those articles (only). rgds Izaakb 18:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstand the description "Orphaned fair use" but it seems that you created that condition when you removed them from the Ducati article. The other conditions may be problematic, but it is my understanding that it is Wiki practice to leave the images until the review takes place rather than deleting them in the article without at least posting a notice in discussion of that article.

And FYI, I am not upset that the pictures may be deleted. I consider it courtesy to post in the discussion of an article if you are going to make drastic edits, but I guess that is not a common commodity. Izaakb 20:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Before you delete/remove those picture tables, can you cite what part of the WP:MOS you are referring to? I understand it's very easy to cite to a huge page of links and such, but I see nothing on that page which indicates the formatting is problematic. Kind of like saying "Federal law says no private ownership of owls. See:  Federal code." How about a decent citation? Izaakb 20:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I have dug around in WP:MOS and I found this Guide_to_layout. There is nothing there that says a horizontal table of images is "against MOS". It says Some users prefer images to be all located on the right side of the screen (aligned with boxes), while others prefer them to be evenly alternated between left and right. Both options are valid, although in both cases care must be taken for the images not to clash with nearby contents. Hardly an "official policy". Izaakb 20:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ducati article edits
Looks great overall. I am surprised that you left out Bruno Ducati in your list of founders, him being the most instrumental in the operation of the motorcycle company until it was relinquished to the government and also the last to die in 2001. Also, Investindustrial is not the owner of Ducati, they are merely a major shareholder. They do not individually control Ducati. Federico Minoli is an independent CEO and unaffiliated with the Bonomi group, originally being placed by (former owners) TPG and elected separately from Investindustrial. See my edits on the ownership history -- TPG owned %100 of Ducati outstanding shares, but floated over 65% and thus could only sell a 35% share. Of that, only 30% went to Investindustrial, another 5% or so went to Hospital Systems of Ontario. Over 50% of the ownership is public, so Ducati Motor cannot be said to have an owner.

One thing about your photos, I would prefer to replace them with more studio oriented shots of the bikes. The IMS shots are fine, but too many distractions (i.e. background people, reflections) for my taste.

Once more, there are several people working on this article, so please start posting your plans in the discussion. Izaakb 14:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject Automobiles Notification
Hi Roguegeek, you were on the list of members at WikiProject Automobiles and we are introducing a new way of listing members, as the old list was becoming too long. Our new method involves having all of our members in a category.

To add yourself to the category just add the userbox to your user page by putting   where you want the userbox. Alternatively if you don't like the userbox you can add   to your userpage.

If you no longer wish to be a member of the project, simply don't add the userbox or category, there's no pressure. Thanks for your time, James086Talk 04:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

TT racer images
Hi Roguegeek, was wondering if u knew how to get images of old tt racers, like bob mcintyre, wal handley, mellors, les graham, guthrie type people for use on their wikiarticles ?Seasalt 10:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

California Special Images
Rogugeek. Wiki_righter here. I'm trying to get the source and license issues resolved on the images in California Special Mustang article. I left some comments and questions about just how to do this for you on my talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wiki_righter. Thanks.

Hello
Hello OSX, I need your assistance on an article Ford BA Falcon please of you can could you complete one of the following points:
 * Copy/edit
 * Add information
 * Review article
 * Nominate article for Good Article status

If you have any questions just go to my talk page. SenatorsTalk 23:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Your personal experience
I know wikipedia guidelines, but the fact isn't really disputable. R&T is the ONLY magazine which is claiming sub 170 for the car. Reliable source, Porsche, ALL the other magazines, the owners at caymanclub.net who have tested there cars top speed (myself included). Shall I post links to video proof? It is just one of R&Ts NUMEROUS errors! BMan1113VR 07:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Suzuki TL 1000R image
Please take the time to read the article and the licensing, I see that you have received [several] of the same cookie-cutter "free use image warning templates" that you pasted on to my talk page. I know the rules of wikipedia (without having to have a link to them on my userpage), so you don't need to lecture, just discuss. It would be easy to get a TL1000S picture, but the R's are a lot harder as there were a lot less made. Do you have an image? There were not any in the commons and I don't know of any wikipedian who owns one. The image is not "easily or reasonably available" so it is acceptable, in addition to the already listed reasons. I did discuss the usage of said picture BEFORE uploading the image and BEFORE updating the article with an admin. He said that the picture would be fine till a better one came along. At such time a decent (or any) freely licenced image is available, I will be the first to say that it should be switched. Also, if you wouldn't mind using the talk page (or write a personal note instead of a template) when you are going to change (although not add anything) from articles without a decent explanation, it would be most helpful. BMan1113VR 11:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Specs on Mustang GT
Greetings. I apologize if I sounded crass on the edits, however the 2005-up Mustang GT has a top speed limited to 145 mph according to the Ford factory PCM calibration file. I recall seeing the top speed set to 155 mph for the 07 GT500 in its factory calibration file. I rarely read automotive magazines because 5 different magazines will give 5 different sets of specifications or test results. I rely upon verifiable data derived from the factory PCM calibration. It doesn't get any more reliable than that!

Good day to you sir.

(Metroplex 02:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC))

dmoz
Hi, I would like some assistance in adding URLs to the Open Directory Project...every time I suggest a URL or apply to become an editor, the page that comes up is: http://www.dmoz.org/unavailable.html. Supposedly the dmoz server was down until Dec 18th, but surely it has come back since then? The forums state: "Editors have regained access to the editors server and the public pages are now up-to-date. However, the public ODP scripts (including site suggestion, update listing, editor application, and abuse reporting) are still not available and we currently have no ETA for their return. Please be patient and, again, we ask that you not start threads asking when those forms will be available again--we will update this announcement when we have further information. Thanks." in which case it may not be possible to add any URLs?

Enigma3542002 02:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

OS X
Please look at all the information Apple have released about the iPhone. Everything says "OS X" and not "Mac OS X". I'm not saying "OS X" is a whole other product, but they use the "OS X" name for the iPhone OS and the "Mac OS X" name for the Macintosh OS. From now on "OS X" should redirect to iPhone, until we know more.


 * http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/01/09iphone.html
 * http://www.apple.com/iphone/technology/osx.html

AlistairMcMillan 22:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? Apple use the phrase "OS X" when talking about the mobile phone operating system, they never use the phrase "Mac OS X".  How the hell is that original research?  AlistairMcMillan 22:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

How many different times does this need to be said. Apple's press releases all call the computer operating system "Mac OS X". They only use the phrase "OS X" when talking about the mobile phone operating system.

I have, not even once, given anyone my opinion about whether "OS X" and "Mac OS X" are the same or different. AlistairMcMillan 22:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Apple-iPhone.jpg
The picture of iPhone is, in fact, copyrighted. A large part of the image shows the operating system, Mac OS X, and copyrighted. The entire image is free use, except for the part that shows the copyrighted software. In all cases, copyright overrules non-copyright. So if any part (that's not really small) is copyrighted, the entire image is. Scepia 03:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

copyright is copyright

 * I don't care what your personal opinion is on copyright. I don't care if you think it "matters" or not. Fact is, that image illustrates the iPhone operating system. You can't just say "well, the product is in there also, so it doesn't matter". I'm not going to ask an admin about policy that can be found at Image copyright tags. Scepia 09:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * To put it another way, the tag "fair use" is misleading. How about a black Apple logo. Are saying we should use a black Apple logo in the article black, because we are just focusing on the color? No, copyright can't be twisted and shaped depending on one's fancy. It is solid. Scepia 09:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You sure treat me like a n00b. My personal opinion on copyright has nothing to do with this. Simply put, if the image has a significant section that is copyrighted, the entire image is fair use. I'm not saying the operating system is a millimeter x millimeter, it composes most of the image. I don't have any problem with including the image in the article. This is merely discussion of the copyright tag. It is not free use, because it illustrates the copyrighted operating system (which is Mac OS X, clearly copyrighted). Do you just want to fight to fight? Just want to play the other side because it's fun? The image is copyrighted. Let's tag it as that and get over it. If you would like to dispute this, and perhaps say that iPhone runs Linux, please cite some sources, but until you can prove that the iPhone operating system is CC, let's not lie. Scepia 12:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Another thing: There are no free use images of iPhone. Unless the screen is blank (which wouldn't illustrate much). I can't exactly beam up an iPhone either. And really, why do you care what I do on Wikipedia? I can go hunting for mis-labeled images if I want, which clearly that is. Scepia 12:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And yes, this is not a direct screenshot, so what? The copyright tag need not be perfect. The image shows the screen, just not perfectly. Change the copyright tag to another fair use tag if you want, but don't go claiming it's free use. Scepia 12:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Honda Accord
May I ask what, exactly, I did that violated MOS? --Sable232 15:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I removed the non-breaking spaces in the infoboxes because they aren't needed. The infobox is a fixed minimum width and the information fits on one line, so I've always figured normal spaces could be used. If that's still wrong, however, I'll fix it and redo my edit. --Sable232 17:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

iPhone and OS X
It is factually incorrect to indicate that the iPhone will run Mac OS X. No matter what edits you make to try to kill off links to the Mac OS X article, please avoid making factual errors. To say "Mac OS X" is to tell people that the OS on the iPhone is the same one running on a Mac, and that is only your opinion. There is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that the iPhone runs Mac OS X. — Epastore 20:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry
Hey, sorry if you took offense to my remark. It wasn't directed to your post in particular—it just happened to post it below yours. (More here).+mwtoews 15:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Fair use criteria
Okay, I made the appropriate changes to the image. Thank you. Jecowa 00:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You can use the tag instead of  to mark images as orphaned fair-use images for deletion. Jecowa 00:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)