User talk:Staecker/Archive 3

Here,

whats the deal with the warnings on my JEWVENTUS page?

If there is something wrong with the image names i cant see it?

Xenoshane 18:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Unused image
You may delete the image Image:Morrigan1.jpg.It is not being used in any article. Thanks, 1stLtLombardi 17:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate image of Charlie Nash
Yes, You may delete the image Image:CharlieNash-Alpha.jpg. Also, you may delete the image Image:Charlie.jpg. Thanks, 1stLtLombardi 13:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I allow you to delete the image Image:CharlieNash-inAlpha.jpg. Thanks again, 1stLtLombardi 15:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:River.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:River.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 06:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Kenny Rogers & Dottie West photo
Yeah that's fine, it sounds okay to me. Dottiewest1fan 00:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
thanks.. its fine with me if you delete, that's a duplicate one! thnk u very much

User:Josenian

Bot question
Would you be interested in developing a bot like this? On Staeckerbot you have the duplicate function that may be needed for this bot to. Rettetast 16:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm a bit busy these days and it seems a bit complicated for my schedule. Thanks for thinking of me, though. Staecker 11:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No need to be sorry. Rettetast 13:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for reverting Image:Wpixcw11-1.jpg back from the previous incorrect logo uploaded by Liradio. I had tried, but how did you do it? Rollosmokes 15:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * On the image description page, in the File History section, each version should have a little (rev) link, which you click to revert to that version. Staecker 18:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aksibot 11:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Will Ferrell image?
Why did you delete Image:Will-talladega-uk-premiere.jpg? I have been in discussions with Pd THOR and I thought we had come to a conclusion about the copyright attribution issues. Can you shed some light, please?Kevin Crossman 17:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry- I didn't know you were discussing it- should've checked the incoming links more carefully. I commented at User:Pd THOR. Staecker 18:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:AnEncyclopediaofClaims.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:AnEncyclopediaofClaims.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Comlogo.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Comlogo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Comic.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:The Adventures of Captain Comic gameplay.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:DodgeArenaLogo.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:DodgeArenaLogo.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and 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.BetacommandBot 01:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:The Good Samaritan by Cornelis van Haarlem.jpg
FYI, I misspelled the name of this image as Image:The Good Samaritan by Cornelius van Haarlem.jpg. Not seeing any way to rename the image other than to speedily delete the wrong one and reupload, I did just that. Your bot saw the duplicate image and on the good page, but its message formatting appears to be hosed. Just thought you should know. --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 23:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks- it has something to do with the substed . I'll check it out. Staecker 03:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Feature request, if possible
I uploaded an image under the wrong name for a template, so I reuploaded it under a different name, and tagged the first for speedy deletion. Staeckerbot then added a second identical speedy tag. I was wondering if it could check for an existing speedy deletion tag, before adding one itself. Just a suggestion, thanks. Jackaranga 23:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jack- I'd been checking for Template:db-redundantimage, but not Template:isd. Both are handled now (plus a few more redirects I found). Staecker 01:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

how do I delete one of my own images
Hi Staecker, your bot noticed some of my uploads. I was experimenting with .svg images but I was not happy with the result but I do not know how to delete the images myself. Do you have a suggestion? Thanks in advance. V8rik 16:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You can mark your own uploads for deletion with . Staecker 16:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Teenage Fanclub Live 2003.JPG
Why did you revert the licence? Look at what the photographer wrote that you deleted. Ditto Image:TFC Norman Blake 2003.JPG & Image:TFC Gerry Love 2003.JPG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.130.0.66 (talk • contribs)
 * I saw what the photographer wrote- I immediately deleted the images at first, before I decided that it wasn't the right thing to do. I reinstated the original license because the uploader isn't allowed to simply revoke the GDFL license like that (I assume the same goes for the CC). When the uploader released his rights to Wikipedia (i.e. the rest of us), we were granted the right to use that picture. He can't just take it away without a good reason. Staecker 17:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Not happy as you imagined :). So let's clarify this, Betacommand & bot are currently on a rampage deleting images all over the place because Betacommand can't/won't rewrite his/her bot to add a boilerplate rationale & warn the uploader to check it & confirm it's correct; leaving contributers (as opposed to whatever Betacommand is ;) struggling to add several thousand near-identical rationales where the only difference is the list of linked pages and the name of the image - surely that's "botable"?
 * While over on this page we're having a discussion about deleting an image where I, as the copyright holder/photographer, cannot get the images deleted. What do I have to do?  Issue a takedown notice?  Forward an e-mail from Teenage Fanclub expressing their disapproval that I should publish unapproved images of them?  Beg?  I would have thought that the process should have been straightforward.  I will have to return periodically until I can get this resolved - again, not improving my mood.  Regards, M Megamanic 08:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not really knowledgable about copyright laws/terminology, but it may be helpful for you not to think of yourself as the copyright holder (though maybe technically you are). You are the photographer, but the only rights you have concerning the photos are those provided by the GFDL (or CC). Those rights do not include restricting WP's usage after you have left the project. There is no established "process" for doing this because it's not supposed to be done, and (I believe) you don't have any legal right to do it.
 * I'm sorry you're upset, and I know this isn't making it any better. I'm pretty sure that I'm right about this, but if you'd like a second opinion I suggest you leave a note at WP:CSD asking about "leaving WP" as a justification for CSD G7 ("author requests deletion"). At least that might help for this to be clarified a bit on some policy page(s). Staecker 13:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

How about this as a compromise? We leave the images up and add a disclaimer along the lines of "although I can't stop you I'd prefer it if you didn't use this image in wikipedia anymore love Megamanic" & remove the references to the images on the 3 pages. If they return I won't be here to worry about it. Megamanic 04:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The disclaimer you can definitely add- you could even put notes at the article talk pages asking for other people's free images which could be used (though I'd be surprised if many people have ones as good as yours). You are (as always) allowed to remove the images from those articles, but anybody who's paying attention can put them back in. If removing the images reduces the quality of the encyclopedia articles (which it probably does), then they probably will be put back. But I won't be the one to do it.
 * I would like to remove the attacks on your userpage, which I'll do now. Sorry for your continuing frustrations here, and thanks for being civil to me. Staecker 05:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:AralShip.jpg
Can you take some new photo about Lake Aral? or aral ship? I need some Photo from 2007.--Tamás Kádár 06:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I'm not near the Aral anymore. I live in Pennsylvania. Staecker 17:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I flew over the Aral Sea in 1989, but did not photograph it. It was part dry. Anthony Appleyard 18:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

These Aral "sea" pictures is great!!!

CSD G7
I have undeleted & untagged Image:TFC Norman Blake 2003.JPG Image:TFC Gerry Love 2003.JPG Image:Teenage Fanclub Live 2003.JPG. Anthony Appleyard 18:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks- Staecker 18:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion in your bot's log by newcomer
I just wanted to make sure you were aware of this. Sohelpme 23:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks- I'm not sure why somebody would want to save a redundant image, but I deleted it anyway. Staecker 23:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Re:CSD G7
Hi CG- I noticed that you deleted Image:Teenage Fanclub Live 2003.JPG as G7 (self-requested delete). If you look at the log, you'll see that I clumsily did the same thing and then changed my mind (same goes for Image:TFC Norman Blake 2003.JPG and Image:TFC Gerry Love 2003.JPG). The uploader (User:Megamanic) is fed up with WP and is leaving, and trying to take his images with him. As far as I know this is a violation of the GFDL, since the uploader released his control over the work when he tagged it. I'd like to re-undelete the images and put them back in the articles where they currently live as redlinks, but didn't want to revert you without your OK. My understanding of G7 isn't laid out explicitly anywhere as far as I can tell, but exactly this situation is addressed at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion. Let me know what you think. Staecker 17:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, Staeker,
 * Thanks for pointing that out, I didn't realise. They've all been restored, as they should. Cheers-  Cat tleG irl  '' talk 06:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: "updated" photo nothing like the original version
Image:FDF talavera PJS.jpg This may not be anything to do with your bot, but I noticed that someone has uploaded a "new version" of a photo which i uploaded some time ago, with the same filename but a completely different picture. Notably the new picture features a different aircraft in a different location, hence the comment in the referencing page was incorrect and therefore someone came along and "corrected" that as well. (see http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/archive/3/30//20070425120947%21FDF_talavera_PJS.jpg )

Is it a feature or a bug in wikipedia that anyone can come along and upload/overwrite a previous picture without needing to "own" the firt upload? Currently, Image:FDF talavera PJS.jpg is a photo nothing to do with me, which credits me, and any links to it will show a different picture to that which the author intended? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bignoter (talk • contribs)
 * This is a "feature" of mediawiki. The idea is that contributing images is just like contributing text to wikipedia- nobody "owns" anything once it's contributed. Anybody should be able to edit, remove, or replace anything that's here. That's the idea, at least. In practice, a lot of people who don't really know what they're doing will upload a new image on top of an existing one so that they can use the same code to include it in a page (without "learning" how to change the file name). As you noticed, they usually don't change the image description page, so the file will be badly sourced and referenced.
 * Sometime in May, I modified my bot code to treat such cases more carefully (they are now flagged at User:Staeckerbot/Suspicious images for a human editor to sort out), since deletion is usually not the right thing to do in these cases. Your image switcheroo happened before this change, so in a sense my bot does have something to do with it- but the issue is fixed now.
 * Luckily these problems are easy to fix, just like bad text edits, but they tend to be harder to notice (it's now about 6 weeks after the fact). If you look at the "File History" section at Image:FDF talavera PJS.jpg you can revert to an older version by hitting the little (rev) link next to the version you want. Then look at the "File links" section to make sure it's being used properly. I've undeleted Image:9885.jpg so that it can be used by itself, and put it in the MEDEVAC article, which is where I think it belongs. I'll leave it to you to revert Image:FDF talavera PJS.jpg to your version, and put it in the appropriate articles. Hope that helps-- Staecker 14:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

swap pic?
I see where the calligraphy portion of some of my illustrations has been removed in a couple of articles ( see: Idril). Is there a particular reason for that?Tttom1 16:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why, but User:YLSS cropped the image and re-uploaded it. I've restored the uncropped file as Image:TOURIDRIL.jpg. Let me know if there are others that need to be restored, and you may want to leave a note at User talk:YLSS inquiring about why that happened. Staecker 19:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So you think they were ok as originally added? Another was Tuor. I did put it in 2 articles, one on Tuor and the other on Orcs in the Othrod section is that a problem? OK thanks, I'll ask them.Tttom1 01:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There's nothing about the images that look inappropriate to me, but others may have different opinions. Certainly there's nothing wrong with them in terms of policies. I restored Image:TOURvOTHROD.jpg. Staecker 02:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Great. Thank you for the assistance.Tttom1 02:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry to bother you again, but only cropped images were restored. I contacted the editor who cropped them and I'm afraid we don't agree. I upload new files with the full images and restored those in the articles Idril and Tuor. The new uploads are: Image:TUORIDRIL.jpg and Image:TUORvOTHROD.jpg. I'm curious as to how the cropped version replaced my original upload entirely.Tttom1 15:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Any user can upload an image on top of another existing image, and this is how your cropped ones were "replaced entirely". The whole set of files were then re-uploaded (I think to change the filenames), and then the old versions were deleted because they had become redundant with the new versions. Ordinarily none of them would have been deleted, if not for the strange re-uploading and the confusion it caused.
 * When I say I "restored" them, I mean that I caused the old files to not be deleted anymore. I didn't replace them in the articles- I left that for you to do, and it looks like you've done it. Whether or not the Tengwar appears in the article is for you and the other editors to decide. It looks like a matter of debated aesthetics. You may want to post a note at Talk:Idril and Talk:Tuor to get some opinions from other editors, so it's not just you vs. one other.
 * Also, would you consider uploading these images to Wikimedia Commons? Then they can be used by all of the wikipedia projects in other languages. They really are great images, and the other projects would probably appreciate them. Staecker 16:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Be glad to upload to Wikimedia Commons - I'll follow the link, but I may need help. And thanks for the tips and compliments.Tttom1 16:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I registered on the Commons, but am baffled by the instructions as to what goes in the Summary box - seeing an actual image done would help immensely.Tttom1 17:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I did this - Image:The Wedding of Tuor and Idril.jpg - Is that about right?Tttom1 18:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks great- I put the commons version into the Tuor and Idril articles, and deleted the wikipedia version (you use a commons image the same way you'd use a wikipedia image). Now other wikipedias can use the image without having to upload it for themselves. Staecker 12:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I moved the rest of the pictures to the commons. I think I did them all the same as the first. But I can't figure out how you got them into the articles or gallery. If you could help that would be great. They're all in a list on my commons contributions.Tttom1 01:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * To include a file from commons in an article, just use its file name as if it were a wikipedia file. I can't find your contributions at commons (don't know your username) but you should be able to include the file using something like [[Image:filename.xxx]], where "filename.xxx" is the name of the file on commons. If the commons file has the same name as the wikipedia file, use Template:nowcommons to have the wikipedia version deleted. I hope that's helpful- you may want to check out Wikimedia Commons for more detailed advice. Staecker 02:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * My commons name is TTThom. I swapped most of the pics, having changed the file names it was easy. Only one: TREEBEARD.jpg, with the same file name, hasn't seemed to work. I was advised in my commons talk to firm up source description- I did. And I can't figure out how  things get in that gallery page.Tttom1 13:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, most of that seems to be resolving on its own. Thanks, for all your help.Tttom1 13:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate picture bot
Hello Staecker, thanks for running that duplicate-picture-catching bot. Opus33

Staeckerbot double deletes
Hi, I accidentally uploaded an image with very similar filenames, and I immediately added a db-author tag to the duplicate image. Several minutes later, Staeckerbot tells me that it also has tagged the image for speedy deletion (see User talk:Mwtoews). Tagging the image once is good enough; perhaps the bot should recognize that, and hold off on the second tagging? This is just a minor annoyance, but in general is no big deal. (Also, as a suggestion, you might want to turn this into a redirect to this page, to reduce any confusion).+mwtoews 02:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've allowed most types of "double deletes" since it could be helpful sometimes to have more than one reason (if one is unjustified, for example). Self-tags are almost always justified by definition, so I agree it makes sense to rule these out. They shouldn't happen anymore. Thanks- Staecker 04:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

My image Schoolburnet.jpg should not have been deleted. I tagged it just like my others. Creative Commons attrition required. I do own that image. I want it on the page. To improve my biography it said add pertinent images. My subject built or had built that one room school for his children and others and then hired an Oxford graduate to teach them. Latin, Elocution, Geography, French, etc. in the WILDERNESS. A great man needs to be honored as such.

I don't care what my image is called as long as it displays!Emuchick 22:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The one in the article was deleted, but I just inserted the duplicate version. Staecker 01:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Currency Image:200TengeNote.jpg
Hi, To assist global anti-counterfeiting efforts you may wish to consider marking images of banknotes you upload as "Specimen" in some way, if those banknotes represent legal tender.

Re:Duplicate images uploaded
Do you also think that I uploaded my iGoogle homepage image from a duplicate or not?-- PNiddy- ~ // My edits 22:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think you did... did you? Staecker 00:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think so...--  PNiddy  Go!  0 02:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate image
I first uploaded the image with the useless number/letter name on accident, and uploaded it again with a proper name. I was going to ask an admin to delete it for me, but go ahead, by all means, delete it! ~Bella 00:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate Image
It's because I uploaded it onto the MicroTAC page,but there was a problem and I had to re-upload the image again.Please don't delete it.Paul 1953 06:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate Image II
It's because I uploaded it onto the Pager page,but there was a problem and I had to re-upload the image again.Please don't delete it.Paul 1953 04:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Please don't delete the image Torsten 1.jpg - I uploaded it twice but only because I was fumbling a bit.... Thank you Swoodapple

Torsten 1.jpg
Hi there the photo Torsten 1.jpg is my own photo. We let others use it so it appears on many websites and brochures. Cheers Swoodapple

Stop screwing up the categories
"Controversy" is a matter of opinion over which parties actively disagree, argue, or debate.

Controversy is an item, not a person. You don't say "this man is a Bush controversies", don't you?

More of a simple logic next time.

A heck of reverts awaits you, but looks you love it. --HanzoHattori 13:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

And especially since a lot of them already are in "Category:Dismissal of United States Attorneys controversy" as in engaged in this one or whatever (I don't have idea what is it about, and I don't care). Making this redunant, too. Do you think at all? Happy reverting.

I removed all this because some smartass was putting all and every new operation in Iraq as "Bush controversies" and a couple of others, like "Al-Qaeda", "Politics of Iraq" and what not (lots). --HanzoHattori 13:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

And I don't know, maybe you I'm not clear enough: Michael D. Brown (whoever he is) is not a walking controversy (or "controversies"). Michael D. Brown controversy is a controversy. (Edit: Ah, this guy I remember. And the article is avaible already: Criticism of government response to Hurricane Katrina). --HanzoHattori 13:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You are clear enough, and you might be right. But you need to get some consensus before removing 50 pages from a category for semantic reasons. Have a discussion at Category talk:George W. Bush administration controversies, or at least explain what you are doing and why. And for the love of Jimbo use an edit summary. Simply making big changes with no explanation is disruptive, and as you say, it's a pain for others to undo if your changes aren't consensus (though it took me less time to revert than it did for you to make the changes).
 * You should also review WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL- they are some of our most important rules for being a constructive wikipedia editor. Asking me if I "think at all" does not lead to a fruitful dialogue between us. I see that you recently commanded another editor to "Learn how to write Wikipedia articles". It seems to me that you should learn how to be a productive and civil contributor to this project. Staecker 13:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

What consensus? Discussion about what? I'm not "involved in this project" and won't be, politics are boring and stupid. You - make the category of "People involved in the Bush administration controversies" if you must, Jesus. --HanzoHattori 13:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Also: I believe you should read the article titled: "WP: Don't revert ~50 edits before thinking more than 'it looks suspicious', many of which also involving placing 'suspicious' cleanup tags and removing non-existing categories and such, thus wasting the times of other because of some un-elaborated 'suspection' without thinking about it or contacting me first for an explaination". I think it's up on Wikipedia somewhere. --HanzoHattori 13:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * By "this project" I mean Wikipedia. Do you share the values of civility and consensus? Staecker 14:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Since I every few days check on the related changes of the articles within Category:Dismissal of United States Attorneys controversy, I noticed all of this category editing and reverting.  My independant view is that most, but not all of the persons listed in the Category:George W. Bush administration controversies should be listed on a category related to one or more  particular controversy, such as one like  Category:Dismissal of United States Attorneys controversy.  But not all controversies actually have a category, and it makes sense for individuals to be listed in the larger  Category:George W. Bush administration controversies pending a systematic review of what articles and individuals are in the category, and review of those article that are not listed in a particular controversy category. That HanzoHattori does not use edit summaries makes it unclear what his/her intentions are when editing.  I think the difficulty is reduced to: edit summaries are desirable. All of the time, even for benign and thoughtful edits, and the talk pages are also desirable for systematic edits of this nature.  -- Yellowdesk 01:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding HanzoHattori's question of whether one would say "this man is a Bush controversies," it seems intuitive that if X is the topic, and Y is the singular version the category, one should be able to say "X is a Y". It holds for simple examples: X=Oak, Y=Shade trees, "Oak is a shade tree." X=Imagine, Y=Songs by Lennon, "Imagine is a song by Lennon."  When you use X=Michael D. Brown, Y=Category:George_W._Bush_administration_controversies, "Michael D. Brown is a George W. Bush administration controversy" really doesn't ring true. It fails the "X is a Y" test.


 * However, in reading the Categorization FAQ and following less simple examples, one cited is Category:History_of_London. That's actually a category of categories, but clicking on one of those, say Category:History_of_Barnet, it includes Arkley (automobile), Barnet Urban District, and so on. You don't say "Arkley is a history of Barnet," or "Barnet Urban District is a history of Barnet."  Yet the categorizations seem intuitively proper.  These less simple examples are common. So the simple "X is a Y" test is inadequate to judge all article categorizations.


 * One theoretical reason is that Arkley could contain history within the article, which is not evident in its title alone. You shouldn't really need a "History of Arkley" stub to make it a part of "History of Barnet," if there were already a "History" section within the Arkley article.


 * Michael D. Brown is not a Bush administration controversy, but he was certainly central to a controversy, and caused a controversy, of the administration. Brown's controversies have an explicit "FEMA controversies and criticism" section in the article. I think the description of those controversies, even if they did not have a specific section, lend support for its inclusion among Category:George_W._Bush_administration_controversies.


 * While I think HanzoHattori's opinion was thoughtfully considered and sincerely held (i.e. I don't think it's an attempt to whitewash Bush controversies), I do think the question is more complex than it first seems. I hope this entry is useful in further considering the issue. Agyle 02:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

blob=mario.jpg
hi i would just like to say that blob=mariopoint2.jpg duplicate was placed there because i did not mean to put licencing on the first one. I just made a mistake. Please delete the first one.

Thanks.

Lachlan Brown

Minor bot error
. Probably a rare occasion that this causes an error, I just thought you might like to know. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 00:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks- it looks like the two images initially were duplicates for about 45 minutes before one of them was over-written with a non-dupe image. The bot flagged the duplicate while they really were the same. Staecker 10:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Greedo_shoots_first.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Greedo_shoots_first.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. 07:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:1.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:1.jpg, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

orphan with a checkered history; salt, too.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add  on the top of the page and leave a note on  explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 23:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Apple set top box back.jpg
Hi there. Where did you get the above image? It's fascinating!! Yes, I know what it is - I have one of these devices in my possession & I worked on the prototype and the initial production run. I've not seen one of these in over a decade! :) - A l is o n  ☺ 05:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I took the image myself of a unit I got on ebay. Never got it to do anything though... Staecker 09:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool! :) I guess after a decade, it's okay to talk about these now. All of these machines were build around 1994/1995 by Apple in Cork, Ireland. Manufacture was sub-contracted to SCI & a limited production run of the 'final' machines (like yours) was done. These were used briefly by British Telecom in trials of pay-per-view television in a UK town (Croydon??) Based on a modified version of Mac OS 7, they did little other than boot and show a logo. The important connector on the back is the 10Base-T connection where, in conjunction with the proper Quicktime server, they could receive streamed movies. The remote control used was a modified version of the unit that came with the TV Tuner card, as shipped as an option with the contemporary Macintosh Performa models. Inside, the set-top-box was ostensibly a Performa LC750 board with some extra stuff. Some of the machines, rather than have the multi-coloured Apple logo, had a British Telecom logo. Cool machines and a total historical curiosity. Lucky you for having one :) Thanks for showing the pics, it made me all nostalgic (and verbose!) - A l is o n  ☺ 12:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
Hey, thanks for told me about the mistake I did. User:Emiliano s