User talk:Ta bu shi da yu/Archive 21

Do Not remove fair use pictures
All the TIME magazine covers meet the Wiki standard:

As a general rule of thumb, Wikipedia allows low-resolution images of copyrighted material if they are unlikely to affect the potential market for the material, are used for the purposes of analysis or criticism, and for which there is no alternative, non- or free-copyrighted replacement available. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Fair_use_considerations

Plaque


I told you it belonged on a plaque, now here it is! :-) Essjay  Talk •  Contact 05:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * lol! - Ta bu shi da yu 05:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Selassie I
Glad we got that one sorted. I downloaded the image and wrote about it in both Rastafari movement and the Selassie I article that same day, ie the pic had historical value and wasn't just there as a pic of Selassie I. I do agree with your fair use push so good luck with the other 200, SqueakBox 17:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Time Magazine Covers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_University_of_Virginia_people and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Virginia

There is no need to delete the images on Wikipedia. Simply remove them from the pages that contain them. Therefore, the people who watch the pages with the TIME covers can have the chance to write about the TIME covers before they are deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.253.240.114 (talk • contribs)


 * Deletion of time covers borders on vandalism. I am a law student and am familar with fair use, reading much of the case law on the subject.  Your deletions are unnecessary. The time covers fit well withing "fair use". There is case law which supports this, the case that immediatly comes to mind is the case where the person used a smaller picture to illustrate an idea, which is very similar to the Time covers.


 * I will warn you once. If you continue to delete the covers, I will report you too vandalism in progress. If necessary, I will do everything in my power to stop your destructive edits.Travb 22:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Your ignorance of copyright law is only matched by your beligerance in being proven wrong. I am reporting you to vandalism in progress.Travb 23:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Go ahead punk
Report me. Almost none of those images are lower resolution. I'm not going to put Wikipedia at risk, no matter that you say you are a lawyer or not. Half of those images shouldn't be used to illustrate the articles anyway. My deleting will continue until a Foundation member or Jimbo tells me otherwise. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I found the tone of this comment rather aggressive. It's combative and there's no need for it to be. Please, don't drop the bastions of civility for the sake of a crusade. Thanks. Rob Church (talk) 23:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Rob. I support what you're doing; please don't undermine your position by being needlessly aggressive&mdash;probably best to try to unruffle feathers when you know your actions are going to be ruffling them! Respectfully, Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Lets start a dialogue
I am training to be a lawyer for a reason: I love to argue. It is often to my detriment though, and I often piss people off when diplomacy would solve the problem much better. I think the best lawyers are diplomats. I will never be a good lawyer.

I apologize for my caustic tone above. I was wrong, I can't report you to Vandalism in progress. I should have never said this in the first place.

Wikipedia, I am learning (often by butting heads), is about concensus, it is about working together. I think the two of us can work this out.

Please refrain from deleting anymore photos, or reverting those deletions until we work this out. Time magazine has not sued wikipedia yet, and a couple more days won't put Wikipedia in legal danger.

In return, I will hold off on the RFC. I will also hold off on escalating this beyond what I have already stupidly done.

You said that you have discussed this on: "User talk:Jimbo Wales, WP:AN, on the admin IRC channel and have sent an email to the ArbCom mailing list." I would be interested in their response. Maybe you have the backing of everyone on wikipedia, including Benevolent Dictator User talk:Jimbo Wales himself. It would not be the first time that I am wrong. I look forward to your response.Travb 01:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * thank you for your kind words. regards Travb 09:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * More like total silence from the foundation, actually. At least when I tried it. I guess you're probably right ^^;; Kim Bruning 12:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Hugo Kelly
Editor is not Hugo Kelly, but is, now at least, his Valentine. Note also at my talk page she claims to be the IP address I added along with the autobiographic template you removed. Is there a president for editors close to the subject. I assume we could at least confirm she's assigned over the copyright of the blog entry... Mark Hurd 06:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Privacy and the AA case
This is a difficult issue. I'm dead set against revealing private information when it is of no relevance to the issue at hand; clearly that was the case for you. On the other hand, AA's identity is highly relevant to this specific issue and, in fact, the Committee has ruled that people should avoid editing articles on subjects in which they are personally involved. Jayjg (talk) 13:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Your comment about mathbot
Hi. Thanks for your input at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. Just a quick remark: the edit summary usage my bot gives does not count the talk pages, Wikipedia and user namespaces. It also counts separately major and minor edits, as the former should indeed be summarized more often than the latter.

Just thought I would let you know. :) By the way, I noticed my bot bugged you a few days ago about using edit summaries yourself, might be a good habit, you know. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

(PS You can reply here if you have comments, I will keep your talk page on my watchlist. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC))

I just got an okay from time magazine
I did something that administration didn't do:

I asked Time Magazine if it was okay to use the cover photos.

Subject: RE: AskArchivist

Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 10:51:30 -0500

From: Bonnie_Kroll at timeinc.com Add to Address Book  Add Mobile Alert To: travb****@yahoo.com

Thanks for submitting your question to Ask the Archivist.

Fair use doctrine allows you to use a reasonable text excerpt with a link back to the entire article at time.com.

You may also use a thumbnail of our cover images, as long as you link back to a page on time.com.

Best regards,

Bonnie Kroll

Ask the Archivist

http://www.timearchives.com

I've asked Tony (admin) to contact her himself to confirm this.

Signed: Travb 19:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I wish your response wasn't so predictable
This morning I wrote this too user:Rjensen, predicting your response: "I posted (the message I sent you) on about 6 admins boards, and Jimmy Wales user page. I think it is a hallow and fleeting victory in many respects though. These admins will start to try and poke holes in the definition of what "is" "is", and won't admit what it clearly says in this letter: that it is now okay to post the cover photos. I hope I am wrong, and good sense prevails, but given the fair use track record, "good sense" always loses."

Predictable, you question what the Time rep REALLY meant (you are questioning the defintion of what she meant, as I predicted):


 * ""Fair use doctrine allows you to use a reasonable text excerpt with a link back to the entire article at time.com." most of those articles doesn't have what I'd call a "reasonable text excerpt with a link back to the entire article at time.com."

No one actually consulted a lawyer or at the minimum even ask Time magazine if it was okay to keep the photos.

I am going to wait for a response from Tony contacting Time, as should have been done originally.

In the interm, please read the Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation case.Travb 22:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

If a represenative of Wikipedia got permission from Time
I am interested, if a represenentive of Wikipedia got explicit permission from Time to use the photos would you allow these photos on the wikipages? I ask because after you dismiss this Time e-mail, which clearly states that fair use policy allows Wikipedia too use these photos, I am intersted what would make you change your mind.Travb 23:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * We could not get permission just for Wikipedia -- we would need a license that third parties could use as well. Explicit permission solely for our project is not good enough. --Improv 02:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No one needs permission from this user. He is no one special, and he has no explanation as to why he randomly deletes TIME covers. Upload your TIME covers if he has deleted them. Uris [[Image:Flag_of_New_York_City.svg|18px]] 20:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Hillsong Church
I see you've commented at the Hillsong article, so I was wondering what you think of this? An anonymous user (see history) has kept adding this long diatribe from a person's blog. Granted, that person quoted, I believe, is/was intimately connected with Hillsong, but I really don't think large quotes are all that encyclopedic, especially for such a controversial topic. If you can, may I have your opinion please? enochlau (talk) 11:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that :) enochlau (talk) 13:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel
Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Dmcdevit·t 06:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Review
Just to clear a small point up. The Alex Linder identification was based on a misunderstanding but the evidence linking Igor Alexander to User:Amalekite and the latter to a virulent Nazi is absolutely solid. See the user called frankcooper's post on Wikipedia Review. Grace Note 05:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Banning of Neonxzero
I don't understand why you banned Neonxzero indefinitely just because of one act of vandalism. Usually people get several warnings then they are banned, normally for short periods of time. I understand the Jesus article can be controversial and when a person vandalizes it by putting it up for speedy deletion it can make some people, especially devout followers, to become a little emotional. I would be lying if I said if Neonxzero had done the same thing to, say, Rukai he would still have been banned indefinitely. He only made two edits based on my research and one of those edits wasn't a work of vandalism. I think you should reconsider your ban. Respectfully --Jelligraze 15:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Lew Rockwell
Hi, I was wondering if we might get your perspective on a content dispute at Talk:Lew Rockwell. I've asked a few others for their assistance as well. Dick Clark 19:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Wiki gets permission from TIME magazine
We asked Time Magazine if it was okay for Wiki to use the cover photos. Here's their answer: Subject: RE: AskArchivist Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 10:51:30 -0500 From: Bonnie_Kroll at timeinc.com Thanks for submitting your question to Ask the Archivist. Fair use doctrine allows you to use a reasonable text excerpt with a link back to the entire article at time.com. You may also use a thumbnail of our cover images, as long as you link back to a page on time.com. Best regards, Bonnie Kroll Ask the Archivist Rjensen 12:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Possibly fair use
This image is obviously not PD-old, but can it be considered fair use? Image:Alexander Papagos on cover time magazine.jpg I asked in the IRC channel, and got the suggestion to talk to you about it. // Habj 12:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not the uploader, you see. I am about to ask User:Brastite on his talk page about lots of images - he/she has labelled lots of image in funny ways, including 16th century El Greco paintings labelled "copyrightedfreeuse" and a bunch of images that might actually be unfree. For this particular image, I am happy if you can ask the uploader instead since I feel really insecure about what is fair use and not. Since we're talking, maybe you can tell me: photos of old paintings are PD, but what about photos of old statues? Does the photographer hold copyright, or not? // Habj 13:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not thinking of uploading images of statues either - rather I am thinking about Image:Demosthenes statue.jpg - Image:Demosthenes bust- r280 BC.2jpg.jpg - Image:Laskarina bouboulina bronze statue.JPG - Image:Kolokotronis statue.jpg and such. If the photographer holds no copyright, I don't even have to ask the uploader but can relabel them myself. I have lots of image questions for this uploader - but you are right, it is better I start with asking about one two or three images and wait with the rest. I'll start with something more obvious, and wait with these statue pics. // Habj 13:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Please show us a model of what you think fair use of the TIME covers would look like. Rjensen 14:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of image on Aishwarya Rai
Hi, you orphaned an image (TIME cover) from the above article and then speedy deleted it. From WP:CSD, it can be clearly seen that non-free use images tagged as orphans can be speedy-deleted only after they are tagged for 7 days. I would not undo your admin actions as I believe that wheel-warring is futile. However, a glance at your talkpage suggests that you seem to be working to the point of annoying other editors. This is surprising, as I generally find your edits to be balanced and well-reasoned. The image page itself may not make fair use assertions but a look at the article suggests that it is talking about the coverage in international media including TIME. I suggest that you wait for a week after orphaning a magazine cover image so that the editors themselves can think and determine if fair use can be supported in the article or not. I hope you will restore the image from its deletion and wait for a week to see if fair use claims are proper or not. TIA, --Gurubrahma 14:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you provide a link or diff to let me know the endorsement of Arbcom and Jimbo Wales. Also, I'm not sure how arbcom figures in this. And, as a user has rightly (imo) pointed out, could you provide a model for fair use so that editors interested in complying could do so? Image deletions can be undone as some forks still carry the same. Anyways, I am waiting for your response. Thanks again for your prompt response to my earlier query. --Gurubrahma 14:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not think it would be fair on my part to place additional demands on his time. Why not share the e-mail so as to allay suspicions and fears? And how about sharing a model of what would not be a copyvio? --Gurubrahma 14:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleting "fair use" images
Just to save you some time next time... I find that the easiest way to get images that aren't fair use deleted is just to remove them from the articles they're in. A bot will then tag them for deletion under CSD I5 shortly. At least 95% of the time, I've found that this works without any objections, and it saves a lot of time either listing stuff on IfD or justifying out-of-process deletions (-: Cheers, JYolkowski // talk 14:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Time magazine covers
Please stop deleting Time magazine covers without discussing the issue in Images. Time magazine has given permission to use thumbnails. If you don't like the terms of the Time cover license, please discuss your concerns and get a consensus before you undo people's work. If you don't like the Time magazine license, switch them to {{newspapercover}. or another license that covers thumbnail images of magazine covers as "fairuse". If you think the Time magazine wording doesn't reflect how the images are used, discuss your concerns, and the wording of the license can be changed to reflect the last few letters exchanged with the Time Warner legal department. I don't see any discussion by you at Time (magazine) either. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi -- I think you should discuss this TIME magazine thing with a few other people before unilaterally deleting as many of them as you can. I don't think that our TIME magazine template is out of bounds with our fair use policy, and I don't see anywhere that you've posted exactly what your objections are. Many of the images you have deleted were, in my opinion, not very high risks of being fair use problems. Some open discussion of the rationale for deleting them would be more productive than simply deleting them and saying you have private e-mails relating to the matter, in my opinion. --Fastfission 17:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, I do not think that your speedying of them is correct procedure. Speedying is used for blatant copyright violations, which none of these are, from what I can see. If you are disputing their fair use status, there are procedures to follow for this at WP:PUI. If you are speedying on the basis of them being fair use orphans, it is not correct to do it to an image which you have just orphaned -- this is entirely outside of the intent of this provision. --Fastfission 17:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Would you mind explaining why the fair use of the image you removed from Angélica Aragón does not "apply in this instance?" and why you speedy deleted such image? --Vizcarra 04:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll step in here since I'm sure Tabu has enough going on... In the case you're asking about, the image (a copyright graphic by TIME) was not used in a way consistent with our fair use criteria or copyright law. The article contains no discussion of the copyrighted work we excerpt from, we were merely taking advantage of Time's image in order to have an illustration for the article. This is not acceptable. --Gmaxwell 04:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean to assume any "bad faith", but I think you were definitely acting out of policy in speedying those. Most of those images were being used within the bounds of the template and within the bounds of our fair use policy as outlined at Fair use; your stated motivations were that you didn't think they worked with a full legal explanation of fair use at fair use (which is not the same thing as our policy) and some sort of e-mail from Jimbo which nobody has, to my knowledge, bothered to share with anyone else.
 * If you want to nominate them all at PUI/ICP/etc. and then go to WP:FU and say that you think the policy should be changed -- that's great, I support it all the way. But I don't support speedying images where they shouldn't be speeded, that's all. They were not "clear copyright violations" according to our fair use policy at all; change the policy, then work from it, if you're worried about things. It is this concern for procedure and discussion with people who made some effort to understand this stuff that eventually led to me creating something like WikiProject Fair use, rather than just speedying everything in sight and irritating two dozen editors at the same time.
 * If you had a specific policy to point to, rather than your own interpretation of an idiosyncratic copyright clause, it would make the entire thing much smoother. This is what we did in making it so fair use content is not allowed on user pages, and so now we just have to point people towards our fair use policy page whenever they throw a fit.
 * Again, I think if you'll look at my work on the fair use clause and its enforcement and its changes you'll see that I'm hardly just complaining because I like fair use images. In this instance I happen to think you are overreacting, but I am (and always have) been quite willing to accede to whatever people think the official policy should be once it has gone through some open discussion or at least has been made officially a matter of policy, by consensus or fiat or however; I want something to point to that says it is improper, even if it is just an order by Jimbo (in fact, those are the easiest forms of policy changes). I hope that makes sense to you, and why I attempted to stimulate some more discussion about your actions here. --Fastfission 14:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * "Please discuss this issue with the Wikimedia Board of Trustees or Jimbo Wales if you feel that I have been unfair in my deletions. Thanks." -- this is a pretty ridiculous thing to say, and you should know it. If you want to produce a letter from Jimbo and the Board of Trustees saying that you have power to go over our prexisting fair use and deletion policy, I'd be impressed to see it. Until then, I think you're way out of line, both in your actions and your response to me. Either cough up some evidence of your external authority, or start doing things according to the rules, please. Again, I'm happy with working to change the rules if they need changing, but I'm not happy with people deciding they can just ignore them. --Fastfission 00:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, that would definitely smooth things over more. I will also note, though, that in looking at WP:CSD, there are no criteria at all for copyvio images that I can see. Articles can be speedied as blatant copyvios, but images cannot. Just as a note, in case you weren't aware of this (I didn't quite realize it myself until I looked it over again). --Fastfission 00:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration
I have asked for arbitration on the issue of deleting Time magazine thumbnails at Requests for arbitration. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I received your message on my Talk page regarding Image:BenJonesTime.jpg that you listed at Images and media for deletion. I also note that, without notifyinmg me, you removed (and I assume deleted) the Time Magazine cover image of Albert H. Wiggin. The Upload file contains "Time Magazine cover" under the Licensing and as such, I don't understand why a cover shot would be deleted. Perhaps you could point out to me the Policy page covering this matter. Thank you. Ted Wilkes 17:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

THANK YOU
A cleanup of the magazine cover fairuse template has long been overdue. Thank you for taking action. --Gmaxwell 03:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I have replied to you on my talk page. You might also enjoy my message here. --Gmaxwell 04:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Clarification
Hi, this is with reference to your message. I have no doubt that you mean well when you say that you are trying to clear up copyright violations. However, why not follow the process instead of speedy deleting them is all that I asked. You seem to be orphaning the images now and putting them on IFD which is great, as it follows the process. It also gives time to the uploaders to view the rationale of fair use and either ask for its retention or deletion. This would also prevent knee-jerk reactions from the uploaders, which would have been the case had you carried on with speedy deletions. --Gurubrahma 06:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks again for your response. I have a minor point of disagreement though, and it is as follows:- What is fair use for one may not be fair use for another and hence I'd prefer to take them all through the ifd route if no fair use rationale is provided, rather than exercising our judgement as to if fair use rationale would be applicable or not. Also, I believ that some broader issues need to be addressed but I am afraid that this may not be the right time as the atmosphere is charged. For example, let's say a magazine cover is fairly used with proper rationale provided on the image page and with the article talking about the issue. However, it is entirely conceivable that after some time, due to many edits on the article, the issue itself is no longer present in the article, but the image is. Addressing such issues would be much more difficult, imo. The reverse situation is even more of a quandary especially because image deletions are irreversible but I guess we'll have to live with it as we need to respect the copyright laws. Morally also, I believe it is indefensible to use magazine covers as eye candies - a point succinctly made by User:Gmaxwell elsewhere. --Gurubrahma 07:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks for your response!! --Gurubrahma 09:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Why only ONE Time cover removed?
I don't want to get into the "fair use" question&mdash;personally I think that using Time covers, particularly paintings, crosses the line into leeching off the work of others to the extent that even if legal it just isn't a nice thing to do&mdash;but am baffled as to why you removed only one of the four Time magazine cover images from University_of_Virginia, leaving the other three. The Wilson cover is dated 1923, so I guess it might be on the edge, but I don't see the difference between the Katie Couric cover and the others. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Please stop deleting these out of process without further discussion. Thanks, JYolkowski // talk 15:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * In response to your question on Gmaxwell's talk page, there is a fairusereview tag. Please visit WP:WPFU if you'd like to help us, we'd love your help with the project.  Thanks, JYolkowski // talk 15:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Laos Time cover
Why not? Adam 02:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Your deletion of TIME images...
I don't understand why the images were deleted without even being put up for deletion for a disuccion. I'm talking about the Kargil War article and the TIME cover story (with solid rationale provided therein), and as the talk page from a Pakistani suggests, that was the ONLY image of a Pakistani soldier in the entire article. Removing that image has actually reduced the fragile neutrality of the article, since it served as a valid proof of Pak Army participation and its neutral coverage in world media. I also find that you've been arbitrarily deleting TIME images en masse after reading your talk page discussions. So, please don't remove such images given the poor coverage for South Asian conflicts in world media. I'm reuploading the image and tagging it - rightly so - as fair use. Idleguy 05:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Surprised by you deletion of salazar time cover. The purpose of the image was imho the fact that he was a cover page of time. I don't see how (c) applies. Thks BBird 28 feb


 * I've responded in the appropriate talk pages regarding that Kargil TIME image. If you'd kindly understand, it's one of the 2 images from TIME, and this one shows pakistan involvement without confusion. The other image is a side on photo and does not convey the dual meaning, i.e. coverage in TIME magazine and a photo of Pak trooper in the heights. Already its temporary removal from the article has caused atleast one editor from Pakistan to lament the lack of Pakistani photos and many give importance to a TIME cover photo over others, as they are believed to be unbiased. If I had access to any other fair use image of a Pak soldier on Kargil heights, I'd be the first one to upload them, unfortunately that's not the case. Cheers. 08:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Congrats on TIME image deletions
I just wanted to drop you a note thanking you for working on copyright issues, and dealing with the TIME images. While I think speedying them was probably not the optimum way to do it, doing anything was both useful and important. Good work. You are appreciated. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Another thanks, your copyright and other contributions are very appreciated.
 * &mdash;-- That Guy, From That Show!  (talk) 2006-02-27 06:58Z 

Fair use doctrine?
The biggest problem I have with your process is that you're acting, yourself, as a lone judge and jury for what *you* consider to be violative of fair use policy. Just because an article doesn't explicitly mention the existence of a Time Magazine cover doesn't mean that there isn't an implicit connection or that it's violative of fair use. You say that you only care what a "court" considers fair use, yet you are running on a blitzkrieg even as people are urging you to just slow down. Have you investigated the court cases to look at what the multi-pronged tests are for fair use? Until then, I don't see how you can invoke a court's reasoning and maintain your speedy-delete crusade (even where *you* -- but not others -- may consider something obvious). Jkatzen 08:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Time image
I'm not a lawyer, and certainly not a copyright lawyer, but I would have thought the onus of proof was on you to show that any given image is not acceptable. How is my use of the image, to illustrate an article to which it is relevant, unfair use? If that is not fair use, what is? Adam 08:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Even if you were a lawyer, Adam, that wouldnt stop Ta bu shi da yu. Travb 04:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I am quite dissapointed with your anti-Time anti-fair use crusade. Has TIME complained about our misuse? Please explain to me how using Lech Wałęsa cover in his article is NOT fair use .--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, your question is wrong. Explain to me how it is fair use. I don't see any fair use rationales on the image. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Then the proper, civil course of action is to ask the uploader to use it (and copy the info to the talk page of the article the pic is in). If no rationale is given, then by all means, delete it. Even suggested above orphaning of the images is ok, as it is less time-consuming to you yet notifies the ppl watching the page about the change. I do support checking the excessive abuse of fair rights, however starting with deletion reminds me of the MPAA tactics of 'going for the biggest gun first', suing people without bothering to talk to them first.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ta bu shi da yu seems to have deleted a bunch of images saying "sorry fair use does not apply" without giving any explanation as to why it does with some TIME images and does not with others. I am re-uploading images unless given a reason why the standard TIME COVER tag no longer is usable on Wikipedia. Uris [[Image:Flag_of_New_York_City.svg|18px]] 20:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Tnx for letting me know about RŚ image.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Ta bu shi da yu 2
Hi, I've filed an RfC against you. Please elaborate on your reasoning in your own section. Thanks, JYolkowski // talk 22:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I've also asked Jimbo, Angela, and Anthere to comment there. JYolkowski // talk 22:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Re your comment on my talk page: Who said anything about "unfair?" What I said was is that you should have taken the time to provide clarification, something needed to avoid confusion by me, and obviously from all the issues your edits raised, by others. Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 22:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Tone
Without comment on the value of your actions in general you're not coming across to well on the RfC. If you're not willing to defend your use of the powers a bit more eloquently, you shouldn't be using them, eh? Right now you seem to be saying "There's nothing you can do about it so tough shit," which may or may not be the impression that you want to be giving.

Can I get you to just be a bit nicer and a bit more patient with the people that you think are idiots? And saying things like "if they don't like it dead-min me" is a bit overly dramatic. Chin up, shoulders back, give a good clear accounting of yourself and everyone will be happy.

brenneman {T}  {L}  01:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Not rude so much as curt. Anyone who's seen the number of footnotes on Patriot act knows that you can spout text with the best of us when you decide to. ^_^  Now's a good time to do so.  "Take it up with the board" goes over like a lead ballon no matter how right you are.  brenneman  {T}  {L}  02:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * But to me it's pretty clear that there are crossed conversations here: one group who's saying (quite correctly) that fair use images are a big pain in the bumm and that people really don't seem to be the message, and another group who is saying (perhaps arguably) that it's not what you've done but how you've done it. This is about patience and communication and doing things in the way that ruffles the least feathers, really.
 * What you're presenting, that these images were not fair use, is not what they are arguing. Does that make sense?
 * brenneman {T}  {L}  02:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I just want to make sure you're not going to pull a GMaxwell on us. ^_^ Thanks for taking the time to talk it over with me.  brenneman  {T}  {L}  02:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, now we're down to the nitty gritty - you are aware that he also went batshit and ran an unauthorised bot or two with a sockpuppet to avoid a block? - brenneman  {T}  {L}  03:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Time Images
Hey, I just read the RfAr filed against you. I was wondering if you're deleting all TIME magazine covers or just the superfluous ones? Because I think Fair Use obviously applies if we use a few on the TIME article to illustrate, for example, their distinctive red border around the cover. Anyways, hope you're doing well otherwise. Cheers. &mdash; Ilyan  e  p  (Talk)  01:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, cool :) Well then I totally agree with you...and Jimbo/WMF board I guess. &mdash; Ilyan  e  p  (Talk)  01:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Some fair use categories
Hello Ta bu. I'm glad to see you're working to clean up our fair use images. I wanted to let you know about a couple of categories: Category:Fair use review requested and Category:Disputed fair use images. I thought you might be interested. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 02:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I need some help
So I've begun to work on my action items, but I've realized that the exting boiler plate templates would be completely useless for adapting to the addition of a where field. My current plan is to create two new templates fu-na-in-why and fu-re-in-why (based on my old tagging proposal). The names are easy to remember, but obscure enough that you'll need to read our instructions to find them. I'm going to propose we create a requirement that all fair use images have either one or the other of these for each page that uses the media. The boilerplates will still be useful, and will allow people to write shorter 'whys'. You can see an example of use at User:Gmaxwell/bar. I'd really like some outside input. What do you think? I've already written a report that shows all fair use images which do not have a link back to every page that inlines them. (not useful yet but.. )--Gmaxwell 02:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Gmaxwell, I was just driving home tonight and thinking about just the same idea, and I checked around and saw this template - good stuff. I would suggest that the "tagging incomplete" text be made more prominent (so that absentminded uploaders do not tend to gloss over it).
 * It might also be helpful if the standard file upload page had a "speedbump" page if the user chose a fair use tag on upload; it could confirm "Hey, make sure you know what fair use means, make sure you have read these articles" before the upload is committed. However, I don't know how hard that is to configure in MediaWiki or if it would foul up any bots (but why would a bot upload fair use images?) KWH 02:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * A speedbump page could be done, but it would be a feature request and take a long time to get included even if I coded it myself. The big problem with a speedbump is that generally speedbumps cause people to include bad information. An example of this was that when we introduced the licensing drop down, we got zillions of images tagged with oddball tags like GPL. The introduction of the 'some website' and 'I don't know' traps helped this a lot. In general thats how I'd like to approach the problem, introduce traps that catch users who aren't paying enough attention and flag their uploads for review by people who are paying attention... thats why the incomplete message puts in a category.  As far as the incomplete text itself, please revise it.. I just wrote that real quickly so that there is something there.   The main template, otoh I would prefer people discuss with me before changing it as the text was created out of consultation with a number of important people :). --Gmaxwell 04:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Carl B. Stokes and TIME Magazine cover
You removed and deleted the 1968 cover of TIME magazine with former Cleveland Mayor Carl B. Stokes. I'm fairly new here, but I thought that the entire purpose of the tag was so that Wikipedia could include such images for educational purposes. I'm willing to work things out, so contact me back at my talk page ASAP. -- Clevelander 03:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair use (again)
I still don't always care for your tone of argumentation, but I'm willing to consider other viewpoints and I'd like you to have a look at this, submitted for your comment, if you please. KWH 04:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback, I am going back and doing something similar with some images I contributed under copyrightedFreeUse months ago when that template was still legal, just to be 'belt-and-suspenders' about it - e.g. Image:Menezes.jpg Image:21 July London Bombing Suspects CCTV.jpeg Image:Osman_hussain_face.jpg, although it's categorically ridiculous to think that Scotland Yard would sue for distributing an image which was put out to alert the public about terrorist bombers, nonetheless Crown Copyright applies... do you see where there's a blurred edge to this? KWH 08:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * In terms of US law, CrownCopyright would be considered a copyright granted by a foreign regime which a US court would be required to uphold under Berne Convention. Crown copyright is also given a certain deference in the UK and some Commonwealth countries, where the Crown is allowed to hold indefinite copyright on certain things. This of course differs from the US where the Federal Government is not held to have copyright on anything. (since if the government is the people, then it belongs to the people, so it's public domain)
 * Having looked into it, Crown copyright is itself very complex, as there's been a decades long debate politically in the UK that the Crown should not have this copyright 'trump card'. Also there's a whole mess of different use permissions on Crown copyright depending on which Ministry the stuff came from.
 * So to come full circle, the least common denominator is that you would still make a 'standard' claim of fair use on something which was Crown Copyright.
 * My original intent was to point out that Image:21 July London Bombing Suspects CCTV.jpeg is a piece of evidence which was released to the media with the intent of broad distribution, almost as a 'wanted poster'. Image:Osman_hussain_face.jpg is a picture taken of one of the suspects by Italian police after they were picked up in Rome. It seems obvious in both of these cases that the authors have released many rights; these agencies don't have a profit motive, and if they were US government agencies doing the same thing, it would fall under PD-USGov. Do you have any opinion on how far we need to go in tagging and justifying these? KWH 19:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually the scope of my question was very simple: What's your opinion on the fair use justification in these particular cases? KWH 21:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, the question you ask is not easy to answer. You must take into account extra-terratoriality, treaties and conflicts of law. And IANAL. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I have noticed that Image:Osman_hussain_face.jpg is no longer relevant since it is no longer used in the article Osman Hussain. Consider the question as hypothetical, as if it were in the article.KWH 21:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Then is it safe to say that you would not summarily delete the image, or bring it to IfD, for lacking in fair use rationale? ;-) KWH 02:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for your kind words on my talk page. Nach0king 09:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of which...
What's the deal with Image:MKDE server.png ? (Noticed while making another cleanup pass through Category:Fair use images) Stan 14:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for "rationalizeing"! And then we have Image:PDcapture1.jpg. Stan 05:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair use
Have you seen How to create policy? It might be a good idea to get some more comments via Requests for comment/Policies before you start a vote (see voting is evil). Angela. 14:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

biff rose images
licensed under the webshot screenshot allowable license. Please reattach to biff rose.Mack Plant 22:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

New South Wales schools
Hi ta bu shi da yu,

Some New South Wales proxies have been causing a lot of problems today. I think that you were dealing with this problem a while ago - please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#NSW/Ozemail proxies

Fat Mouse
FYI, your fair use "fat mouse" at User:Ta bu shi da yu/Focus article seems to be disallowed by Fair use criteria criterion 8. Not to mention that the 'fair use' image is used improperly in templates. Not to mention that the image page fails to contain a fair use justification for each page it is used on. KWH 07:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Pardon - I notice that the image in question was uploaded on March 4 by another user, and there was no contemporary edit to your subpage anywhere near that timespan, so you obviously did not intentionally transclude the fair use image. KWH 07:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The image was originally another image I found at a govt institution, and regrettably uploaded under the mistaken belief that the image was in the public domain. It was later pointed out that it was not under PD, I never got around to removing it - someone else did and then someone else uploaded a new image. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Also noted that most of the other usages, besides Fatmouse, are probably solely due to the same 'overwrite' of a pre-existing image name. KWH 07:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Probably, but I'm about to go through my image uploads and see which I have improperly uploaded under fair use anyway. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Querry
I just wanted to know. What is the cut off point for the amount of "fair-use" images in an article? Myself and others have been working on "We Belong Together" (its now at FAC), and there has been an objection that there are too many fair-use images for it to be legal. However, there are just 3 images (along with the single cover) &mdash;two of which are vital (though the objector disagrees), and the other one...not so much. He claims that only the single cover is needed. Anyway, is this really too much? Can you point me to a page that has the info or do you know it yourself? thanks. Oran  e    (t)   (c)   (e)  18:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio images
I looked at the copyvio page but it all seemed rather messy and backlogged so i thought i'd come to you instead. According to WikiProject_Cephalopods the following images are in breach of copyright. i have contacted the uploader User:XQ Fan but s/he hasn't replied (s/he has however edited since my posting on h(is|er) talk page so i assume that s/he has read my message). Anyways, the images are:

Image:mesonychoteuthis_hooks.jpg Image:Mesonychoteuthis_2003.jpg Image:Mesonychoteuthis_beak.jpg

They were all linked to from Colossal Squid. The bellman 02:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Please participate in my survey!
Dear Ta bu shi da yu:

Your participation in the "Micro Wikipedia Survey" at User:Shuo Xiang is much appreciated!

Thank you for your time!

Shuo Xiang 04:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

&hearts;
I noticed your red &hearts; at I ♥ NY. I thought about doing that before, but then, I thought it was a little unnecessary. Looks good, though. Dforest 07:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Troll Doll.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Troll Doll.png. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Dethomas 03:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost archives.
Wikipedia Signpost/Archives. Ral315 (talk) 14:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Wishing you luck
I've spotted the message on your user page and I am wishing you all the best. I just hope your gf doesn't read this page before saturday :) Thryduulf 18:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * My gf doesn't actually like computers :) I'm pretty safe! - Ta bu shi da yu 23:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Heh. I was thinking the same thing. Good Luck. Dforest 23:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Good luck with your proposal! __earth (Talk) 08:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

United States Code
I put the periods back in because that's the way the Bluebook and nearly all American lawyers and judges spell it. See the talk page. --Coolcaesar 01:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

CONGRATULATIONS!




Hooooray!!! Just another star in the night T 04:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Have a great marriage! Brisvegas 12:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Way to go! -- Netoholic @ 20:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Gosh! And rather brave to announce it to us before your fiancée. I'm glad she is not a Wikipedian! Congratulations, and good luck for your future lives together! -- ALoan (Talk) 22:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations, remember if WoW shows up at your wedding you can legally shoot to kill. Jtkiefer T  01:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Good job. Do you plan on converting her to the Really Reformed Church of Wikipedia? Of course, it might be better to get married first before mentioning craziness like that. ;-) Have a happy life together.  Dragons flight 01:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Kudos! User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Great news! I'm sure you'll have an exploding whale of a time! Cormaggio @ 17:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC) -)

Congratulations mate!!!! May I wish a long and happy union together. Good luck and God bless -- Ianblair23 (talk) 21:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Dia linn, mo chara. May you have a long and happy one. Best wishes, Blackcap (talk) 17:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Congrats mate. CheekyMonkey 18:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations and all the best - just remember that there are more important things to do on your honeymoon than fight vandals on Wikipedia :) Thryduulf 23:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations. --Scott Davis Talk 14:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations! :D --^pirate 20:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Best wishes from me as well. Though I do wonder what Thryduulf could be talking about above... Cheers, BanyanTree 00:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Live a great life together. michael talk 03:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations! -- Newhoggy | Talk 12:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations! Now, some advice from a fella who went through the same a little while back. When planning your wedding, pick your battles. Most of the time, let her have what she wants. Only put your foot down when absolutely necessary. Be prepared for some arguments. I hope I haven't scared you. ;-) --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree - I *still* hear about the stuff I wouldn't let her do a year later.... One other piece of advice - make sure to sit down and eat dinner together away from distractions every day. It took the wife and I 6 months to figure that out, and wow does it help. -Ravedave 05:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm planning on only forcing a few things through. But my fiance is pretty good, and luckily we have similar tastes! Good advice though :-) Ta bu shi da yu 07:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * My wife (then fiancée) and I have similar tastes too. That still meant that I had to bite my tongue when she's trying to decide between lilac and lavender (it's all purple to me!), or that I had to put my foot down when she wanted to invite some distant relatives because she was invited to their wedding... Don't worry, you won't start to feel it for another... couple of days or so. ;-) --Deathphoenix ʕ 12:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been rather slow off the block in saying congrats (I only just happened to pass by your user page!), but I hope that you two have a happy life together and live happily ever after :) enochlau (talk) 11:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I've had a grand total of 1 RfC (as in I started it) and my fair share of whinges, but all in all, I've had fun with adminship and I think I've learnt valuable lessons in how to deal with difficult people and consensus. But yeh, the next Sydney meetup is scheduled for May, and we should probably discuss it soon if we want to hold it. In the meantime, if you are so inclined, there will be an IRC chat mid April: Wikimedia Australia/Meeting 2. Cheers. enochlau (talk) 14:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Alizée
Thanks for pointing out the subjective statements in the Alizée article. The article had quite a few of those, which escaped notice. I changed and modified all those you felt were problemmatic and also quite a few more. Please review the article now, with an eye for such discrepancies :), and reconsider the tag. I feel it can be removed now. --Soumyasch 14:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I would love your help.
First off, congratulations!!!! I wish you the best in your new life!

I know you are interested in christianity, and I recently started a new wiki over at wikicities which is on the subject of christianity. Christianity Knowledge Base is the site.

The goal is to have a knowledgebase on christianity from a distinctly "C(hristian)POV" rather than the NPOV. This would go far beyond what is allowed on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, for example, there is a limit to how honorably and magnificently the Lord can be represented at WP.

Christianity Knowledge Base is not meant to be a mere Christian Encyclopedia, but to foster a real sense of community. I'd like to include things like current events, news, stories, and anything that would add to both an understanding of Christianity, but also its enjoyment. I'm looking for help to build a resource that could really enrich the lives of Christians.

I know you are busy but I am actively seeking new sysops/admins to help me build this site up, and I would be positively thrilled if you could contribute in any capacity whatsoever. nsandwich 05:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks a lot for your support man! I appreciate it very much.UberCryxic 15:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

GNAA
You might be interested in this. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 17:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Elizabethan collar
I do feel differently about the size of the Elizabethan collar - the article is about the dog collar. The picture of the dog with the collar is more important than Elizabeth 1 even if her name gave rise to the dog collar name. It does not matter to me if there are two dogs modelling, one of those pictures is probably redundant, but no matter - though if it came down to it Otto should get the guernsey since he wrote the article. Thank you for explaining your actions but please reconsider. Regards--A Y  Arktos 23:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Is this a joke? or is that really what one of those "cones" is called. The page should not be about two things. If it is, then the dog collar should be moved to a disambig page and the true meaning should be expanded. → &ensp; J  @  red &ensp; talk  +  ubx &ensp; 01:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * So why did poor Rad need an Elizabethan collar with a wound to his foot?--A Y  Arktos 21:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Jennifer Wilbanks
On Talk:Jennifer Wilbanks you said that you would VfD the article in a year. It's been a year and I did it for you. You can see the discussion here. BrokenSegue 14:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey there
I was wondering if you were busy. I am dealing (or attempting to deal) with a number of issues and it is starting to get overwhelming. I'd appriciate any help you can offer. Cat chi? 18:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Image question
Hi. You seem to have a lot of experience with copyright standards so can you explain this one example to me... I uploaded Image:CarlosDelgado.jpg which has now been marked as a copyvio. I'm comparing it to Image:ALMP_pub.jpg which is used in the featured article, Lindsay Lohan. I found the Lohan picture at |this URL under a menu heading just called "Photos". It doesn't say publicity anywhere in there. It's a picture of Lohan posing for a picture - just like Delgado at mlb.com - and it's used as the main image in an infobox for Lohan's article - just like the Delgado picture was for his article. Can you explain why one is a copyvio and one isn't? Thanks. :) —Wknight94 (talk) 23:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:ALMP pub.jpg
Hi RadioKirk, are you sure'' this image is for promotional use? Also, can you provide us with the actual URL for the image? The one provided takes us to a main page but not the image itself. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)''
 * As positive as I can be, under the circumstances; and, I've fixed the link on the image page. Meantime, I've raised questions about Image:Buckowensjapan.jpg; feel free to weigh in. Radio  Kirk   talk to me  03:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Heya to you as well, buddy
Yeah, fine work on both of those! Title II looks absolutely brilliant, and it looks like there's still plenty of work for me on the others :). I'll get cracking as soon as I've settled in a bit more. Be seeing you, Blackcap (talk) 05:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/AIDS
Comment - can we please remove the reference citations from the lead and shift them into the main article body? I say this because the lead is only a very general summary of the most salient main points of the article — as no info should be in the lead that isn't dealt with further in the main article there is no need for references. The point of the lead is not to introduce specific facts: it is to be almost like an executive summary of the main article. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC) Reply to comment - the references were added to this section after the statements were frequently removed precisely because they were not backed up with references --Bob 17:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Credibility
Hi Ta bu, they hardly have anyone posting. If you look at their polls, they're usually voted on by about three people. The overwhelming majority of posts are from BlissyU2 (Zordrac), Blu Aardvark, and Mistress Selina Kyle, and the site is full of personal attacks, including some posts that are actionable. It's neither notable nor credible enough for inclusion. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Ask yourself whether you would ever have heard of the site were you not a contributor here. Most contributors wouldn't even have heard of it!Grace Note 00:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

PATRIOT Act tripe
Hey, Ta bu, how're things? Listen, I've stopped by to ask if you know of a site that I can get a copy of the Immigration and Nationality Act on. It's not a big deal and I don't need it badly, so don't go mad trying to find it. Just let me know if you think of a place off the top of your head. Cheers, Blackcap (talk) 04:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Deadly! Thanks a million! Blackcap (talk) 13:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

You may be interested in this site:. Nice summary of all the sections. Blackcap (talk) 21:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:Times goatse.JPG listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Times goatse.JPG, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. 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.

Koorong
G'day Chris, I hope everything is well. I thought I had better bring this AfD to your attention. Cheers mate -- Ianblair23 (talk) 04:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Admin
You need to use underscores instead of spaces, as the name given in the template's parameter becomes part of the end of a URL like this ...&user=Ta bu shi da yu blocks] and due to the way external link syntax is handled (the very first space is used to separate between the URL and the link text), you end up with a link titled "bu shi da yu blocks" that points to an empty block activity log for a non-existant "User:Ta". It's a known software deficiency and there is no workaround, even using the {&#123;fullurl:}} syntax. If only there was a {&#123;space2underscore|some user name}} parser function, that could be used inside the admin template (and convert it to "some_user_name"), all our problems would be solved. Probably not very high up on Tim's to-do list. — Apr. 13, '06 [06:49] <[ freakofnurxture]|[ talk]>

Torchic
Thank you for your kind words, the FAC has just been depressing me now. I was okay to start with, but the criticisms just kept bulking down and the person who was helping me is RfB, so he's pretty busy. I just feel trodden because everyone is comparing it to Bulbasaur or generally saying I can't write English. And then people complaining about me calling them names.. I thought adults grew up? I thought he was like 11, and he's an adult apparently. Anyway, I'm about to give up (I asked someone how to withdraw an FAC but was ignored, typical) because of all the empty Objects. Sorry for moaning here :</tt>P. Cheers, H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 18:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Correction
Yes mate, just keeping the place nice and tidy! -- Cheers Ianblair23 (talk) 14:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Heya... FairuseBot has removed my image from goatse.cx!
Why is that? It has a valid fair use rationale, and it's not going to be deleted. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The image was tagged as fair use disputed, and there hadn't been any discussion for over a week. If you think it's fair use, put it back and untag it -- FairuseBot will never remove the same image twice (or if it does, it's a bug). --Carnildo 08:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Sir Gawain
Hey, I just read your comments at Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. I can't figure out what the guy is talking about... no one seems to be acting like they own the article. Maybe he's just talking out of his ass. Anyway, the good professor's constructive criticism would be most welcome, I wonder if he could provide us with some.--Cúchullain t/ c 20:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Article RFCs
I notice that some of the Article RFCs you've recently added are signed with your username and the date - just letting you know that these should only be signed with the date, using &#0126;, because the subject of the RFC should not have any relation to who is posting it. Probably a typo or "oops" by yourself. Happy RFCing! Stifle (talk) 22:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain why you deleted TIME cover image from Harold Geneen article ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Geneen Image was tagged TIME that exists specifically for this purpose. Why the use isn't fair? Yurivict 16:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Resignation
Hey there, mate. I'm sorry to bring the news, but I just can't bring myself to read one more sentence of legalese text. Thus, I'm dropping out of the PATRIOT Act project. I'm terribly sorry, and I've been trying to get myself motivated about the bloody thing, but I just don't think lawyering's for me :). Anyway, I'll drop in from time to time when I can get myself psyched about it, but for the most part I'll have stopped. Here's hoping I helped a little bit... Take care, Blackcap (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No joking! I'll never say that lawyering is easy again... I'd rather shoot myself than be a solicitor at this point :) Blackcap (talk) 20:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 'K, give me a minute. Blackcap (talk) 20:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair play, well spoken on your part. Something that a post of Tony Sidaway's brought to my attention seems relevant: you have a right to fork. There's no reason that people who complain about Jimbocracy can't set up their own encyclopedia, download everything in WP, and be entirely free from that chain, leaving Jimbo in the dust (that is, if they can convince enough of us).


 * In the end, I think that most WP criticisms come down to not trusting either Jimbo, admins, or some other administrative tier (the ArbCom, the Foundation, whatever). I dunno... the right to fork issue is one that keeps me thinking that things can't be THAT BAD in the upper ranks. After all, if we really were censoring everything, you'd think that someone would make their own version and fix the problem. There's certainly enough dissenters to raise the money and at least attempt to make the site.


 * I don't know about what your man said about 2 admins being desysopped for supporting the Wikipedia Review. If that's true, I think that's a sad thing, but then I wouldn't be surprised if that was bollocks (I haven't heard about that incident, anyways). We need more onwiki criticism. I wish that the wikitruth admins would "come out" onwiki. They've little to lose: if they're desysopped and banned for their views, then they've a huge censorship propaganda tool, if not, then presumably the ensuing discussion would aid the wiki's growth and it may even become more neutral and less "censored," just like they want. If neither happens, then they keep editing wikitruth and nothing changes. Why not? What's the worst that could happen? Blackcap (talk) 21:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Kokoda Trail Tango
Hey there dude. no worries about that Dougout Doug article. From the original entry, i'd understand why'd that stilted biography elicited such emotional responses, and the clarifications I entered were never really intended to get you or anyone worked up. I'm very, very far from being jingoistic, but i just needed to correct the historical record on the SWPA in OZ. Because I addressed issues directly related to the disposition of Australian and American forces in New Guinea, one cannot help assuming that my responses were purposefully adversarial. Mac is a polarizing figure to say the least, and yes, that article should express the diversity of opinion that currently exists on him. He remains one of the most complex figures of the twentieth century, but to reduce him into a Manichean figure serves history very little.

Yes US SWPA troops at the commencement of hostilities in the PNG phase of the campaign through mid '43 were very green when compared to contemporaneous units from the AIF that arrived from the ETO/MED, or to the lead USMC divisions and raiders of the POA, but teething problems were ultimately overcome. These certainly came at a very real cost, and inexperience led to quite a few collateral deaths, but I cannot imagine how these troops could have hindered the Australians, especially since support comes in so many different forms. The terms of Stalin's "lend-lease" with America had the FDR administration sending the USSR hundreds of thousands of boots and millions of tins of SPAM, apart from 4 x6 trucks and other hardware—materiel that ensured an allied victory in the ETO. But Russia received only a third of what the US sent to the British Commonwealth. ($11B vs 31 Billion in 1945 dollars).

A large portion of this wound up as direct aid to OZ. The collapse of Singapore and the relative remove of the Indian Ocean meant that a great deal of what sustained the Royal Australian army in the field depended less on British, but increasingly on American largesse for sustenance—with SWPA as quartermaster. What with Mac bitching constantly about his considerable logistical disadvantage, his megalomania would have ironically sped things along.

below are images of lend-lease boxes found in a warehouse in Queensland in 2002. They look nice. Will fetch good prices on Ebay.

http://home.st.net.au/~dunn/usarmy/lendlease02.jpg http://home.st.net.au/~dunn/usarmy/lendlease01.jpg Pottersville 03:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Time Magazine
Can you put on your to do list restoring all the Time Magazine covers you deleted?Homey 16:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Editorial comments to articles
If that message had not come from someone whose effort on that article has all been directed to "editorialising" it, I'd take it more seriously. So, erm, heal thyself first, then give me the lecture. -- Grace Note.


 * As I say, look to your own behaviour first, then worry about mine. Hope you're having a good Anzac Day. -- Grace Note.


 * Actually, to anyone reading this page (I refuse to reply to Grace Note, who is logging in anonymously and so may not, in fact, be Grace Note) - I did not editorialise on the article and Grace Note knows it. Grace Note should watch himself/herself. They know the policies on this site. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Time
Why not? You should take responsibility for what you've done.Homey 05:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Penguin_sweater.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Penguin_sweater.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. 12:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Your edit on Miscellaneous FAQ
Please don't add inside jokes to the articles. It's against Wikipedia:No inside jokes policy (WP:NIJ). Zarniwoot 17:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Your advice would be appreciated
Hello Ta bu shi da yu -- I saw your name on the list of admins working on image matters and would like your opinion about an image that someone has placed as the lead portrait on the Che Guevara article now for the second time in two days (I removed it once). The photo in question is Eguevara.jpg. It is an AP photo and I have read its licensing information and its status seems to me to be dubious at best; in fact, I really do not understand why it has not already been deleted from wikipedia. I am especially concerned about this situation because Che Guevara is a recently promoted FA and most of us who work on it are trying hard to maintain the highest possible wikipedia standards. Your input would be greatly appreciated! Thanking you in advance, Polaris999 20:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism and Plagiarism
In the Mount Greenwood, Chicago article, you put in plagiarism of the Encyclopedia of Chicago verbatim. You also vandalized the page, by adding "oh snicklefritz" to the bottom of the page. This warrants a block more so than what I have done. 75.3.4.54 14:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

You put "oh snicklefritz" back in by reverting. It's hilarious that you would tell me about common sense when you obviously didn't use any common sense by just reverting without even looking at what you were reverting to. 75.3.4.54 15:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. 75.3.4.54 19:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)