User talk:Butseriouslyfolks: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:19, 23 October 2007

The best way to reach me is by leaving a note at the bottom of this page.
I stop by here much more often than I check my WP email.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by .

Deletion Review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:Auschappoint.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. OberRanks 14:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:VietnamGallantryCross.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. OberRanks 14:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

That's appreciated, a lot. Neil ☎ 17:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Encyclopedist

I wasn't around when the above user was banned, so I don't know the full story. Based on the image contribs I'm running across (Russian/Chinese military insignia), I'm tempted to believe this user was somehow related to User:Roitr. (I've been flushing out a lot of Roitr socks in the process of getting Roitr copyvio deleted - I had 5 long-established Roitr socks indef-blocked just yesterday.)

I appreciate the help with copyrighted images from uniforminsignia.net. There are still hundreds to clean up but I think I'm making headway. I'll eventually have to head over to Commons to work them there as well - a lot of the copyvio that was uploaded by Husnock and others has been transwiki'd there. I hope to get the images using the deprecated {{Military-Insignia}} template all cleaned up or deleted within the next couple of weeks, then we can delete the template so that it doesn't cause us any further misunderstandings.

User:Beetstra is on wikibreak, but when he gets back I'm going to ask if we can somehow harness the spam linkwatcher to spot new uploads from uniforminsignia.net. I'm sure that the majority of people taking images from there are acting in good faith, but we're going to get in trouble eventually if we keep stealing from them. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 13:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons images

Please do not remove images you nominated for deletion from articles. A bot will handle the task more efficiently should the images get deleted. Not every deletion (even speedy ones) get deleted. -- Cat ^chi? 15:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop mass deleting and removing rank insignias indiscriminately. Medals of the US federal government are public domain just like all Federal works by the US. -- Cat ^chi? 15:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not removing images indiscriminately from articles. I'm removing copyvios from articles. While medals issued by the US are certainly public domain, photographs and drawings of 3D objects are entitled to copyright protection, just like photographs and drawings of public domain objects like landscapes. Medals issued by other governments may have an additional level of copyright protection (in the design of the medals themselves). The Husnock situation has been discussed at length in many places over time, including most recently here, here and here. Just because a copyvio image remains on Commons does not mean I should leave it in place in Wikipedia articles. If you have further questions on this complicated situation, please do not hesitate to ask. Thanks! -- But|seriously|folks 16:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but commons cant see all that (the discussions). I also do not see a speedy deletable images. Please restore them back to articles and initiate a case at commons:Commons:Deletion requests as this is as you point out a complicated case and not obvious. If it is really a copyvio, it will be removed by a bot and can be restored just as easily if for any reason the images get undeleted. Process is very important if we are juggling 2 million images on commons. I would ask you to have a bit more patience with it. -- Cat ^chi? 16:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm perfectly happy to let Commons take its time deleting the images. My primary concern is with en.wiki. There is consensus here that most of Husnock's images are copyvios and that he generally misrepresented his sources (where he identified them) and as an admin here, I am entitled (if not required) to remove them from articles while Commons takes its time deleting them. Husnock uploaded thousands of images to en.wiki, and probably 80% of them are copyvios. I have been working my way through them, looking at each one and making a determination whether it should stay or go. As you can see from Husnock's upload log, I have left hundreds of images in place. (I'm working from the most recent uploads backwards in time.) Anyway, as I said above, I have no problem with Commons taking the time to get up to speed on this issue and take action. But we have already worked through it here at en.wiki, and these images can't be used here. If you have questions, please feel free to ask me. If you simply disagree and do not feel like discussing it, please feel free to take images to deletion review, WP:MCQ or WP:FUR, or you can start another thread at AN/I if you want. I won't be offended! Cheers! -- But|seriously|folks 17:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine a case where commons community rules that these images are not copyvios... By removing them like this in advance you are complicating things for commons and commons people. You are actually strongly discouraged from removing images until discussion concludes in commons when there is a chance that images may stay. There is no reason to rush things and we do have bots that can take care of the task more efficiently. I as a commons admin do not see an acceptable reason to speedy delete these images as it is not obvious. They may be still deleted via a commons:Commons:Deletion requests discussion. You can make a bulk nom. -- Cat ^chi? 17:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem with bulk nomming them is that they have different issues and were uploaded / transwikied by different commons users. I've been nomming them individually as I come across them based on their use in en.wiki. For my information and guidance, do you know of a policy at en.wiki relating to use of / removal of Commons content? As I'm sure you are aware, many persistent infringers turn to Commons as a place for uploads that have been deleted from en.wiki. I have no idea whether it's true, but there is a belief out there that few people patrol images at Commons and that less obvious copyvio images are therefore less likely to be deleted at Commons. (This is typical of the information I see circulated. Incidentally, the recipient of this particular message is a reincarnation of Husnock, the one who caused all of this.) Also, are you saying that I have been removing images without nomming them? If so, it's unintentional. I'm trying to be careful, but it's possible I've missed some. I am required to remove redlinks from deleted en.wiki images. Finally, if you would like to discuss specific images, I'd be happy to do so. Just leave me a note here as I don't often check my Commons user page. Thanks! -- But|seriously|folks 19:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, what I am saying is unless a nomination isn't an automatic deletion, it should not be mass removed. We have bots that can preform delinkage (removal of images from wikipedia, wikisource and all other wikis). It does not matter how many people have moved/uploaded images to commons. Bulk noms can be conducted in a topic spesific manner. On commons we take copyrights more seriously than on any other wiki. People on commons are (for the most part) specialized on image related issues. Unless a deletion is obvious (these aren't obvious) deletion must follow the commons:Commons:Deletion requests process. So PLEASE follow that. I will not be nominating these images for you as I normally would (I am a bit busy with other matters). -- Cat ^chi? 19:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

(undent) I am confused why you decided to roll back many of my edits at Commons. The templates I replaced specifically say: "If there is no proof for the public domain status of this work, please replace this tag by {{nld}}" (PD-USGov-NARA) and "Please check the copyright status of this work and replace this tag with an appropriate copyright tag" (Military insignia). I'm the first to admit I'm not an expert at Commons, but if you don't want the tags replaced with {{nld}}, the template shouldn't tell people to do that. Also, there is no appropriate license tag, as these images are copyvios.

I am also concerned about your interpretation of copyright law. Specifically, you reverted my edit to Image:Txlmoh.jpg, inserting a template that indicates that it is PD because it is a work of the US Government. But it is not a work of the US Government. It is the work of the State of Texas, and therefore protected by copyright.

Like you, I am busy and don't have a lot of time to deal with the Commons issue right now, but just to show you the degree of this problem, I took the time to find the source for a few of the stolen images. Maybe these examples will help:

Seriously, you can do what you want at Commons, but we cannot allow copyvio images to be used here at en.wiki. You can keep them as long as you want, but we will delete them when we see them used here, per consensus here that they are copyvios. Take care! -- But|seriously|folks 02:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the date given on the template. Is the upload after the given date? No. Therefore these are not speedy deletable.

Stop treating me like an alien from outer space, it is quite rude. There is no "we" or "you" (plural) here.

I told you already. As a commons administrator I do not see them as speedy deletable as it is a close call. In other words I need opinion of other people on commons. My decision is not absolute and I told you at least four times to use commons deletion requests. You are making life unnecessarily difficult for yourself. You will need to restore those images if commons consensus rules them not to be copyvios as per WP:CCC if not common sense. I will not clean up your own mess.

We have a working system in dealing with possibly problematic images and what you are doing is only complicating that. If you do not have the time to file a commons deletion request, perhaps you should not be removing images from articles. It takes less time to make a bulk nomination on commons than remove images from individual articles. At most it is the same amount of work.

-- Cat ^chi? 08:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do not attempt to use me or commons as a means to resolve your personal dispute with Husnock. If the images are problematic you can simply file it on commons deletion requests and community can decide. -- Cat ^chi? 08:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

That was uncalled for and warrants an apology. I have no personal dispute with Husnock. AFAIK, I never heard of Husnock or his apparent reincarnation OberRanks before a week or so ago when I became aware of the hundreds of copyvio images he had left us.

What does the upload date have to do with my edits? The sentence about replacing the tag with nld is set apart physically and in a different color from the sentence about uploads after a certain date. I think it's an extremely strained interpretation of that template to claim that it should only be replaced for recent uploads. How long should a deprecated template remain? I just posted about this question over at Commons. Feel free to join in that discussion.

Also, as I told you before, I thought I had tagged all of the images I removed for one or the other of the Commons deletion processes. If I missed a couple, I missed a couple. I'm dealing with several hundred images here. Please stop making me out to be some kind of scofflaw.

Finally, I have asked you for some authority that consensus at Commons trumps consensus at en.wiki. I would think that would have come up at some point. If there is no policy on that, then I am properly removing copyvio images from articles based on the en.wiki consensus. -- But|seriously|folks 08:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I told you at least 6 times so far. You NEED to use commons:COM:DEL. These are not obvious cases and hence are not speedy deletable. When an admin contests nld that is for the most part the end of story as far as speedy deletion is concerned. In such cases we use commons:COM:DEL. The discussion on en.wiki has no binding bearing on commons. Discussion over the copyright status of commons images should be conducted on commons. I really am tired of repeating myself.

Deprecated templates stay forever. It should not be used at all any more. As for past uses they should be processed. Most rank insignia are ineligible of copyright much like flags of countries. Country flags had a similar license confusion and commons community is familiar with such cases of problematic licensing.

-- Cat ^chi? 19:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Please use preview so I can get a word in edgewise. -- But|seriously|folks 08:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons needs a cleanup also on all of these copyvio military insignia images - you're right, a lot of Husnock's copyvio (along with Roitr and others) has been transwikied there. I guess I'll try to tackle it after I clean up en Wikipedia, but it will probably take a while. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 23:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto with me. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Issue with Stephen D. Mumford

Thanks for pointing me to the copyright issue - I rewrote the article and included a link to more detailed biographical info in the reference section. --Thewolf37 19:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx!

That was my first vandalism. I appreciate you watching out for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IsraelXKV8R (talk • contribs) 20:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

captured German photographs

are public domain in the United States, see reply from NARA to email sent by wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pharos/NARA and http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/06/03/supremecourt/main510937.shtml and http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2001/0responses/2001-1111.resp.html. To mark a captured SS photograph as copyrighted in the US is incorrect. Atomsgive 02:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how you can dispute an email reply from NARA to a wikipedia administrator, these images and documents were invested as U.S. property in the 1950s, the German government does not claim copyright over captured SS records in US holdings, in any case, you would have to delete other images if you want to mark this image as copyrighted in spite of no evidence that it is in fact.

for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Adolf_Hitler_cph_3a48970.jpg, this was marked PD with the same rationale that you dispute Atomsgive 02:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"No known restrictions on publication"

http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/195_copr.html :) --Iamunknown 04:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jammie Thomas Picture permission

Hey BSF, I got permission from Jammie to use a picture from her myspace, I've posted the myspace conversation that me and Jammie had on my wikipedia talk page (so as not to spam up your talk page), I am awaiting your further instruction in regards to her response being good enough to use her picture on wikipedia. Thanks Tubeyes 10:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks BSF, you rock the house out to the max! -Tubeyes 19:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Conley images

Hi. You seem to have a handle on image issues. Could you look at two for me?

nb: the first one has been copied to commons:

Basically, I believe that the original uploader — User:Punkguy182 — is lying; that he is not really "Hal Horowitz" — http://www.halhorowitz.com. He is likely a reincarnation of User:R:128.40.76.3; see also his cloud of sockpuppets. There have been a series of bogus images added to the Chris Conley page, these are just the latest. Thanks. --Jack Merridew 12:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into this; I'm sure time will sort it all out. If User:Punkguy182 can prove me wrong, fine — however I remain a wee bit skeptical. --Jack Merridew 08:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tim.Boyle

He's out there: [1] I've seen many edits from this ISP poking about the usual articles. ---Jack Merridew 09:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Buddy thanks for looking into this. This issue has been a major pain for me - got hauled over to 3RR by ... guess who (hint: Conley is from NJ) and you can imagine how happy he was about that! Anyway, inexplicably this fellow attracts swarms of socks. How you enjoying the broom? Eusebeus 12:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha

okay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.67.44.100 (talk) 22:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaniel Street-West: article has been edited by editors claiming to be associated with the subject

Hi. Thank you for pointing out several major errors associated with the Nathaniel Street-West Wikipedia page. I am quite new to Wikipedia as you more experienced editors can readily see. I can see that the article needs far more documenting to the proper sources and I am working on a reasonable system for doing so. I have read many Wikipedia biographies of musicians and where as some have a footnote for practically each and every sentence, many more are written in a looser format that lists sources but without pasting numbers and footnotes all over the place. This will take some time, however the material will be properly sourced. On a more serious note, the messages that were left in association with the photograph uploads in this article in no way implies that the photographers who logged in under the "Penny Lane" editor claim to be (or are) associated with the subject. I can see how it would be confusing for several photographers to log on using the same editorial user name. I see the error now and from this point on there will be no more than one person (editor) logging on as PennyLane100. Unfortunately two of the photographers/artists who uploaded several image files (Image:American Way Cover Art.jpg; Image:Witness Cover 300px.jpg; Image:Nathaniel Street-West in 2006.jpg) by logging in under the PennyLane100 editor name identified themselves as being associated with Puffin Records. This is because I requested the images from Puffin Records and the employees misunderstood the ground rules for how to identify themselves and the legal status of the photographs. As the editor PennyLane100 I am not associated with the subject and neither are the photographers who logged in as "aliases" of PennyLane100 associated with the subject. I requested images of the subject from Puffin Records and the people who logged in as “aliases” and uploaded these images at my request misunderstood what to write. I am the sole editor of the initial text & page design (before other editor's recent corrections) and hold myself responsible for all errors. I am uploading all new photographs for this article and any photographs I request from Puffin Records I will ask to have sent to the Wikipedia Commons if at all possible. Our webmaster devised the plan to use one editor username for the whole page so that the photographers could simply log in as PennyLane100 and upload, and was confused by the immense amount of data ruling who may and may not claim a copyrighted image, and by the many different licensing regulations and this led to the mess. Nevertheless, I am taking all responsibility for this embarrassing debacle. There is no conspiracy here. The people who logged in appropriately (me) and inappropriately (those we asked to log in as a convenience) as Penny Lane100 are not in cahoots together in any diabolical way. My biggest concern is that I have embarrassed the artist, Nathaniel Street-West, by thinking of him having to suffer through the egregious and threatening warnings plastered across the top of his Wikipedia page. AT the very least, I am requesting that the "conflict of interest" notice be removed from the head of the page. I am also requesting that other editors refrain from accusing me of having some undue conflict of interest in relation to the subject. (By the way, who is the person in charge of removing these notices?) Again, thank you for your help! I hope this clears up the situation and I will be passing this on to the other editors who mentioned a possible conflict of interest. (Apologies for the long message!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PennyLane100 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC) PennyLane100 02:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick response

I've dug around on the Canadian Forces public web portal and found the Copyright statement and so forth, which I pasted into into the Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions. If/when you have an opportunity, I'd appreciate your further feedback as to whether it jives with the {{non-free symbol}} definition. Thanks again. ¥ Jacky Tar 05:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trixul deleted

The copyright violation is bogus. I am the author of Trixul toolkit. I am the owner of Trixul.com, I wrote the text on Trixul.com that was modified for the wikipedia entry. So, I have the right to replicate portions of it on the wikipedia page.

Please restore my work to wikipedia. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slogan621 (talk • contribs) 06:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really question your authority to remove the content, and the motivation. If Einstein were to write a page about General Relativity, would you yank it because he happened to be the one that came up with the Theory? My statements were factual, are bound to be helpful to someone, and should not have been removed because you question the motives. My motives are to explain, authoritatively, what that toolkit is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slogan621 (talk • contribs) 06:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What Einstein would do is not really relevant, especially since he is dead. :-) Ok, so, I just recreated the page, in my own words, and very minimally, so someone else can fill in the details. I'm not a spammer.

Also, I'll look into more formal ways to resolve this, I am sure there must be some kind of review process. Not looking for a fight or anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slogan621 (talk • contribs) 06:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the Business guidelines. This is about an open source project, not a business, so I am a bit confused why all the excitement over it. It's getting late, I'll study this more later. Eventually, someone will create this page I imagine, with or without me. :-) Slogan621 06:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, please explain why the pages on gtk, wxwidgets, qt, and all other GUI toolkits like the one I described aren't deleted by you as well? They are all open source projects. I'm having a super hard time understanding what value wikipedia has, if such things can't be described here, and I sure would feel better if you treated them equally (actuyally, don't, I'm sure it would lead to a mess). Slogan621 —Preceding comment was added at 08:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help!

I gave you the sources from which the images were "borrowed". Please explain to me how copying images created by another website is not sufficiently obvious to require their speedy deletion. While you're at it, you could also explain to me how simply removing SD tags is preferable to replacing them with the proper tag, as I am careful to do at en.wiki. Because if I happen to be correct that these are copyvios, your conduct is preventing them from being reviewed by others and keeping them here. Thanks. --Butseriouslyfolks 19:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I need to better clarify what I am doing to you. Here it is.

Why I closed as keep:

Faithful reproductions of two-dimensional original works cannot attract copyright.
For example the flag of Canada pictured here is in the Public Domain no mater who draws or redraws it. I can "steal" it from any website, or use any scan of it at my leisure legally. en:Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. case is the foundation behind the logic of this approach. So if the source object in question is ineligible of copyright all faithful reproductions of the image are also ineligible.
"Stealing images" is not a crime provided the images have a free copyright status. The site you linked for certain does not own the copyright for the images in any case. The copyright in any case would be held by the millitary or government of the country that own the rank insignia.
Nazi era material may also be free of copyright since any "image shows (or resembles) a symbol that was used by the National Socialist (NSDAP/Nazi) government of Germany or an organization closely associated to it, or another party which has been banned by the en:Federal Constitutional Court of Germany." Who would you go to file a lawsuit?
The designs of the images are very simple by very nature of rank insignias and are hence ineligible of copyright.

These above were in my mind for consideration when I closed the speedy nom as a keep. Hence why I closed the speedy deletion as a "keep" or "too close to call" at worst. Commons have dealt with images from en:Flags of the World site. They were eventually deleted after free alternates were made. While FOTW images were never copyvios, we are nice enough to redraw better alternatives and delete them afterwards. This is why most flags have an SVG version actually.

Why have I not retagged:

If I had that kind of time I would be processing commons:Category:Unknown. I am only expected to either delete or keep the images. I am not even required to inform you of my decision or even talk to you at all.
My decision was a keep and it would not be right for me to file a commons:COM:DEL request on something I closed as keep (per coi).
Also as a result of all this you are now more familiar with the commons process in handling non-obvious cases. I learned about it in a similar manner. On en.wiki an admin removing a PROD notice as keep does not have to replace it with an afd. For the most part a nomination is the problem of the nominator and not the processing admin.

Process on commons and why it is important:

On commons "reviewing" of non-obvious cases are conducted through COM:DEL. Majority of cases on COM:DEL are alleged copyvio cases. Speedy deletion is only and only for obvious copyright violations such as TV screen captures or corporation logos.
During a deletion discussion the images in question should NOT be removed.
- commons:Commons:Deletion requests has a lot of images being discussed. If they all were removed from articles as you did with the rank insignias, this would have created an unnecessary amount of workload. Images may be deleted or kept. This is not a big deal and happens daily.
- We have bots that will automatically remove links to images from articles of deleted images from commons. Manually doing it is unnecessary and problematic.
- We however do not have a bot that will readd images if the discussion ends up as "keep".
- Also on English wikipedia images that are suspected of violating copyrights are not removed from articles until they are deleted. Typically the closing admin removes them or sometimes there are red links.
Process on commons should be observed. We deal with over 2,041,655 files on commons. Thats over 40,000 images since last threshold pass (2 million) on October 13. It is common to have 5,000 new images a day. These processes are designed to handle this work load with minimal use of resources.

P.S. can we keep this discussion on one wiki?

-- Cat ^chi? 16:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, a lot of that does make sense to me. I would argue that these stylized, "cartoonish" if you will characterizations of patches and badges are sufficiently creative to acquire copyright protection, but that's a discussion for another forum. I thank you for taking the time to fully explain your position and how things work at commons. (I know from my adminship here what a pain that can sometimes be.) Sorry if I was being think in the head. -- But|seriously|folks 16:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad we understand each other better now. I put serious amount of thought behind any admin action I take and sometimes forget to appropriately explain myself. Sorry about the late explanation.

I would encourage you to restore the insignia images here on en.wiki until the commons discussion concludes. They would be re-removed with an appropriate link to the commons discussion by a bot if they do get deleted. Do you see the advantages of this?

-- Cat ^chi? 16:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh by the way I merged your request to commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Nazi SS rank insignia images for a more effective bulk discussion. I hope you do not mind. -- Cat ^chi? 17:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations

I was just logging on to clear the backlog, and you'd already dealt with it. Cheers! On a more serious note, I'm going to be offline for most of this weekend (health issues), and may not be able to get to it as often as I'd like. My apologies. :( — madman bum and angel 06:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration of Nobel Prize image

Hey there again! Concerning the image on the Nobel Prize[7] page, it looks like three Americans won the peace prize before 1923, the first being in 1902. So, there is no doubt it had to be published at least once within that time (therefore no longer copyright). User User:Jheald has also come to the same conclusion for what they posted on the Fair use review page. In terms of the image itself, I had both the Nobel Prize and image pages fully protected because NYScholar kept removing the image and marking it for deletion. Today, however, the user left this message on another admin’s (Jéské Couriano’s) talk page making them believe that there is a copyright problem with this image and that it had to be removed and it was, in fact, removed earlier today. NYScholar has been very forceful and, at times, uncivil (his block log seems to prove this also) when working with other users (not to mention he fills pages with pages and pages of nonsense/repetitiveness) and in order to prove their point. I think we’ve established that there is really no reason to remove this image as trademarks are allowed on WP and the copyright issue seems pretty straightforward (although the tagging might need to be updated). If there is any problem let me know. Thanks for your help in this matter. Best, aNubiSIII ^{(T / C)} 23:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Signature(Wow)

Hey,how do you get that awsome signature?Coolgirly88. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolgirly88 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

???

Why is my article being deleted 10 secs after its creation for copyright reasons? Maybe I needed to see how does the article look like before I start editing it such that it would not have and copyright violations!!!!!!! Nergaal 06:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And how do you know I did not talk to the owner of that specific site or that I did not create the information on that site myself? Go to hell you annoying policemans! You make editing wikipedia NOT ENJOYABLE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nergaal (talk • contribs) 07:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are incredibly smart! Did you know that? I am writing about the title of the country X and in that article you are telling me I should add: "This article includes text from the Wikipedia article X." Oh my, let wikipedia be full of unexpanded articles that people stop editing because some people who have nothing better to do with their lives than to sit in front of a computer and be administrators on wikipedia. How do you translate this into English: you are a failure!Nergaal 07:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I believe that Nergaal has a very valid point: Butseriouslyfolks is often overzealous. StevenBlack 22:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warcraft maps

Hi again. I tagged some images the other day as having no fair use rationales. On these two

someone added Rationale: Media for informational purposes of the software in which it is contained, and the geography/data thereof to both and removed the tags. I have restored the tags, saying invalid rationale provided; no source, for example. And I am unsure if I should have. First off, I see now (and don't know why I didn't see it at the moment), that the source is the game itself. A detailed rationale should be more than this, right? I believe that screen-shots are way over used and that many editors believe 'a few' is the same as 'as many as possible'. I'll go with whatever you think best here. Thanks, Jack Merridew 13:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Troiano

Althought I share a name with the man, I am not making an article on myself. Bill Troiano is a very well-known figure-head in the music community on Long Island and deserves recognition. Just letting you know that I am not Bill Troiano. Thanks, Troiano220 14:06, 22 October 2007 (EST)

Lake Ontario Waterkeeper

Dude, you need to chill. Do you not see that it's patently ridiculous to be labeling articles for deletion in the first hours of its appearance?? A warning to you, sir, that I do not intend to be bullied by you. Understood? Please leave the Lake Ontario Waterkeeper article alone for a few days. Thank you. I have removed the notice that you sprinkled into the topic. It's just silly and heavy-handed action on your part, and I will not tolerate your unilateral BS at thus early stage of the topic. StevenBlack 20:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please bee aware that you are essentially vandalizing pages within their first hours of appearance, and I consider this to be bullying and this will not go unchallenged. You cannot say you have not been warned. Again I am asking you politely to chill, and give the topic a few days to flesh out. Thank you. StevenBlack 22:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

civility

I have done my best to be civil to you. I would appreciate you making more of an effort to be civil to me.

I do my best to take all serious, specific concerns that I do not compliance with policy seriously.

When wikipedians avoid discussing others concerns about their perceptions that they are lapsing with compliance policy I think a point comes when characterizations that they are POV-pushing becomes appropriate.

But do I take others concerns seriously.

I expect them to take me seriously. And I think this means that those who disagree with me should regard those disagreements as good faith difference of opinion, and that characterization that I am POV-pushing are inappropriate. Geo Swan 01:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listenability

Butseriously, I was surprised that you did not have a page for listenability, which is an important but understudied issue. I worked all day and did my best trying to correct this lack--complete with the most important references. You deleted it, because, as you claimed, I violated copyright of two documents.

Strange, the documents that you cite were ones that I wrote and of which I own the copyright. I was aware that I was copying material from my own texts, and I gave the proper references. I also was not aware that one could violate one's own copyright. If you want a page dedicated to listenability, let me know, and I will see what I can do for you in language you find acceptable.

William DuBayBdubay 01:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored that page. Michael Hardy 01:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOC

A tangent off of the no restrictions on publication stuff... the LOC's website is difficult to navigate. :-( There are still so many images that haven't been uploaded... sometimes I just view them, and the breadth is amazing.

Regarding public domain images, have you seen http://www.navy.mil/view_photos_top.asp? Some Commonists and other Metapedians must be active on that site, because all the images I intended to upload were already uploaded and cropped. :-)

Do you know, however, of any other sites like that related to the other U.S. armed forces? That would be cool. Lots of free photographs of actors, actresses, country singers and WWE wrestlers. ;-) There was even a photograph of one actress at the Tribeca Film Festival! :o

Anyways, good to hear from you.. sorry for the late (tangential ;-) reply. --Iamunknown 05:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 112: / Line 112: @@
 : see: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ATim.Boyle&diff=166319960&oldid=166272488]  saying ''"This account was used impersonate a real life person not involved with wikipedia, it was never used as a sockpuppet but has been tagged as one and google indexed, hence has become libelous. I have add"'' and substed {{tl|courtesy blanking}}, which I have undone. It is my reading of this that a consensus is required to courtesy blank and that this is a rare thing. There is good reason to believe these users related: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bennelong&diff=125475317&oldid=125474618], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bennelong&diff=136559490&oldid=136378890] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bennelong&diff=148895888&oldid=148869012] (+others), for example. See also: [[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Curious Gregor]] which did end up blanked. --[[User:Jack Merridew|Jack Merridew]] 09:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
-::Sockpuppetry tag was added to an account (user:Tim.Boyle) that did not violate sockpuppetry policy, hence should not be tagged as such. It has been indexed by search engines and is now libelous, therefore I have blanked the page. To clear the facts, this account was created to impersonate the subject, who was the supervisor of a former collegue. The content relating to the page was deleted via the {{db-userreq|rationale=rationale}} tag after the the impersonation was discovered by said Mr Boyle who was not terribly impressed and had the former collegues employment termintaed and has threatened legal action. From my understanding this account should still be vanished under [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Right_to_vanish Right to Vanish], and it seems to have been recreated by being tagged with the sockpuppetry template (even though there is no evidence of wrong doing or sockpuppetry from this account). I think the appropriate course of action would be to make the account vanish (as was initially requested and performed) again before the victim of impersonation takes legal action against my former collegue, and wikipedia.[[User:89.104.56.119|89.104.56.119]] 17:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
+::Sockpuppetry tag was added to an account (user:Tim.Boyle) that did not violate sockpuppetry policy, hence should not be tagged as such. It has been indexed by search engines and is now libelous, therefore I have blanked the page. To clear the facts, this account was created to impersonate the subject, who was the supervisor of a former collegue. The content relating to the page was deleted via the {db-userreq|rationale=rationale} tag after the the impersonation was discovered by said Mr Boyle who was not terribly impressed and had the former collegues employment termintaed and has threatened legal action. From my understanding this account should still be vanished under [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Right_to_vanish Right to Vanish], and it seems to have been recreated by being tagged with the sockpuppetry template (even though there is no evidence of wrong doing or sockpuppetry from this account). I think the appropriate course of action would be to make the account vanish (as was initially requested and performed) again before the victim of impersonation takes legal action against my former collegue, and wikipedia.[[User:89.104.56.119|89.104.56.119]] 17:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
+::: I advise archiving this sdiscussion to avoid indexing by search engines also. [[User:89.104.56.119|89.104.56.119]] 17:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 == Ha ==