I am on a wikibreak for a while. I need to catch up on school and not be distracted during interviews. If you see me editing, please scold me harshly and tell me to deal with real life.

Archives
Archive 1 (from when I was Calliopejen) Archive 2 (Apr 7 - May 29, 2007) Archive 3 (June 6 - July 30, 2007)

[edit] Adminship

Hello - during my vandal fighting over the past few days I have noticed your name a lot. Looking closer, I see you have more than 10000 edits over your two accounts! Combined with the fact that you have nearly 2 years of experience and have contributed a lot to writing articles and doing grunt work (such as fighting vandals and tagging images), I think you would make a great admin :-). Also, you don't seem to have done anything horribly wrong, looking at your talk page. If I nominate you, would you accept? Cheers, ugen64 13:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure! Before I hadn't been too interested in adminship, but it would definitely help for image cleanup. Calliopejen1 10:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I also would like to nominate this user for adminship. Yeltsinfan 02:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture in my Gallery

Hello, sorry if this section is not suppost to be so close to the top of the page,(And please inform me if I placed this section in error)but i was curious why you deleted my picture of Konstantin Chernenko from my USSR Presedent Gallery. You mentioned it not being under free licence, but if it was not under free licence, than i assume it would not be on Wikipedia at all? I was just curious as to how i can solve this problem. Have a plesent vacation! Yeltsinfan 02:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Morris Gest

You have shot my fox with the admittedly overdue photo. I have better photos to substitute but they have to survive the ordeal by fire that your copyright procedures prescribe. Your Library of Congress picture is better than nothing but not by much. Mixed feelings but I now realise I have to hurry up. Regards. 16 October 2007 J L Gordon

[edit] Julia Clancey

Thanks for your help on the Julia Clancey article! I have no clue what I'm doing on here, and I quickly found out that Wikipedia was confusing and frustrating. I tried to make edits that I thought would make the article less "ad-like", but I'm grateful that you made changes to save it from being deleted. As far as the picture thing goes, I took that picture myself, of the picture in the newspaper, but I guess that doesn't count. I didn't even know how to post or site it properly on Wikipedia. And, I can't figure out how to delete it! So, you can imagine my frustration. Anyway, please feel free to add a photo of her the proper way. I have a few pictures of her, so perhaps I can e-mail you a different picture to post of her. I am not Julia, but I have interned for her (so I suppose I was a bit bias in writing the article) and I feel that she is definitely a notable fashion designer! Thanks again for your help! :) ~ Skittles90210

Thanks for showing me how to delete the picture! I think I managed to do that successfully! I looked through the photos I took of Julia, and I realized that she probably wouldn't appreciate it if I uploaded a non-professional photo of her. So hopefully someone will come forward with a professional picture of her, who has the rights to it and will upload it. I'd prefer not to mess with Wikipedia again, but thank you so much for your help and offering to "show me the ropes"! :)

[edit] Steven Sinofsky

Hi:) You have deleted my pasting of this guy's bio from the Microsoft page. I would like to know of it's a matter of copywrite (how exactly are webpages copywrited?) or there's a different reason. I woul like to have his bio on Wiki, so should I rewrite it and if yes what should I change? Thanks in advance for your answer. Greetings:) --Woodchuckk 16:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Replied on user's talk page. Calliopejen1 02:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your RfA was successful

Congratulations, I have closed your RfA as successful and you are now a sysop! You may wish to add yourself to WP:LA. Good luck. --Deskana (banana) 08:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, congrats! Start mopping! -- But|seriously|folks  09:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on your successful RfA! --Altruism^{T a l k - Contribs.} 11:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Congrats, your now an admin. Start using that mop! Politics rule 13:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

From me as well :) If you need anything, don't hesitate to ask. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User space protection

After seeing that page which I think interesting will be deleted I put them using copy/paste in my user space. 2 times it has been OK but last .... 1 "genius" user is deleting page (in my userspace) so I will like if it is possible that you protect this page on period of 6 months. Page is: User:Rjecina/Borders before and after Yugoslavia . Thanks --Rjecina 4:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

This page contain provocative nationalistic content and it is just a copy of article that was recently deleted (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Borders_before_and_after_Yugoslavia ). Provocative insulting content is not allowed to be on any place on Wikipedia (including talk pages) and therefore this page should be deleted as a copy of deleted article (even author, user Rjecina voted for this article to be deleted, thus I do not understand why he created it again here (just see this for details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Borders_before_and_after_Yugoslavia ). PANONIAN 09:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Rjecina, can you answer me a question first-- why do you want to keep this article in your userspace? Calliopejen1 09:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

To protect article from PANONIAN. I am tired of his misleading and his support for Četnik ideology. In discussion I have supported deleting because PANONIAN has so much changed that even I who has created this has been for deleting. Article which is deleted is not in my user space now but this is version before PANONIAN changes which has killed article. User PANONIAN only problem with article is that it is writen:

" In last weeks before birth of Yugoslavia soldiers of Serbia and Romania will try to take greater possible part of Hungary kingdom. In peace agreements with Hungary then Yugoslavia will recieve territory which is today Vojvodina"

This is making PANONIAN angry because every good Serb know how Vojvodina has been always Serbian land (and not land of Hungary). To show example of his misleading articles in which show how Serbs has always ruled with Vojvodina I will show article History of Vojvodina:

"titular despots of Serbia ruled in parts of the territory of present-day Vojvodina (mostly in Syrmia) as vassals of the Hungarian kings"

In reality this "rulers" has been local barons of Hungarian kingdom. Yes they have been titular despots of Serbia but Vojvodina has been part of Hungarian kingdom and inside Hungary this titular despots has been barons and nothing more. My point is that this article which is in my user space is good enough for wiki (in my thinking). If you have been reading discussion for deleting I have writen that in next 6 months I will not return article on english wiki (outside user page). She will be returned only when 5 others wiki accept this article. Until that time article will stay inside my user space. User PANONIAN is writing on our discussion how this article is having "provocative insulting content". It will be interesting to me if you agree with him ? No need to answer on this question. I do not see provocative insulting content in this article, and I not think to let fundamentalist thinking win. There is time when we need to draw line. I think that on wiki user space is that line. --Rjecina 15:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

But I do not support "chetnik ideology". I support liberal democracy, and I am even one of rare Serbs who support independent Kosovo. However user Rjecina constantly harassing me on Wikipedia and spread lies against me claiming that I am nationalist, fundamentalist, chetnik, etc. The problem with this "article" created by user Rjecina is that it contain historically incorrect and POV statements about Serbian province of Vojvodina (where I live). With these statements he want to present that Serbs "stole" this land from Croatia and Hungary - in this aim he do not want to show two important historical facts: 1. the fact that Serbs lived in this area as ethnic majority for centuries, and 2. the fact that area was in history not only under Hungarian and Croatian, but also under Serbian rule (not to mention other countries that ruled over it). So, the provocative and insulting nature of this article lie in the fact that user Rjecina want to say that my ancestors "stole" land in which they lived for centuries. PANONIAN 17:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

In the end PANONIAN agree with me. Everything in this article is true, so you are free to protect this article. My greatest problem with him are his statement that Serbia has ruled Vojvodina before 1918. This is for me new history which they teach only in Serbia :))--Rjecina 17:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I do not agree with you at all - it is another lie, same as article itself. Besides this, article is not encyclopaedic and it is an original research. Regarding Vojvodina, it was ruled by numerous local Serb rulers in history, it was part of Voivodship of Serbia from 1849 to 1860 and was part of the Kingdom of Serbia in 1918, before creation of Yugoslavia. PANONIAN 17:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes it has been ruled by short-lived rebel Jovan in 1526. Only in Serbia is possible to create national myth about mercenary rebel which has not lasted 1 year !? Full name of this administrative unit without right to secede of Habsburg empire has been Voivodship of Serbia and Tamiš Banat. I do not understand in which way can anybody say that state province is ruling anybody ??:))--Rjecina 18:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The province has its own administration that rule over land. The Croatia-Slavonia was also a Habsburg province, so what was a difference between these two provinces? PANONIAN 19:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Croatia-Slavonia has been kingdom in Union with Hungary. This kingdom has right to secede from Hungary. Hungarian parlament has in 1918 accepted decision of Croatian parlament to secede from this union. Can you understand difference between Kingdom with right to secede from union and province without similar rights ? I really think that for you is not possible to understand this fact. --Rjecina 19:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Right to secede? If it had such right why it not seceded from Habsburg Monarchy? - It secede from it only after monarchy collapsed which say everything about that right. In another words, no single Habsburg land or province did not had right to seceded from it and therefore statuses of Croatia-Slavonia and Voivodship of Serbia were absolutelly same. They are presented as same on this map by the way: http://www.terra.es/personal7/jqvaraderey/185915BK.GIF Also, I would ask User:Calliopejen1 what he suggest how this dispute about "User:Rjecina/Borders before and after Yugoslavia" could be solved? PANONIAN 19:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

This article will stay because is in my user space and because even PANONIAN accept that everything writen there is truth (comment from 17:27). I will not make more edits on this page because is simple not OK to use your discussion page for this.. --Rjecina 20:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not your private property to say what "will stay". You are not an admin to say that, thus we have yet to see what will be with "your article". And also: I certainly do not accept that article is "truth", if you want my sincere opinion about it, it is bunch of ultra nationalistic greater Croatian pro-fascist crap that perhaps belong to stormfront forum but not to this site. PANONIAN 22:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I cannot judge whether this article contains true information or not, and that really is not very important as far as whether the article is kept or deleted. Rjecina, are you keeping this article because you plan to use the information in it to expand another article in the wiki mainspace, or because you like having this as an archive copy in your userspace that you and others can access? Calliopejen1 03:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

This is now archive copy. It is possible to access this article only if users are interested in my wiki work because there is no outside links for this page because of which nobody normal (it is not normal to enter in other user space and change things) is having problem with article. Final program is to use many things from this article in new which will be created on english wiki. Only little problem is that I have given word that this data will not be used for new article in next 6 months so I will wait end of that period. Because of this and other discussion (Serbia1918 map) I have been asked few days ago by croatian wiki administrator to write for croatian wiki article Birth of Yugoslavia [1]. In my thinking this article can be interesting on english wiki, but PANONIAN will again start to scream because every good Serbs know that Vojvodina has always been Serbian land :)) --Rjecina 4:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rjecina, if you are not going to be creating a new article for six months, it seems to me that it would be best that you download this article onto your computer and save it there, and then I can delete it from your userspace. Since you will not be starting the article for some time, it seems like this archived copy of possibly polemic (I don't know because I'm not involved in this, but PANONIAN seems to think it is) content is doing much more harm than good. It also seems possible that you are using this to "indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content," which is not permitted according to WP:USERPAGE. When you start actively editing the relevant mainspace articles, I think it wuold be acceptable for you to restart this userpage, but I see no point in it sitting there for six months and causing problems if you aren't going to be working on it. Please let me know when you have downloaded the page to your computer (it is best to save it in a text editor, such as Notepad), so that I can delete the page. Calliopejen1 05:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

OK give me time until 04:00 8.8. 2007 (UTC) --Rjecina 18:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] images on the Fernando Amorsolo page

You have tagged these images as being under a free art license, but this is basically impossible. They would either be in the public domain or under copyright, depending on the year they were published. Can you add the date published to the image page so that we can sort this out? Also, "Personal Collection of Printed Images" is an insufficient source. Please source this to a published book or website. Calliopejen1 03:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. I did your suggestion and referenced the images to books/websites/other sources/etc. All that I could find... (I hope I didn't miss any image). Thanks for helping out, in advance. What's next? Each image might need different tags? Dragonbite 05:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dragonbite, now that I see what years these were painted in, it's clear that basically all of them are copyrighted. See Wikipedia:Public_domain#Artworks. For a piece of art to be in the public domain, it had to be published--not simply created--prior to 1923. So even for the images painted before 1923, you'd have to prove they were basically immediately (before 1923) published in an art book or something similar, which I doubt is possible. I am going to change the tags to reflect them being copyrighted.

Since the images are nonfree, their use must comply with wikipedia's nonfree content policies. Because you do discuss many of these specific images, it is probably okay to keep several of them in the article. However, it is not okay to have image galleries per WP:NONFREE. I am going to delete the gallery and then I'll look over the use of the rest of the images. Calliopejen1 06:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

When i have been looking at your page further, i have seen another major problem--a lot of the content is simply cut and pasted from the websites you have used as sources. This is not acceptable, and Wikipedia takes copyright violations seriously. I have been working to clean this up myself, but I don't know if I have time to do it all. If you do not go through and remove all of the copyrighted material from the article, it may have to be deleted. Calliopejen1 11:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for all that you've done for this article. Now that you assisted in fixing the images, I am little relived. But now I am worried about the article itself based on what you mentioned above (despite of being fully referenced?). And, well, can you also look at the tag for Image:FernandoAmorsoloSmilingPlainMaiden1a.jpg. I don't know how to go about it (even if it is currently not linked to the article or any other article). I will look over the article again. Again thanks for helping me out on this. Dragonbite 16:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

In appreciation for assisting me with the images and text for Fernando Amorsolo, I hereby award you, Calliopejen1 with this Philippine Barnstar. - Dragonbite 16:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• I will appreciate any other advice on how to address other issues regarding this article. Again, thank you. You really deserve this award!!! Sincerely. - Dragonbite 16:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the award! Helping is my pleasure. It is true that the article properly references almost every statement, but many of the sentences are pasted directly--or nearly directly--from the cited websites, which is still not okay. I've been working on the inline references to identify the sources for all the statements, then we need to go through and check each sentence against the original and make sure it's not too close. Where it is too close, the sentences will have to be rewritten. This will take a bit of work but i think it is worth it, because otherwise the article is a copyright violation. Calliopejen1 04:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where you got that burst of energy. But I am really impressed by your superior and excellent editing skills and ideas. You're truly a top-notch Wikipedian!! and one more "!" I am becoming speechless... - Dragonbite 05:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

...And mesmerized! Dragonbite 05:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Dear Calliopejen1, this time, this award is for showing/demonstrating to me how an article, particularly the Fernando Amorsolo article can be truly wikified. Again, my warmest appreciation. This time also, this Philippine Barnstar has a ribbon that goes with it. - Dragonbite 15:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peru

Ah, The Farm (what year?). Have you revisited the Peru FAC lately? Congrats on the RfA ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hip Hop Fashion

		The Hip Hop Award
		I, 66.54.166.42, award the Hip Hop Award to Calliopejen1 for For tireless work on Hip hop fashion. That was FRESH!!!!!!

[edit] your comments on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Evolutionary history of life

can you please be more specific and tell me what all stuff needs to proper citation. thanks, Sushant gupta 12:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

i have made some changes in the article. though i haven't made any citation under life during phanerozoic section but then also some add ups. are they fine. you mean to say that i should cite as per sections but not on the basis of content. i thought that citations were only required where there is something factual. if i would make citation everywhere then the following article would be wikipedia's most lengthist article. thanks, Sushant gupta 12:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Peru

Hello, could you recheck Peru against the featured article criteria? I think the article has improved a lot now. If you have some time, please post a review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Peru. Greetings, --Victor12 12:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your hard work on the article. Do you think it is ready as far as prose goes? Or does it need more copyediting work? Greetings, --Victor12 14:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Judge

I am in many "strong" nationalistic discussions so you can say that I need judge who will say if I am wrong or somebody other is wrong. In my thinking during last few months I fight against Croatophobia on wiki. I will give you first example about which if there is no neutral judge there will be great fight between Croatian and Serbian users. Article is Nikola Tesla. Few users (Laughing Man, GlassFET, Simoes) which in my thinking are having Croatophobia problem has kidnapped article. You will maybe ask what is problem ? Answer is this words in begining of article:

"Born in Smiljan, Military Frontier, he was an ethnic Serb subject of the Austrian Empire"

Version of every user which try to write in that part of article that he is born in today Croatia is deleted. This users in last months have been Rjecina, Zocky, Overhere, Frankman, Ante Perkovic, Pgosta. Other users simple give up fighting with them but if somebody stronger do not enter this game I will create stronger gang of all editors which are angry because of this gang POV changes. Until now to make peace I have 3 different versions of this word. This have been:

• "Born in Smiljan, Military Frontier (today Croatia), he was an ethnic Serb subject of the Austrian Empire"
• "Born in Smiljan, Croatian Krajina, he was an ethnic Serb subject of the Austrian Empire" (my comment: He is born in Croatian Krajina which is part of Military Frontier)
• "Born in Smiljan, Military Frontier, he was subject of the Austrian Empire" (my comment: now nobody speak about Croatia or Serbia and we are all happy)

This gang of users has deleted all that returning always on first version. To show you that they are bad faith editors I will give you example about my revert war 12 july - 19 july on Nikola Tesla page. Fight has been about Tesla words

• "I'm equally proud of my Serbian origin and my Croatian homeland"

This words has been writen in begining of article (I have returned this words after they have been deleted by POV editors) but gang has always deleted this statement because there is no source for that. When I have finished finding of source this words have been deleted from begining of article because they are not for begining. If you do not believe me look article changes between 12 - 19 july and read explanation for editing --Rjecina 19:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried WP's dispute resolution processes? I think a request for comment or request for mediation might be productive. Calliopejen1 07:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

For second everybody need to sign which will never happen (mediation). For first there is many comments so what ?? This will be solved with force and nothing else. Believe me there have been many version of this begining but for Nikola Tesla gang begining of article is Bible which nobody can change. I have for you second thing. Yesterday 1 user has show me this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Benkovac. If my article is bad using of user space for you is not possible that this is good using. This is clean job for administrator  ? --Rjecina 22:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking of user

See this :Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/LAz17 and this Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 29 . User Semberac has voted 2 times. 1 time like Semberac another time like Benkovac. I will disturb you only on 08.08.2007 after which you will not hear from me anymore in near future. --Rjecina 5:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rjecina, I am a very new administrator so I am not familiar with blocking policies related to sockpuppets. I am pretty sure all of the socks can be blocked forever, but I'm not sure what to do with the puppetmaster. Can you ask another administrator to do this for you? I don't want to accidentally block someone inappropriately. Calliopejen1 06:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I am now here because of 2 reasons. First is my new article Creation of Yugoslavia which I will ask you to look before user PANONIAN start to make .... Second is about user space. If user:Benkovac (which is sockpuppet) can have this sort of text/article on his user page I do not seen reason why my article User:Rjecina/Borders before and after Yugoslavia need to be deleted. If nothing else I will create sockpuppet and put this article on user page :)) You will not hear from me in near future. Bye ...Rjecina 23:53, August 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. The userpage policy is vague about what sort of content is allowed on userpages, though it says that information likely to offend is forbidden. I wouldn't worry about Benkovac's user page -- it has been cleared since he was blocked as a sockpuppet. For your userpage, I think one important factor is that that article used to be a normal article on wikipedia and was deleted, so you're not just allowed to keep it around on your userpage forever instead of it being a real mainspace article. If you want to take this up with more administrators and other users to get a better opinion on the userpage policy, you can go to WP:AN and leave a message there. I will still plan on deleting that page of yours in a day or two, unless I have heard differently from you (e.g. if you want to ask more administrators for other opinions instead).

I aso looked over your new article. I have no expertise in the subject, so I can't tell whether it is neutral or not, and whether it is a content/POV fork or not. I linked to your article on the main Yugoslavia page so that it will come to the attention of other editors. Calliopejen1 02:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Be free to delete article today. Rjecina 2:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tagging of image

Dear Calliopejen1, I see you have tagged Image:L-Finesse.JPG for deletion. I respectfully disagree with your tagging, and I have elucidated why on the image talk page. The image adds value to the article, particularly the Lexus main article, primarily because of the Japanese characters which are featured in it, and the order in which they are placed. These characters are embodied in new vehicle designs, both thematically and in specific instances. Perhaps that was not immediately apparent. If you know how to create those kanji characters in text, it could be used to further indicate the direct relevance of the logo and what it represents, thematically. Thank you for your understanding. Enigma3542002 19:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I have acquired the kanji lettering from ja.wikipedia.com to further describe the connection between the logo and article. Enigma3542002 19:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR Rule...Violated?

Calliopejen, I am taking your advice and slowly editing the Joseph C. Wilson article. I have just made two changes to this article.

Now, I have a serious question: I have been blocked for violating the "3 Revision Rule" (3RR), which I was told happened when I edited the Wilson article three times in one day. So, I don't do anymore "three revisions" in any one 24 hour period so I won't get tossed.

However, I notice that User:NYScholar made, on this one day, over 10 revisions to the article. How come he/she can violate the "3RR" rule but not get blocked?

Can you explain this to me? And if I revise the article any more today after two edits, will I get tossed off? I am extremely confused about this rule.

Tim Osman 22:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Tim Osman

The 3RR is the three revert rule, not the three revision rule-- this is the key difference. You can't revert (undo someone else's changes) three times in one day. That is why both you and NYScholar got blocked earlier, but why NYScholar can make a bunch of changes in one day and it's fine. But I still think when you're trying to make radical changes you should do a couple at a time (even if doing more won't get you blocked), so people can digest your edits and work what they think are appropriate edits into the article. I saw your changes and tried to come up with a more neutral compromise version for both sections you altered (which were both reverted by other editors). See what you think. Calliopejen1 06:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] self-incompatibility in plants

Hi and thanks again for the barnstar. I wanted to know why you decided to reformat the references in this article. I searched for guidelines on choosing the citation format, and found none. As far as I can tell Wikipedia articles are randomly formatted either in the Harvard or footnote styles, each style receiving substantial representation. So what's the use of reformatting just one article, without any unified policy existing? Furthermore, don't you find such work (reformatting) tremendously boring and unrewarding (unless it serves as some sort of monotonous 'meditation' activity)? Gidip 01:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

While no guideline dictates this, basically all Wikipedia featured articles I have seen are in the footnote style. In my opinion, that is probably more intuitive for readers (even though obviously the typical style for scientific journal articles is more like a Harvard style), and since most of Wikipedia's articles (especially its best articles) are formatted like that I think it's probably better to shoot for that style for the sake of at least a bit of consistency. I think it especially helps when certain articles are frequently referenced, so that readers can quickly jump to the full version and the main text isn't cluttered. After reformatting the links, I saw that there are few articles that are referenced more than once, so I really don't know which style is best. If you switch back to the old one, I wouldn't be offended. Calliopejen1 15:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I'll raise this issue in the help desk or other forum. Gidip 18:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfD

I noticed that you voted to keep the Wp:an/i and Wp:afd redirects at the Redirects for deletion page. I also voted to keep these redirect pages. I thought that if they were removed, then I would not automatically get to the pages I was looking for if I happened to type all lowercase letters, which would be pretty inconvenient. However, it turns out I was wrong. The software will automatically send someone to the appropriate page, even if they type all lowercase, and even if the redirect pages are deleted. It's just like a redirect, but without the redirect page. Deleting them will remove needless clutter in mainspace searches. With this knowledge, I wonder if you might consider changing your vote to delete. Thanks, and have a good day. Nick Graves 18:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Hi again. I'd appreciate if you could find a few minutes sometime to answer my question posted above. Thanks and enjoy your vacation. Gidip 12:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POTD notification

POTD

Hi Jen,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Gauchowheat edit2.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on September 3, 2007. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2007-09-03. howcheng {chat} 02:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:Jaroslav_Malina.jpg

Hi Calliopejen1 - Thanks for the note; I didn't originally upload this, I just re-named it, because it conflicted with a different pic with the same name at Commons. You'll need to ask the person who first uploaded it under its old name Image:Malina.jpg [2]. - MPF 21:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About fair use rationale for Image:Jarek.png

I noticed you recently added a dispute tag to Image:Jarek.png, which is used in the Jarek article. I would like to clarify its rationale; this character has only been playable in two games in the Mortal Kombat series: Mortal Kombat 4 and Mortal Kombat: Armageddon. There was, quite literally, a near decade between the releases of the two. The character happened to be completely redesigned for its newest appearance. Hence, Image:Jarek.png depicts Jarek's current design while the other image, Image:JarekMK.gif, depicts what the character looked like ten years ago. Much like how other video game characters such as Sonic or Link have been redesigned throughout the years (And hence, their articles tend to include at least more than one picture), this situation with Jarek is no different. You mention in your dispute reasoning that these are two images of the same character. However, they were done years apart in different eras by different artists in completely different art styles (The original and main character designer for the series, John Tobias, actually left the team shrotly after MK4). You'll see that the fair use rationale for Image:JarekMK.gif notes how the image specifically ties in with several points included in the article (Namely that his face was taken from an MK developer as well as his whole character simply being based on a previous MK fighter, Kano). Aside from all that, both images adhere to the necessary fair use requirements, such as their sources being cited and both being quite low-resolution. There are certainly situations where it is not proper to have two fair use images showing the same subject. However, since Image:Jarek.png and Image:JarekMK.gif aren't necessarily depicting the "same" character, and they both serve the explicit purpose to illustrate the character as well as explain his creation and development, I think the rationales in this case can encompass for both images to exist the article. MarphyBlack 23:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You never responded to this and the image has since been deleted. Since your dispute over the image wasn't really valid by any means, though, I see little reason why I or someone else shouldn't simply reupload it. MarphyBlack 12:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Josh Schwartz/Bruno Maddox

Hello, feel free to carry the fair use photo of Josh Schwartz straight through to deletion. There are now 2 free use images of the guy, and I recently put them all into his bio article. On another topic, I noticed you are attending Harvard Univ. much like Bruno Maddox who I'm trying to put through WP:FAC. If you are interested in peer reviewing it I would appreciate that. It's currently being neglected.-BillDeanCarter 09:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the copyedit. Nice improvements. About Maddox "talking his way" into SPY, I gleaned that from his RTE.ie interview where he says "I did that for a year and a half (job in IT industry) and then talked my way into Spy Magazine, which was a sort of American Private Eye." Possibly I could paraphrase "talked [his] way into Spy Magazine"? I figure he means he knew people around the magazine, nagged, bragged, and eventually got their attention. You have to have a kind of talent to work for SPY magazine. But any ideas you might have as how to word this would be great.-BillDeanCarter 12:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination

Jen, I nominated {{non-free overload}} for deletion as potentially redundant to {{non-free}}, which is further up the cleanup template page in "Potentially unwanted content". The discussion is here. With respect - Videmus Omnia ^Talk 14:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jon Finn Photograph Image:Jonfinn2005.jpg‎

The Jon Finn photograph appears to have been posted by Jon Finn himself. The same person added other photos and information to the article on Jon Finn. Jon Finn is active on the internet and to discard a photograph that he posted would be a bit silly would it not? Dwain 16:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The idea behind removing nonfree images is that even if they are on Wikipedia by permission, the goal of Wikipedia is to create a free content encyclopedia that anyone can use. Having a photo up on his article decreases users' incentives to ask him for a freely licensed photo or to upload a free image they have taken themselves. Calliopejen1 16:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:JonWells.jpg

I would suggest that you ask Effeietsanders, as the emails are in Dutch, and he appears to be the best choice for dealing with this (it does appear, however, that this image has nothing to do with that ticket number; although I cannot be certain without being able to actually read Dutch). – ABCD✉ 13:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ronald Reagan FAC

Please look at the "Legacy" section now. I have removed all the quotes by George Bush, Bill Clinton, etc., and replaced them with quotes by historians. The section is also much, much more neutral. It is better, and would you consider striking you opposition at the FAC page? Happyme22 17:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Fashion article on Andrew Saul

Just a heads up that Andrew Saul (ex-CEO of Cache and Brooks Bros.) has been nominated for featured article status here. Any input, comment and suggestions would be greatly appreciated, there is not that much info on him as it relates to the fashion industry, and being an !expert, I'm not quite sure how well I can flesh it out. Please feel free to comment and/or improve the article. Thanks! MrPrada 21:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Banned user

User:His excellency is at Council of American Islamic Relations this time. He's been here before, and he's ignoring 3RR as usual. Are you familiar with this banned user? Arrow740 06:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't know anything about him. I'm not active around too many of the Islam-related articles, where I assume he normally edits. If you think that Guanxi is a sockpuppet, do you have enough evidence for a checkuser? Calliopejen1 07:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK August 27

On 27 August 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pat McGrath, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Andrew c ^[talk] 23:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Too many non-free images"

I noticed that you tagged Angel (Neon Genesis Evangelion) with the "too many non-free images" template; List of characters in Neon Genesis Evangelion has also been tagged in the same fashion. I tried to get some input on this issue at the non-free content policy article but haven't gotten a response yet, so I'll just ask you directly. For an article of this nature, which lists a number of characters which, by themselves, don't have enough information to merit individual articles, I really don't see how the use of multiple non-free images is avoidable. I realize that "minimal use" is the policy, but what's preferable - a bunch of stub articles for the individual characters that have one to two non-free images per article, or one concise list-styled article that contains several images?
UPDATE: I actually did get some feedback, I just hadn't noticed it yet. Sorry for the confusion. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 12:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pop art gallery

I see you entirely removed the pop art gallery. Do you think leaving three or four of the eight images might be permissible?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• I've restored the original list, because I think it's important and different from the names in the pop artists category. I'd like to restore either all or part of the gallery, too. Modernist 00:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jill Cohn image

You (or more likely a bot of yours) recently flagged a non-free image, "JillCohnOutside.jpg" as replaceable with a free image. According to the instructions left on my user page, I disputed this, added the dispute tag, and entered my reasoning on the image's talk page. Two days later, the image was apparently summarily deleted by another bot. The dispute tag was ignored, I received no correspondence, and there was no discussion. Is this how things are supposed to work ... disputes are simply disregarded? Scott Johnson 21:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Just FYI, all my taggings are done without any bots, and I don't think Maxim is a bot either. I don't remember exactly what the image was I tagged (I've been doing tons of image cleanup), but I imagine it was a photo showing what Jill Cohn looked like. If this was the case, it was proper to delete the image. Image deletion decisions are policy-based and are not a vote, so even it is disputed an admin is free to delete the image once the mandatory time period has elapsed (in this case, two days) if the image violates policy. According to wikipedia policy, permission of the copyright holder is irrelevant when determining whether to keep nonfree images. All we look at is whether the image is replaceable. As a matter of policy, all nonfree images of living people are considered replaceable unless there is a specific, extreme reason no photo could be obtained (e.g. incarcerated for life). I assume that Jill Cohn performs periodically, so someone should be able (fairly easily) to take a free photo. This strict policy exists to encourage wikipedia users to take and upload free photos. Another option is to email Jill Cohn or her agent and to obtain a release of a press photo under a free license, then forward this email to permissions@wikimedia.org. If you have any more questions, let me know. Calliopejen1 22:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copywrite status

Hey You said I would hopefully change the licinse I will but to what?Wolfmankurd 20:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wingnut (politics) disambiguation

Thanks for your good work at revitalizing wingnut (politics). I've added references to a number of articles and I'm now thinking that wingnut can be un-disambiguated, or that at least the political entry can be the one that is linked to when a user enters 'wingnut'. It almost goes without saying that the political sense of the word is more popular than the botanical use, but I'm afraid that I have no idea how to do it. In addition, I have no idea how to initiate a formal process (if there is one) with that goal in mind. Can you help? I'll be happy to do the legwork if you can point me in the appropriate direction. Thanks again! Ossified 03:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I just went ahead and fixed it for you. It's not hard to do and you don't need any special approval (though if someone changes it back you would obviously have to work it out). I don't think that the political sense of wingnut is so common that it's what most people think of when they enter "wingnut," but I do think that the hardware sense of the word is important enough that a search for wingnut should go to a disambiguation page. So what I did was first move Wingnut to Wingnut (plant) to free up the space at the Wingnut page. Then I redirected Wingnut to Wingnut (disambiguation). Finally, I had to go to all the pages that linked to Wingnut and put them to Wingnut (plant) in most cases, or to other things if the original link to the Wingnut plant article wasn't the right target. So for not I think you're all set, except I worry that both the Wingnut and Moonbat articles might be better candidates for wiktionary on second thought... Who knows. Happy editing! Calliopejen1 21:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for the wingnut fix. I must have missed the change in my watchlist. I also appreciate that you detailed the changes that you made as I'm trying to jump right in, but there's a massive amount of things to be learned in order to be effective and not step on toes. You may well be right on the wiktionary issue, but I have to confess to prior ignorance that such a thing even existed. Thanks to the kindness of editors like you, however, I'm learning fast! Cheers! Ossified 01:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Hooters Casino HotelLV.jpg

Hello, thanks for tagging the image, I wasn't sure if it required one or not. I added a short rationale for its inclusion, does it seem appropriate or should I take some other action? Thanks for watching out for the image and keep up the good work. --Nehrams2020 04:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

That looks good, I'm not sure it really even needed the tag or the rationale but I suppose it's best to be on the safe side. If the inclusion of copyrighted work in a larger picture is incidental, then it's not a problem as a general rule. (Which is a good thing, because otherwise it would be basically impossible to take any pictures in public spaces.) Calliopejen1 21:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] André Kertész‎:

Hi. You recently commented on the above article's FAC, saying you had tried to contact the uploader of the picture of Kertész in the article. I was wondering if you'd had any luck with this and to tell you that the page numbers had been inserted into the article's citations. Because of this I was wodnering if you'd be able to support the article getting featured - it's okay if you can't, but it'd be great to finally have someone vote on the article, since it hasn't received any oppose or support votes yet. In any case, have a great day/night. Cheers, Spawn Man 08:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your vote on the FAC, but I'm afraid that I have added page numbers to the references. I've even been over it with an admin and he said it was correct. I'm not sure if you mean something else, but the problem you had addressed before had been fixed. Would you be able to reconsider your oppose? Cheers, Spawn Man 05:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi - Would you be able to respond to my query above? I noticed you've made edits since my query above, but haven't answered, so was wondering if you'd missed my post. Anyway, as I said, I think I've already fixed your oppose. Cheers, :) Spawn Man 10:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I've replied again to your response on the article's FAC - As I said there, those two references with no page numbers make no difference to the citation percentage, as they are backed up fully by citations which do have page numbers. I don't see how this is a problem. Please reply, as I'd like to sort this matter out quickly. Thanks, Spawn Man 00:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

As per FAC page, sorry for my rude behaviour. Anyway, I've replied to your concerns on the FAC page. Again, sorry for my manner. I didn't know you were looking at progress in the refs section. Cheers, :) Spawn Man 01:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Ummm, how long do you think it will take you to copyedit the article? Spawn Man 01:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Worth Dress

I may have, but also a chance that a colleague took them, both would have been as part of our work. Or a professional photographer sometimes contracted to take images of artefacts from our collections. If it is a copyright issue that concerns you this is listed with the image. Hope this answers your question, any more information required please do not hesitate to ask. --Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 08:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Andre Kertesz FAC:

Hi Callio! I've now completed all the tasks you'd set for me on the FAC page - I've now added two Fair use images to the article (You might want to check the rationale and copyright tag etc), and since you've rewritten parts of the article, I was wondering if that was enough to procure your support for the article? Check it out and see what you think. I really think it'll be able to make it if you support. Anyway, thanks for the rewrite and the tips. Cheers, :) Spawn Man 03:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Umm? Just wondering why you weren't answering - I get kinda itchy to close matters (Not your fault, mine...) Anyway, Spawn Man 04:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, I've just been distracted elsewhere. Give me a day or two, and I should have time to do a thorough go-through for the rest of the article. I'd like to get somewhere where I can print it out and go through it with a pen but I don't have a printer where I live. At this point, I don't think the writing is quite FA-quality. Haven't checked out the pictures yet but I will soon. I do want to fix it up because I would be happy to have this be FA. Calliopejen1 04:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

To be frank, I think the writing is very FA material. It's had a FA copyeditor go all the way through it and rewrite everything, as well as myself. I'd prefer that you didn't go through and rewrite everything; in your previous rewrites you deleted a whole lot of important information, such as the names for Andor's brothers, and in one case, wrote "When Kertész's father died from tuberculosis in 1908, his uncle, Lipót Hoffmann, provided for..." - This doesn't assert whether it was Kertesz's uncle or if it was his father's uncle. Although you did a good job overall, I'd prefer not to go through the whole article again and tidy up little grammatical/consistancy errors such as those. It's been rewritten once before by an editor who is one of the best rewriters on wikipedia, and I'd like it to stay basically the same. Please don't take this the wrong way. Anyway, think about it, but you know where I stand. I'd rather not have your support than have to spend that much time on the article again when I have others I need to attend to. Hopefully, you'll appreciate my honesty. Cheers, Spawn Man 04:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Sigh... Spawn Man 04:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

I am requesting that you please look at the talk page on the LU trivia page. Simply south 17:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I have read the talk page. I am attempting to implement the cleanup recommended in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/London_Underground_trivia_(3rd_nomination), and plan to redirect this page (or else nominate for deletion again) after that. Calliopejen1 17:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hispanic Americans in World War II

Thank you for your improvements to the article. The reference issue was a topic during the FAC process and conerns were taken care of during the FAC process, otherwise said article would not have promoted to FA status. All of the referencing concerns have been taken care of as witnessed by users: User: Mattisse, User: AnonEMouse and User: SandyGeorgia all of which are experienced FAC editors and neutral.

"lots of work has been done, issues addressed quickly, politely, and diligently, thank you. I'm also going to take the liberty to add a few tweaks of my own, if you don't like them, feel free to change or revert; I hope they're improvements, but my support doesn't depend on them being kept. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)"

You may doubt me,but I see no reason what so ever to question the capacity of those whom I have mentioned. I suggest that you ask those whom I've listed and find out if they checked the references. Tony the Marine 17:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the reviewers went through the sources independently, which should each stand or fall on their own merit. I've asked them for their input. Calliopejen1 18:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] B-52 Stratofortress trivia

The aviation editors and administrators have had many of discussions and voting on this article as it was originally in the main B-52 article. We spent many arduous months on this topic and this format was the consensus AND other editors are researching the unreference trivias. Please revert your own edit. This text has be constant for months and will be updated by the aviation editors. Thank you. Sincere regards, LanceBarber 18:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I stand by my edit, as there should not be text in the article explaining away the presence of unreferenced material. You will notice that I did not delete the unreferenced material, but just removed the intro sentence. Readers should be suspect of anything that admittedly "cannot be referenced." Calliopejen1 18:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] London Underground

I'm impressed. Now perhaps those sensible people willing to compromise (from both sides) can put an end to the continuing time-wasting horror show at AfDs. DGG (talk) 19:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Curse of the Golden Flower

Do you think the plot section of Curse of the Golden Flower is a bit too long than what's appropriate? -WarthogDemon 19:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I do-- I'm tagging it w/ {{plot}}. Calliopejen1 05:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Hey Jen thanks for letting me know.What should I do? Its a cool pics so u know :) p.s. Cali is better !--Taulant23 04:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion

what are you nominating the images on teh Josephine Baker web site to be deleted for?

--Mrlopez2681 19:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Josephine images

actually the photo at the start is in the public domain - i must change the tag, but not sure which one to use. My freind in france explained to me it is a promotional photo, and is also offered on a web site as free content and was made into many different wallpapers.

Unfortunately all of the free photos are all of the same photo shoots, and give no variety . Baker's "look" as a performer was far different than this for most of her life.

--Mrlopez2681 19:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Just being a promotional picture does not make a photo free--there must be an explicit release by the copyright holder stating that it has been released into the public domain. It would be extremely implausible that this photograph is in the public domain. Also, I do not think that conveying a different "look" is so important that it trumps wikipedia's free content mission. You might want to take this up at the talk page to WP:NONFREE, but I think it will be a losing cause. Typically, people think that one image is sufficient for a biography article. Calliopejen1 20:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

note that we already have a dozen free images at the commons, from what looks like eight different photo shoots, ranging between the 1920s and the 1950s. Calliopejen1 20:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images/2007_September_17#Image:Turtle_dove.jpg, answer

Just letting you know I answered. Jackaranga 20:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:BrigitteAndreassierPearlAPNewsApril2005.jpg

originally attributed to the associated press, then changed to roderick santos Calliopejen1 18:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I made a mistake in labelling but this is indeed my work. There was an existing image taken by Associated Press but I replaced it with a photo I took. SHE IS MY BOSS!!!! I work with her everyday! I see her everyday! As well as other interpreters. I was only not able to change the image name because there is no MOVE button on wikipedia for images. - Dragonbite 23:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I just wanted to clear things up. I noticed that you were not familiar with WP's image policies, so I wanted to make sure that the status of all your uploads was resolved. Thanks for your response. Calliopejen1 16:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit]  ?

Dont you have anything better to do? What is this a vendetta? What possible evidence could I supply to prove to YOU that this photo is in the PD? -Mrlopez2681 00:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you referring to the image on the commons? According to WP:PD, "Even if a work was published in the U.S. between 1923 and 1977 without a copyright notice, there would need to be proof to that effect. The proof must contain a valid resource justifying the claim in order for the U.S. copyright office to accept it." The burden of proof is on you as the uploader to prove that the image is PD, not vice versa. With no proof, wikipedia cannot accept it. This is not a vendetta (you'll notice I'm the one who upgraded your swan lake article earlier)--it is just consistent with wikipedia's mission as a free content encyclopedia, not a has-the-most-flattering-images encyclopedia. Calliopejen1 16:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zen book cover

Thanks for your help with Image:Zen motorcycle.jpg. So from now on I need to use the "Non-free media rationale" template when I upload book/CD/movie covers, etc.? —ScouterSig 16:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's no requirement that you use that template, but there are requirements for what the rationale must contain (see WP:FURG). The template is probably the easiest way to make sure you meet the requirements. There is already a stock rationale for CD covers ({{Album cover fur}}), which I based this off of, and one for logos {{Logo fur}}, but there aren't any yet any good ones for many other types of common uses because of problems deciding what is okay and what is not on the policy side. I predict that soon we will have more helpful stock rationales, because right now the situation with all the hand-written ones is ridiculous. I would keep checking Category:Non-free media rationale templates to see what pops up. Right now there are a few more, but they're pretty bad in my opinion. Calliopejen1 16:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barbie images

You have removed the image of the cover the song Barbie Girl by Aqua from the article Barbie, and claimed that the My Scene image is unnecessary as a free image could be created. While I accept that Wikipedia should stick to free images as far as possible, second guessing the actions of a copyright holder while claiming to uphold Wikipedia guidelines can make it difficult to illustrate articles adequately. I am unhappy with both of these decisions, and it would also have been appreciated if the issue had been raised on the talk page first. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that anyone with access to a Barbie and Fulla doll could take a photo of them, but while Barbie dolls are easy to buy, Fulla dolls are available only in the Middle East. I did not upload this image, and agree that it is not ideal that it is taken from another web page with the source credit given. It is, however, web resolution and there is no realistic prospect of a free image on Commons in the near future. Please bear this in mind when tagging images. ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Non-free use disputed for Image:David_Miller_with_veteran.jpg

I provided that image a long time ago, when there was no free image available at the time. I grabbed that one off a government site that provided Crown copyright which, at the time, was an acceptable "free" image, and I don't return to these articles to make sure there are several free images to replace what I originally provided.

Since there are now several free images, by all means delete this image (or I can do it myself, if that makes things easier from an IFD standpoint). As someone who is familiar with, and cognizant of image copyright issues, I would have appreciated a more personal note (or at least one that doesn't imply that I very recently uploaded the image and am unfamiliar with copyvio stuff), but I also appreciate that you probably deal with dozens, if not hundreds of copyvio images, so I'll let you be and wish you best of luck in handling future image copyvio images. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What now?

What are you talking about? Lazylaces (Talk to me 22:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

All right, How's This? Lazylaces (Talk to me 22:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] john Zaritsky image

Hi,

i completely forgot about this issue and haven't logged on to english wikipedia in a while. Anyhow, I am going to email the author(s) of the photo in question and ask for permission as you have stated, including commercial use.

for my own future references, when asking for a photo permission, what kind of permission am I exactly asking? Only for Wikipedia use, or, complete release of rights into public domain??

thanks,

Svetlana Miljkovic 01:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Norma Talmadge

Hi Jen,

I've thought a bit more about it, and I'm going to nominate the Norma Talmadge photo you put on Wikipedia:Picture peer review at FPC before archiving it, that is unless you want to nominate it first.

As I said in my comment, I'd be pretty neutral on it myself, but I think it's probably worth offering up. I'll probably nom tomorrow, if you don't get back to me, or do it yourself first.

Cheers, --jjron 04:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. I've actually been searching the LOC images systematically for everyone in Category:American silent film stars, and I've found a few other good (better?) ones. Should these be nominated instead/in addition?

I think if you want to nominate on FPC it would be best to start with just one and see how that fares, so choose the best. I'd avoid a 'mass nomination' as it will kill interest. My personal opinion on these:

Strike-out Ruth St. Denis, the quality is terrible (and I don't think much of her pose in general). Renee Adoree, meh, doesn't do much for me, and if she wasn't even a big star, that would go against it too. I find the Lillian Gish photo actually more alluring than the Norma Talmadge one, and given the ranking you state, she could be more notable - I think I may have actually heard of her, and perhaps even seen this photo before. Unfortunately there's some nasty scratches on it in some pretty obvious places, worse so than with Norma. As with Norma, her face seems a bit overexposed (maybe that was the fashion in photos at the time?), and it's a little more cutoff than Norma. I personally don't have the inclination to spend the time cleaning any of them up, I was just going to nom as was. Don't know if you'd want to do a cleanup?

Another thing I was wondering, is there anywhere they can be used other than just their own pages, to increase the encyclopaedic value? I don't know, Filmstars of the 20s, Silent Films, you know, something like that (it's really not my area of expertise).

OK, so will I leave it up to you to decide, or do you want me to just nominate one? If so, which? --jjron 10:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The more I think about this the more I think the Lillian Gish nom is better. She was a bigger name, did a lot after the silent era, won several awards including an Academy Award, and I like the picture better. The picture just needs a tidy-up. Ideas? --jjron 07:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Lillian Gish, another (apparently) major film star, ranked 17th best actress ever by AFI. There's some weirdness around her lip (early photoshopping? :) ) and a bit of scratches but it's very sharp and high-res compared to its peers

Renee Adoree- not as big a star, but the portrait is extremely sharp (you can see individual stitches in the seams of her shirt!) and I think very good

Ruth St. Denis, modern dance pioneer. Known for her orientalism, which this is obviously indicative of.

[edit] Reasonably created ?

While I prefer to use public domain images in article, I dont believe that an image of former Governor General Adrianne Clarkson and Elizabeth II in her capacity as Queen of Canada can reasonably be created to replace Image:ClarksonandQueen2005.jpg Dowew 00:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hello. This is a group thanks to all of you for your many comments and help in making the Bruno Maddox article reach FA. All the copyedits really helped polish up the article. I hope to work with you all once again. Best of luck on your own projects, BillDeanCarter 00:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Belcourt images

They are from the Library of Congress and I believe there was a special template noting such added to the images when they were uploaded. Charles 00:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The images come from here and here. The images pictures were taken in 1895, a year after Belcourt was completed. Charles 00:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lillian Gish

Hi Jen. I spent a fair bit of time cleaning up the Lillian Gish pic cos I think it's pretty good. See Image:Lillian Gish-edit1.jpg. I've tucked it into a couple of other articles, and will replace the main pic in the Gish article too. If you don't get back to me with other ideas, I'm going to nominate it on FPC rather than the Norma one. --jjron 12:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks great! I agree that that's the one to nominate. Calliopejen1 08:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, one minor issue: I'm not sure if I can get behind your touchups to her lip. I assume that where you put her lipline is probably correct, but since it's a somewhat historic image, I would have kept what looks like historic photo manipulation in. Calliopejen1 08:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This is making a pretty strong run on FPC at the moment if you haven't noticed or checked. The lip touchups are long buried in the edits, the only way to get them back would be to go back to the original. Don't know what was going on with the lips in the original, but it looked a mess; I don't know what someone was thinking when they did that, but let's just say photo-manipulation was pretty rough and ready at the time. I'm not going back to the original to start again, it took over an hour, maybe two, to fix it up. If you want to raise this an issue on FPC you can do so and bring in the original; it may be enough to sink the nom, or may be regarded as minor. --jjron 10:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PMW image

i followed your advice, and posted the image.

can you please give it a look to see that the rationale is well enough written? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] R1032 Elaine Hammerstein Image

Hi,

I posted my points in support that the image is in the public domain, but haven't seen any response. "You think" somethings not free-use so that justifies pulling other contributions? I'm starting to be inclined to think you're more interested in raising question marks to justify replacing images with your own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Algae21 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't care less if my photo is used on the Elaine Hammerstein page, I don't even know who she is. I just want a photo that we can verify as free to be used. (It is the burden of the uploader to provide source information so anyone can verify the image's copyright status.) Your research so far looks good, but how do we know that it is okay to assume that the Hammerstein card was printed the same year as the card you cite, just because it has the same style? Calliopejen1 08:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It's called experience and common sense. Now, how do I totally delete the image in question? Also, how do I report infringement?algae21 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 19:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is probably public domain, I just don't know anything about these series of cards... In other areas, say baseball cards, the same format is used for many years. If many similar cards are all from the same year then I agree this one is surely PD, but it's hard to say that because we have one from one year every similar image is the same year. As it stands, I doubt the image needs to be deleted, but in general if you have recently uploaded an image and want it to be deleted you can tag it with {{db-author}}. Blatant copyright infringements can be tagged with {{copyvio}} (copyvio|url=''http://...''}}) and for questionable images you can follow the procedure at WP:PUI. Hopefully this helps. I don't mean to discourage you from uploading images, I just want to make sure all the images are properly sourced and PD. Thanks, Calliopejen1 19:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/André_Kertész:

Grrr, I'm sure you just love making my FAC a misery. ;) Anyway, I've replied to your comments there and would love if you could show me in the general direction of where you want me to go - either point out an article to me or write something brief which I can expand on. I've not really written an article like this before, so anything wopuld help. Besides, I thought you said you weren't going to oppose? (Only not support you said...) Ah well, but I really need you to reply ASAP seeing as this FAC is nearly over... Cheers, Spawn Man 07:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Um yeah, I can see you're editing, but not replying - If you're not going to reply to my FAC, then may I ask you remove your oppose since it'll be inactionable? I'd like to strike whilst the iron is hot, so it'd be great if you could reply soon... Cheers, Spawn Man 08:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this the sort of thing you were after? André Kertész#Critical_evaluation...? I can add more if you want, but is this what you were looking for. I assume using NYT archives is okay? I've got some other stuff from a book I have again which I've added in. Please reply... Cheers, Spawn Man 09:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Grrr, do you ever reply to posts straight away?? Seriously, the FAC is nearly over and I don't want any opposes. Can you just check out the article to see if it's okay now? Cheers, Spawn Man 05:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

OMG!!! You're a girl!!! Grrr, this happens all the time to me. I'm sorry, I was treating you like a boy; not that there's much difference. Gosh this has happened like 5 times where I've mistaken guys/girls for girls/guys. Hopefully I didn't offend you - I thought it was a bit suspect that a guy liked dancing so much... Anyway, yeah, just reminding that I need you to comment on the FAC above. JSYK. Again sorry for thinking you were a guy. Sincerly, Spawn Man 08:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for taking care of Purdah

I noticed that you took out the offending sentences and am very glad that you did. This is how I remember their history on that page. One fine day I was merrily editing away, adding some old pictures, as well as some quotes from a reminiscence of purdah from India of the 1930s (by Prof. C. M. Naim of the University of Chicago), when out of the blue two trolls (both infamous, both Hindu nationalists of some shade of opinion, and both now banned from Wikipedia) appeared on that page and began to revert everything I was adding. It soon transpired that they were upset that I was adding (what they considered) pro-Muslim material; they then insisted that I add the material by B. R. Ambedkar in the interests of equal time for differing viewpoints. All this was new (and news) to me: I didn't know why a family reminiscence by a well-known academic, published in a high-brow magazine, was pro or anti anything; I didn't know too that Ambedkar who is known as the "Father of India's Constitution" had any (much less so poorly thought through) views on purdah. Anyway, since the stuff about anemia was there, in his quoted text, I insisted on adding the stats about anemia among all women of South Asia (purdah'd or not), and it turned out that the rate were equally high! It seems that was a long time ago, although I think it may have been early January (or thereabouts) 2007. I hope Wikipedia is a better place now. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting png pictures

Hi, rather than deleting the png pictures for which you have produced SVG equivalents, wouldn't it make more sense to store them all on commons? Maybe somebody has use for a png version and no simple way to produce it from the svg version. I don't see how deleting the material helps our readers. Cheers, AxelBoldt 01:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what the procedure is for unused PNGs... (I didn't make the SVGs, I'm just cleaning out the super-old images that have deprecated tags.) I'll check what people at the IFD page say and tag them {{move to commons}} in the future if that's what should be done. Calliopejen1 01:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:HF Mumble2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:HF Mumble2.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pope Pius XIII

Your post is idiotic. If you had BOTHERED to check your facts you'd know that the image is the coat of arms of an American cleric who calls himself "Pope Pius XIII" and is named that way because at the time the article on him was in under that name, as it was deemed a breach of NPOV to presume that he wasn't pope even when he clearly isn't. All you had to do is look at the page Pope Pius XIII to see a link to the guy in question, or look at the Pope Pius XII page to see that it is clearly not his coat of arms. It is these sort of antics, coupled with the lunatic bots, that have driven the most experienced contributors off this site in frustration. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 05:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Jen, apologies for my post. I'm afraid the issue of images os a very touchy topic with me, and with a lot of other ex-posters who were driven off this site by it. We were here back in 2003 and 2004 and upholded fully legal images using the commands used at the time. Wikipedia a long time later changed the commands, and longterm contributors like myself then found our talk pages jammed with accusatory posts from new users and bots accusing us all of improperly uploading images using wrong commands. When various longterm users pointed out that they had not improperly uploaded anything and that it was Wikipedia who had changed commands, not they, they were verbially abused and many of their images mass deleted. After finding over one weekend my page jammed with 37 posts accusing me of incorrectly uploading stuff I had enough and after given three years to this site, and writing tens of thousands of articles, I just gave up. Every one of the most proliferic contributors here at the time was driven away by the frankly gestapo-like antics of the new photo-police, all of whom are self-appointed and hardly any of whom have the slightest idea what the actual law is, as opposed to what they think it is. (To give an idea of the sheer ludicrousness, one of those proliferic contributors driven away was an internationally renowned judge who is one of the world's leading experts on copyright law! He was hounded off the site by the photo-police, with constant abuse when he politely pointed out what a particular legal ruling actually meant. He should know what it meant. He wrote the damn thing!!!)

I've been gone a year and only come back if I have to check something, and almost invariably find my page bombarded with yet more ludicrous posts about images. One idiot jammed by page and the page of two others with demands that we replace certain images with different ones. No matter how we pointed out to him that that was not possible as the images themselves were of something where there is only one source (the Vatican. On the issue in question the only photographer allowed to take the photographs are the Vatican photographer. There are no non-Vatican pictures of the objects in question.) and that that source supplies the images to everyone for any use as media images, the idiot would still keep demanding that alternative images be found.

So apologies if I reacted badly to the post. I accept that you are genuine and made a mistake. Unfortunately my experience re-images is that there are very few on this site who admit to making a mistake. The sheer obnoxiousness of how longterm proliferic contributors found themselves being treated has lead to a general policy now among us all that every time when any of us drop back for a moment and find yet more ludicrous image posts there we all either (a) blank the image, or (b) post a "go fuck yourself" response. Sorry if it seems crude but there are at this stage hundreds of us who were driven away from this site by how we were treated. A lot of us feel very bitter at how we were treated. I am sorry that you, as a genuine poster, ended up experiencing the wrath. You may now have some idea the reasons behind it. Practically everyone who was here when I posted have left in frustation, with many many feeling bitter at their treatment. Take care. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 02:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Do you purposefully tag images that are borderline 1923 or something?. Some of those images particular of the wrestler are pre 1923. He was born in 1894 started wreslting in 1914. It is clearly that one of the images was of him in his early to mid 20s before 1923. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 17:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going through the PD-US category and just clicking on every picture that looks questionable. If images are borderline 1923 then I do tag them, because we should be able to find a replacement picture with a clear copyright status (or write a rationale if there is no way to prove it's PD). If something is "borderline 1923" that is no assurance it's PD. We need images that are PRE-1923. Calliopejen1 17:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I know it is often difficult to tell. Well I've changed the licensing as appropriate just to be certain. I'd appreciate if you adjust the licensing if you doubt the pre 1923 as it is often clear a free alternative can't be created for images so old and they are encyclopedic . Thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 17:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that very old images are often replaceable by free images of the subjects (ones we can verify are pre-1923). So it doesn't make sense to just tag every image with a rationale, when many of them can't be justified. Calliopejen1 17:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My Maps are GFDL

Hi thanks for checking the copyvio status of my maps created back a million years ago. My Wikipedia number is in the low 2,000 range and I have been a Wikipedia sysop since Jurassic times. I hope I have answered your question at my talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Caltrop about these GFDL images created on a Linux box using GFDL software (GMT and GIMP) and PD datasets. But let me know and if you agree close out the non-free case. Sincere and collegial thanks. Caltrop 16:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anthony Gair

Dear Jen,

The page "Anthony Gair" has been marked for deletion because this article seems like an advertising. I am really sorry to read this and I would be happy to help rewrite it and make the appropriate changes for this article to be neutral. I have already removed the practice area paragraph. For the rest, if you look at the history, most of the text was written by User:DavidShankBone an attorney from New York who contribute significantly to Wikipedia and an accredited wikinews reporter. I would be happy to have a more precise feedback from you on which part of the text you consider advertising and what could be done to avoid its deletion. Thank you very much in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpittet (talk • contribs) 17:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The article needs a re-write, but it wasn't marked for deletion, just as advertising. Calliopejen was correct in her suggestion. What needs to go are all the practice areas practiced by Gair - that's too advertising-esque. I wrote the article at the beginning of my Wikipedia career. I think the writing on the Amadou Diallo trial is fine, but could use some clean-up as well in terms of re-wording. It was an effort to discuss Gair's involvement in the case and how it came about. I think it should stay, but could stand another editor's pen. --David Shankbone 20:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your concern ...

... that Image:Donnerstagsdemo.jpg "does not contribute significantly to readers' understanding of the politician (the article it's used in)" is—that's what I originally wanted to say—like an article about Lyndon B. Johnson without an image of Vietnam War protesters. Now I realize there is no such image there, so maybe Wikipedia is becoming soft and bourgeois. I may add a fair use rationale later on, but I don't think it's going to help. Do you? Best wishes, <KF> 18:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to add a data point to the discussion, the photographer for this photo is known and listed at the original web site available through the Internet Archive. Caltrop 19:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hm. This is not much of an answer to my question. All the best, <KF> 09:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flickr review

FYI, I nominated you to be a Flickr reviewer on the Commons here - it should be speedily approved since you're an admin on en Wikipedia. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 13:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Stippled Borges

Yes, I drew that. It should be public domain. Bhumiya (said/done) 02:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I wouldn't mind contributing a few drawings, when I have some spare time. Is there a list anywhere of unillustrated biographies? Bhumiya (said/done) 14:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar Tip

You use barnstars a lot, so this could be some eye-candy for you. You are one of the first 15 people to receive this barnstar you can give to counter-vandals, or just people who don't like vandalism. Have a fun day! 1() 20:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free Pompeii images

I uploaded a series of images of Pompeii artworks a couple of years ago with the idea that photographs of 2D artworks could not themselves be recopyrighted. Some of the images are 2D and are not covered by this exemption. I am not responsible for tagging them Fair Use and won't justify keeping them with a Fair Use rationale since the source of the images seems to be lost. --Oldak Quill 12:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non free at Franklin River

OK its very very very late at night where i am - could you be so kind as to explain why the picture - or where or what indicated that it was to be removed? thanks SatuSuro 17:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I am even more intrigued by non necessary category - maybe i have missed something there as the distinction between necessary and something else - thanks SatuSuro 17:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:NONFREE says that we cannot use nonfree images if they are replaceable with a free image that would serve the same function. In this case, anyone could take a new free picture of the Franklin River that would work just as well. I left the image in the Franklin Dam page because it is relevant to that specific campaign, so it falls within the policy--we couldn't replace it there with a free image. Calliopejen1 17:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

And "necessary" isn't the exact word in the policy, but I use it basically as shorthand for "# Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Non-free media files are not used if they can be replaced by text that serves a similar function." in WP:NONFREE.

OK i have read the Nonfree stuff and i think i have a handle on that - its just the image itself was a very widely distributed and known image at the time - it was an iconic image used during the campaign - and obviously the placer(s) didnt understand the non free criteria. I do have possible access to my own images of the franklin that i might get around to uploading - thanks for explaining - and ive learnt something after 1 am gawks im off- thanks and cheers SatuSuro 17:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:Primo_giubbotto_aerogel_L.jpg

You can delete this image if you want since I uploaded it at a time where my understanding of fair use was poorly informed. --Loremaster 18:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mass deleting images

Hi, Please do not remove pictures that I have uploaded without attempting to discover their source and/or informing me of your intentions prior to such reckless activity. The majority of my pictures were either photographed personally or created personally using digital media software. I believe, and correct me if I am wrong, that these images are under my ownership, and I have the right to use them on this website. Deleting my images en masse is not a solution.

Thank you, --Paradoxicalengineer 22:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

We did try to discover their source at the possibly unfree images page--next time you should comment there before deletions. I see you were notified about one image and not the others--normally it is the job of the nominator of your images to notify you about them all, but maybe he thought you would see the others if you went to the discussion page for the one. You say that you took the images, but we found one on a copyrighted website and another was watermarked as copyrighted by C. Brush in 2003. Can you explain that? Also, note that if you took these pictures as an employee, you do not hold the copyrights to them. Calliopejen1 22:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Thank you for the (extremely) quick reply. Anyways, I'm not an employee -- many of the images were taken using a standard digital camera. What really annoys me is that someone, implicitly you, decided to delete all my images, because one of them was copyrighted, rather than sensibly deleting the copyrighted image. Some images don't even have to do with a company/copyrighted websites, some were artistic designs created on Adobe Photoshop (I'm sure I hold rights to those). I take this all in stride, and simply hope that you take more caution in deleting images, which I will now have to painfully re upload.

--Paradoxicalengineer 22:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I can undelete them for you. Next time just come to the deletion discussion to make it easier for everyone. We have a lot of problem users who claim they've taken photos that they haven't, so normally we assume that silence means that there is nothing to be said in defense of the images. Calliopejen1 22:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I just undeleted them and tagged them as needing sources. Please add that you took them yourself/made them yourself in photoshop/etc so we know what the deal is for next time. Also if any of these were grabbed from websites (because evidently at least one other image was) please let me know so that I can delete accordingly. Calliopejen1 23:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vladimirsky's images

Hi, I have noticed that you have labeled all paintings of Vladmirsky *who died in 1947) as "copyrighted in the USA" and as a fair use. So far it was a consensus that {{PD-Russia}} (Russian author died before 1 Jan 1954) is enough for the copyright purposes and does not require additional copyright notices. I guess it is Wikipedian interpretation of Bern convention that if an image is PD in the country of origin it is PD everywhere. Is the consensus changed? Alex Bakharev 00:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Well according to the template itself it is copyrighted in the US if not before 1946. (Read the small print at the bottom.) Since Wikimedia servers are in the US, it should be that US copyright law is what matters to us, not Russian copyright law. I am unaware of other discussion about this, but if there is any point me to it. Calliopejen1 00:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar for Abu Badali

May I ask why you decided to award a Barnstar to an accused wikistalker and disrupter who was convicted and admonished by the Arbitration Committee? Arbiteroftruth 08:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I think "convicted and admonished" is a little strong for what actually happened... In any event I didn't always agree with Abu or his tactics, but on the whole I think he did far far more good than harm and that he showed a dedication to the aims of the project that most did not. Calliopejen1 13:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree - Abu badali's actions were overwhelmingly upheld by the Arbcom. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 14:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

His demeanors were considered to be undesirable, thus, he was convicted and admonished for his actions, and asked to be civil. His actions have violated WP:STALK and WP:CIVIL, and he was convicted as such. Arbiteroftruth 17:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Grow up and assume good faith, please. The Arbcom said no such thing. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 17:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't tell me to grow up. Look at the facts around you! Go look up the RfC for Abu, and you will know how he stalked other Wikipedians. Tell me this is a person who is worthy of ANY barnstar (sarcasm)! Arbiteroftruth 20:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, obviously. Abu was an enforcer of policy, and enforcers rarely get recognized for their hard work because most people would rather break rules. This comment basically sums up what I think, but if you would, please give it a rest... I don't need anyone's permission to give Abu a barnstar and this discussion is a waste of energy. Calliopejen1 23:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

You can enforce the rules, but you do not need to violate other Wikirules in the process, nor do you need to violate the laws of many countries around the world (stalking and harassment). I am not questioning your authority, I am questioning the reasoning behind your move. I find the award bizzare and utterly unacceptable for a stalker. Arbiteroftruth 23:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Decision-making Klein Spam

You were right, of course. What I find incomprehensible is why they would bother. Gary Klein's work is cited in several articles. They really ought to just spend a little time including more links to the articles than explain his work, which is rather well respected academically even though it is done commercially. Now, go deal with your real life. DCDuring 15:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Buster Keaton

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Busterkeaton.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 06:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Tale of Genji Toyokuni Utagawa print.jpg

My computer was unable to make a 200 megapixel jpeg, but here's a 25% downsample (still a formidable 44MP). thegreen J Are you green? 23:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Samaritan.jpg

I uploaded that image in 2004. It was from a collection of clip art that I had from volunteering at my church (I used to run their website), and after they went "pro" I gave it back. I suspect I would have named the painter if that information were supplied.

It isn't the world's greatest image anyways, and I went and uploaded the George Frederic Watts image of the Good Samaritan to Commons as Image:Good Samaritan (Watts).jpg in case it is desirable to replace it. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Afsaneh Najmabadi

Thank you for your message. I am well aware of the problem. Right now I am compiling an e-mail to Barnard College from where I have the photograph. The present Wikipedia copy-right statement is provisional, giving me time until such time as I have received their response. In fact last Saturday evening I wrote to Professor Najmabadi herself, but so far have received no reply from her. Kind regards, --BF 18:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Calliopejen1, thank you for your note. My e-mail to Barnard College was a relatively extensive one. For instance, I have made them aware of various technical/legal issues by referring them to an appropriate Wikipedia page. What happens next (I have offered them two possibilities of either sending me the appropriate permission or changing the present copy-right statement themselves, including withdrawing it) is their sole responsibility; I believe that I have discharged myself of what I had to do. If nothing happens in the coming days and you feel that the photograph should be removed, then please remove it in due time. Kind regards, --BF 15:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] X

I removed your tag of Image:X-Beyond and Back: The X Anthology.jpg. The image is (now) being used for its album. If you don't like the other uses, perhaps you could go and remove it where you don't think it is fair use. That being said, the album cover in question recylced a popular press image of the band. All the best. --evrik ^(talk) 15:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grammar

"I'm recently an administrator" (on your page) = I have recently become an administrator. --andreasegde 22:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Don_Quixote_-ABT_-Hererra_-2.jpg

It is your opinion that this photo is not given a good enough rationale, but nevertheless Ill change it when I get around to it. That poor photo of ameteur dancers is no good, and not worthy of the research and effort I put into that article.

What would be better in terms of a rationale? What is it exactly that you are looking for that is not there?

--Mrlopez2681 —Preceding comment was added at 02:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not a matter of a good enough rationale-- this is a photo that is replaceable, either with a photo of amateur dancers or a photo of professional dancers. And even if you think these particular photos aren't adequate replacements, saying that none can be made is false. Clearly a wikipedian could take a good picture of this ballet. This is a matter of policy (WP:NONFREE) that takes even somewhat inferior images in the hopes of attracting new free content. Calliopejen1 12:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] L.A.M.B

Hi! I truly respect the edits you made to the article and the time you gave to it. But, the are quite a lot of edits which i do not agree upon. But there are many edits of yours which do make a lot of sense. For the time being i have put the article the way it was before you edited it. BUT i am changing the article according to your demands. PLEASE give me a week's time to shape the article. After a week, you can come and se whether the article suits your demands or not. And yes, please discuss before you make a major edit on the talk page as it may lead to unstability in the article. I just need a week time. Thank you so much. Indianescence 11:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)