User talk:Jkelly/Archive10

Jkelly, you were recommended as someone who has zero tolerance for stolen images. I must ask you to look into the activities of User:Smith2006, his sock GeneralPatton and another possibe sock Brandmeister. I have tried the correct channels [1] but there are so many images and I am so inexperienced that I need some help of any expert.

Images uploaded by smith2006 that I have positively identified as copyright infringements (all are copyright under EU law) belong to two German photographers — Walther Frentz & Hugo Jaeger. They are all copyright Ullstein Bild and Getty images respectively. Ullstein Bild have made a legal threat with regard to their images appearing on wikipedia before, (including all tagged Fair Use), this prompted all Frentz images to be removed [2]. Unfortunately Ullstein and Getty do not allow hotlinking beyond a set period of minutes but if you search at their website according to photographer you will see the images.

Successes: :2 Images stolen by smith2006 removed

2/3 Images stolen by smith2006 removed (blondi photo also remains on wikicommons)

smith2006 or one of his socks always labels the image Heinrich Hoffmann probably in a deliberate attempt to make discovery of the real copyright holder difficult. smith2006 doesnt know that Frentz and Hugo Jaeger took the majority of color photos in this period, certainly the ones around the regime inner circle. Hoffmann worked mostly in black & white.

Confirmed Frentz (Copyright Ullstein Bild) Image:Hitler_Rommel_discussion_Generals.jpg, Image:Heinrich Himmler Murderer.jpg, Image:Heinz Guderian official.jpg, Image:Hermann Wilhelm Goering Offiziell.jpg, Image:JochemPeiper.jpg, Image:Josef Goebbels.jpg, Image:Karl Doenitz Color.jpg, Image:Speer portrait.jpg, Image:Erhard Milch.jpg, Image:AH Raeder Kriegsmarine.jpg, Image:Alfred Rosenberg Nazi Propagandist Antisemite.jpg, Image:Berlin Reichskanzlei Interieur.jpg, Image:Dietrich 2.jpg, Image:Hans-Joachim Marseille2.jpg, Image:HausserPaulSS.jpg, Image:Herbert Otto Gille.jpg, Image:Kdf Wagen Hitler Himmler Wolfsschanze Ostpreussen.jpg, Image:Keitel 01.jpg, Image:Kesselring-albert.jpg, Image:Leon Degrelle Staatlicher Photo.jpg, Image:Martin Bormann Staatliche Photographie.jpg, Image:Von Ribbentrop Sohn.jpg, Image:Bock color3.jpg, Image:Von Manstein 01.jpg, WIKICOMMONS: Image:Hitler Blondi.jpg

Confirmed Jaeger -birthday parade 1939 (Copyright Getty) Image:Condor Legion Parade.jpg, Image:Kondorlegion Parade Hitler.jpg, Image:Robert Ley2.jpg, Image:Wehrmacht 20th April 1939 Birthday Parade.jpg, Image:Raeder color1.jpeg

Unconfirmed copyright (so far): Image:Wehrmacht_Anschluss.jpg, Image:Kurlandfront.jpg, Image:Peiper Jochen or Joachim.jpg, Image:HausserPaulSS.jpg

Please bear something in mind; the profiles are of top nazi officials, all of whom were either dead or alive and captured at end of WW2. Either way they were photographed by the Allies- free images. smith2006 has not bothered to source these, nor has he noticed that in the majority of cases the articles already contain free images which describe the object. How can he then claim Fair Use? smith2006 has just gone to a fansite like ww2incolor.com and downloaded the ones he likes best!!

One last thing, I am not trying to short circuit the system by appealing to you, I just do not have the time to list each and every infringement and fend off defenders of smith2006's behavior. I hope you look into this and checkuser suspect accounts to discover what else has been uploaded. This user should be permabanned for deliberately abusing his upload privileges but from looking at his talk page he has yet to figure out the rules. I have crossposted this to user Angr. Thank You. 85.214.95.75 11:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for investigating, here is another Ullstein image appearing in Himmler deliberately mislabeled as PD Image:HimmlerOberfhr.jpg. Just got to ullsteinbild.de and search himmler to see the image, navigation to the pages is on the right hand side. 85.25.135.167 10:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another Image:Rommel portrait.jpg. Dee Mac Con Uladh 11:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a busy few days: Shequida, Frank McCourt, Colum McCann, Michael Musto, Megan McArdle, Frank Furedi, Christopher Hayes and Kevin Cahill. I hope you're doing well. --David Shankbone 02:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will be going to Malachy McCourt's home on Tuesday to photograph him. Ah, Wikipedia - lotsa fun! --David Shankbone 02:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

McCourt is postponed until Friday, but I got a decent one of John Lithgow, or several. I'm letter User:Arcayne choose the ones he likes best for the page. --David Shankbone 23:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JKelly. I notice that you deleted the page for the "Oklahoma Girl Scout Murders" on Jan. 26th 2007. I am doing hard research on this case, and now have to reassemble what had been collated there for my own record books. Can you specify why such an informative article was removed, and what it would take to restore it? Thank you for all your effort! Monsterofmud 22:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jkelly,

I didn't understand from the deletion log exactly why this image needed to be deleted. I'd greatly appreciate if you could clarify your rationale. Thanks, Tewfik^Talk 04:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I just wasn't sure if you had meant it was a FU vio or not. Tewfik^Talk 17:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks again. I will make notes of the formatting upgrades you have accomplished, and have further utilizations.

AndrewEditor 07:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you changed the file name for the image on Roger Federer... His name is Roger Federer, not Robert Federer like in the file name. So, you might want to change that. Cheers, oncamera^(t) 23:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're referred to in the Guardian [3] Looks good!--Shtove 00:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's promoting new songs, so an obvious tack would have been to slag off WP - that liberal/fascist/atheist/god-bothering bag of falsehoods. But he spoke the truth about a good experience with a reasoning editor, and was quick to pick up on the verifiability criterion. Good job all around.--Shtove 01:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks quite impressive. Certainly, phrases like "clear and unaccusatory note" and "my courteous correspondent" don't surprise me at all: they match my experience! :) ElinorD (talk) 01:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite amusing, Jkelly. Glad Mr. Scott's experience was the same as mine generally: You're courteous and polite, constructive and helpful. I'm also glad he was able to understand the problems inherent in editing his own article; so many do not. It's great when someone "gets it". And I think that is in no small part due to your communication with him. Mr. Scott has never struck me as unintelligent or insensitive (well, as much as I can tell through the artist's work.) --Pig^man_dialogue 02:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you look at the images in Darwin Island? They claim to be public domain, but have a website on the image and a copyright notice on the image page. Gimmetrow 16:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The uploaded images are not identical to the fivaz versions, they are cropped and the website added in a different location. That seems like unusual behaviour for simply grabbing an image off the web. The same uploader added a link to another fivaz page to Wolf Island. Gimmetrow 18:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am the owner of the website www.fivaz.com. but I also have added two pictures in the Darwin Island. All these pictures have been taken by my own during a diving trip in June 2005. Do I have to get any kind if licensing (by example GNU) to upoad a picture on wikipedia ? let me know. Pascal

You tagged Image:ByngGretzky.jpg with {{subst:nrd}} or {{no rationale}}, which is specifically for images uploaded after 4 May, 2006. However, that image was uploaded on 13 June, 2005. I've removed the {{no rationale}} tag for that reason, however I expect that your {{no source}} tag on the same image will hold up since the uploader hasn't edited in 3 months. ~ BigrTex 20:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Civility Barnstar
		I award this barnstar to Jkelly because his habitual courtesy has improved Wikipedia's public image.[4] ElinorD (talk) 21:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't dare to put this on your user page in case I might mess up the format, and in fact I only put it on your talk page after copying the entire code from a barnstar someone else had given you, making my own changes, and pressing preview about ten times! Feel free to modify the format. ElinorD (talk) 21:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We need a copy of the email releasing this material under a free license sent to permissions AT wikimedia DOT org, or it will all need to be deleted. I note that this has been an issue with your uploads in the past as well, and encourage you again to not upload any more media that you did not create yourself. Jkelly 22:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I sent it all off, and got this reply:

Images and other media are allowed if they are under the GNU Free
Documentation License (GFDL),  a similar license (such as certain Creative
Commons licenses) or the copyright holder has released all rights. You can see
the allowable licenses at
[5]

If you provide us with a clear statement from the copyright holder that they
are releasing this content for redistribution under an allowable license, then
the content may be used on Wikimedia projects.  Please note that the license
or release of all rights must be specified and the release must come from an
email address we can recognize as affiliated with the source of the pictures.

Thank you for your understanding! Please see
Wikipedia:Copyrights for more information.

Yours sincerely,
Michelle Kinney

There shouldn't be any more problems with these pictures. --sonicKAI 00:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The email that you pasted on my user talk page is from us, saying that we need a clear release. Did you then follow up? Jkelly 00:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm completely confused. John King (of www.transporthistory.co.uk) talks about releasing his pictures in a Creative Commons license way, as does Ian Armstrong (of www.busesatwork.co.uk). As far as I know, that would allow the pictures to stay under something like Cc-by-sa-2.5. I'm not even sure anymore. --sonicKAI 00:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey JKelly - thanks for rewarding my barnstar phishing!  :-) I went back up to Billy Name's today. He was being interviewed for an article about his Warhol years and photographed for a new book by photographer Keith Green on the people who have shaped pop culture. Green is best known for some of his work with the Ramones and his haunting of the Chelsea Hotel. Anyway, I got a really good new one of Billy, at right. You're the best with dah barnstahs!

Kelly - I need to have the Billy name photograph I put up yesterday deleted ASAP. I hadn't thought about it, but the photographer whose session this was called me in a bit of a state. It turns out I essentially replicated his photograph at such a high quality that it has made his shot worthless. So, it needs to be deleted for copyright violation: I hadn't even thought about that. Can you please do this as soon as possible: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Billy_Name_%28Flag%29_1_by_David_Shankbone.jpg. --David Shankbone 20:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for such speedy attention; I feel awful - you'd think a law student wouldn't be such an idiot. Maybe I *will* fail out - oi. --David Shankbone 20:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'd like to help with the appeal you made at WP:AN regarding these images. I looked to see how far you were, and then opened up this image. I then went to this website to see if there was anything about their images being in the public domain. There wasn't, as far as I could see. I looked at your contributions to see how you were tagging them, and saw that you did different things for different images. After looking at your contributions for a while (sorry, that sounds a bit stalker-ish!), I decided to put {{PUI-disputed}} on it. (I would also have listed it at the relevant page, and notified the uploader.) I opened the edit box, and found that you had just tagged it with {{no copyright holder|month=March|day=25}} and {{no license|month=March|day=25|year=2007}}.

I don't know if I'd make things worse by trying to help. If you tell me very nicely to run away, I won't be offended! But if I can help in any way, it would be best if you assigned me ten or fifteen images, going by date of the user's contributions, so that I don't end up in edit conflict with you. Let me know if there's anything I can do. ElinorD (talk) 21:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I'm being so slow. I think I have the hang of it now! Just one more question. You used two different verbs in your message to me — use and subst. I got confused and "substed" some {{imagevio}} ones. Then I was just rereading your message to check that I was doing everything properly, and I noticed that you hadn't said "subst" for that one. I then checked your contributions again, and saw that you had used that template without substing it. For the moment, I'll continue by using {{imagevio}} and {{PUI-disputed}}, and substing {{nsd}}, but I just wondered did you really mean to differentiate? I can go back and unsubst them later if you think I should. (I hadn't done many; you're much faster!) ElinorD (talk) 21:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed we had just met — though I couldn't say it was in the middle. You did most of the work, and the time I saved you was probably less than the time you spent explaining it to me. I'll be quicker next time! Anyway, I think I now have some understanding of those templates. He seems to have taken one of the photos himself. Let me know if I can help again. I will be faster when I have more experience. Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JK,

Considering you took the time to contact me and confirm my images were legitimately supplied, I take the liberty of assuming it was you that added them to commons. If correct, I have a couple issues I need to direct to you with the hope of a mutually satisfying resolution. The "Other Versions" wording in the image description page is uncomfortable for me. I'd greatly appreciate it if you'd kindly modify the wording to the following:

Original Photo ~All Rights Reserved~ © Daniel Gluskoter~www.dgpics.com

Also, not sure whether it was you or someone else that altered the location, but the Eddie Van Halen concert image I provided, like all of my images, was meant to be featured in the infobox on top of the page. It's much more representative of the subject than a fuzzy candid taken at an Emmy Awards show 14 years ago.

I'm only providing these superior quality photos for feature use, and if possible I'd appreciate your efforts in permanently restoring it to the infobox location unless a better image exists, in which case I'd gladly remove it from the feature in it's entirety.

Thanks for your efforts ! Dannyg3332 21:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your lightning quick response is both impressive and appreciated. THANK YOU ! I hope you won't mind my contacting you periodically in the future if questions or conflicts arise.......ATB ! Dannyg3332 22:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should I, ( or You ) revert the Van Halen pics ? I don't want to waste any uneccessary time or get into a edit war with anyone. Dannyg3332 22:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JK,

Plaudits for your "Cow" comment. BRILLIANT and I couldn't agree more. But I need to disagree with you on my lack of ability to remove my authorization for any image's usage.

Prior to agreeing to the initial wording releasing my images in their uploaded size, I was assured by my intellectual properties copyright attorney that I can indeed remove authorization for future usage at anytime. No desire to bring an attorney into this, but if someone so blindly unobjective is going to continuously replace my image with an inferior one while quoting non-existent policy along the way, I will take those steps to insure an image can not be used in anyway.

Please understand that while I've only had the pleasure of enjoying your expertise for a brief period, I have clearly stated in previous discussion with other editors that I only desire to improve the image quality on these pages. As a professional photographer and professional photo editor I have encountered many pages I intended to upload to already presenting quality images, and out of respect (and showing the ability to be objective) I haven't altered those pages in anyway......Dannyg3332 23:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I initiated a discussion regarding the placement of images on the Eddie Van Halen article. But rather than constructive discussion and concensus the only replies were uncivil and concluded with a personal attack on my talk page. I tried to quote policies where best suited but to no avail. The user appears to have no patience for IP editors even though Wikipedia is built on the contributions of honest/valid anons. Can the user rm a commons image....while it still resides on commons? Or does this shade WP:OWN?. I normally call on Wiki alf(or other admins familiar with range 156.34) but since you have actually been able to have civil communcation with the editor in question I thought I would ask you first. 156.34.216.36 23:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's more of a sorting thing for me in the user's contribution history, as he has multiple edits to many of the images. Burden of proof on the uploader, all that good stuff I know so I'm more than willing to go back and delete those when I have finished the others. Kill 'em dead behind me if you wish, or I will get to them in a bit. Teke 01:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm focusing on the images that are obviously mistagged, which is most. Pilotguy has blocked the user, and there are few images that are legitimate. I tell you what, I'll leave the unsourced but possibly free images (I'll go back and restore the tags). The rest I'm going to delete for the legal reasons which you spoke of. Teke 01:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you did the right thing by just tagging the images since you notified the user and then asked for uninvolved assistance. I'll get to the remaining images in a bit. Happy to help, happy editing to you. Teke 01:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This image was provided to my website by another contributing photographer. I was wrong to authorize it being added to Commons as I am not the true copyright holder. He has not authorized it's use by Wikipedia in anyway and it needs to be removed promptly from any and all usage other we shall both initiate litigation promptly.Dannyg3332 19:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking at http://www.transporthistory.co.uk/ and there is nothing about Creative Commons on that page, nor do the words Creative Commons appear at http://www.busesatwork.co.uk/ -- where did you get the idea that they were licensed under such a license? Jkelly 16:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The e-mails I received from them say that their pictures could be used as long as they were attributed to them, which is the basis of the Attribution ShareAlike License v. 2.5. --sonicKAI 21:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that you just made up a license for the images? CC-BY-SA allows commercial use, unlimited modification of the work, and insists that any derivative works be released under the same license. Do you have an email that specifies such things, or were they granting permission to Wikipedia only to republish with credit? I'm looking at the email you sent to us, and the words "Creative Commons" don't appear anywhere in the email, nor does any mention of commercial use, modification, or derivative licensing. We also have no contact information for the people giving the release, another problem. Jkelly 21:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that they were just granting permission to Wikipedia to republish with credit, but here is their e-mail addresses. John King (of www.transporthistory.co.uk) is JKing77189@aol.com, and Ian Armstrong (of www.busesatwork.co.uk) is ian.armstrong43@ntlworld.com.--sonicKAI 22:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops.

Err, yes, I got your e-mail, but I forgot about it over the weekend. Short answer to the e-mail request: in principle, I have no objections, with some distinct caveats I'll outline in several hours when I have access to my e-mail account. --Calton | Talk 04:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just listed four more images for this person. The entire series of Frentz images he uploaded are still on wikipedia. One person has claimed his NARA tag is correct! =) Another person has edited the images to say they were uploaded past a date so theyre fairuse.

A ban really should be placed on this person. Since nothing is done an unfair burden of constantly checking and listing copyright violations falls on others. How is it productive to let this person continual deceive about the copyright status of images? Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 March 27 How exactly do I go about having this person removed from the project? Dee Mac Con Uladh 11:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing ;) Spellcast 17:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it is the case that they are offering Wikipedia only a license to republish with credit, the images would still need to be deleted, because we do not accept that, but I would feel less of a sense of urgency about it. Can you please, please send the email that you have stating such a release to permissions AT wikimedia DOT org so that I can try to figure out what has gone wrong here? Jkelly 22:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't find the original e-mail allowing the pictures to be used with permission. I didn't know Wikipedia didn't accept these pictures, so I'm going to list them all for deletion. --sonicKAI 21:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're in discussion with the uploader about these. I was starting to clear out CAT:CSD when I saw the discussion. Should admins continue to delete them or should we hold off? If the latter, we made to stick a note at CAT:CSD... WjBscribe 03:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. We do have a lot of free images of London buses. And plenty of London-based editors to photograph them if needed.... WjBscribe 03:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I added a paragraph in the article Amfipoli. Could you look at it and maybe edit please? It's the last paragraph. Here's the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amfipoli Thanks! Neptunekh 07:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC) 07:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jkelly. I just sent you an email about an OTRS message. --Abu badali ^(talk) 20:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got the email; might take me a little while, but I will follow up. Thanks. Jkelly 20:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the permission was for Wikipedia only. I have replied with a request for a clear statement of release under a free license. Sorry for the bad news. Jkelly 23:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to explain the photographer that releasing under gfdl would make it available to anyone, just as Wikipedia text is available to anyone. My fault he didn't understood. I'm sure you can do a better work in contacting him. Let me know about the outcome. Best regards, --Abu badali ^(talk) 02:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
i've seen you remove links & references to deathcamps.org on fr: and i don't get the point. The articles, at least for the one i've read, seems perfectly within the scope of the article and there is no mention of any commercial brand. Even if a brand were mentionned the information provided stands. I didn't revert because you're a trusted user so you probably have an explanation. Thanks, (:Julien:) 22:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe your closing of the IfDs for Image:Il-76_shootdown.jpg and Image:S7crash.jpg as a speedy delete as G12 copyvio were unwarranted. I don't think you should permit your own personal judgment to trump a comprehensive IfD discussion focused on Fair Use issues; the cases are clearly judgment calls requiring a consensus of informed editors rather than unilateral action by an administrator. Please make your arguments in the IfD rather than by using your delete button. My reading of WP:FU, with which I am very familiar, leads to a different conclusion, but I did not substitute my personal judgment by closing the IfD as speedy keep (even though I am both an admin and an IP attorney); I'm willing to let a consensus of editors make the call. I have restored the Il-76 image; the other does not seem to actually have been deleted, unless I'm looking at a cached version. Unfortunately I have an engagement and will be away from Wikipedia until late evening, but I hope you will undelete the S7 crash image if it was deleted, and reopen the IfDs, adding your own arguments. Thanks, --MCB 02:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message on my talk page, but I am concerned that you did not appear to have investigated the situation. First, I did not upload either image. I did restore them after they were deleted by you out of process. Your message closing the IfD, and your message on my talk page both made generic statements about Fair Use. However, as I'm sure you know, Fair Use is not a trivial analysis, and must be performed individually for each work. Blanket statements about particular sources are not particularly useful or dispositive.

There was an ongoing IfD debate regarding the images. In that debate, a number of editors, myself included, made highly specific arguments about the Fair Use issues. However, you chose to ignore the IfD, did not participate in the Fair Use analysis, and substituted your personal judgment for that of a consensus of editors. While I believe you are an excellent and experienced editor and admin, that was not the appropriate action. Unless you are acting directly on behalf of Wikimedia Foundation (i.e., a WP:OFFICE action) or your personal expertise regarding Fair Use issues exceeds the sum total of all the other participants (which, having significant credentialed experience in the field, I am skeptical of), the right thing to do is to make your case in the IfD and build consesnsus, not act unilaterally.

I don't propose getting into a wheel war over this, but it leads me to wonder what the proper forum for these issues is; normally it would be WP:DRV, but if you did not respect the IfD process, would you participate in a DRV? What your actions seem to say is that if any one of Wikipedia's 1000+ admins thinks an image use does not meet Fair Use, it will be deleted, and I don't think that reflects policy. I urge you to undelete the images, participate in the IfD, and abide by the result. Thanks, --MCB 00:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I guess Jimbo Has Spoken, which as a practical matter puts an end to the specific issue of these photos, but it leads me to wonder about how Wikipedia determines Fair use issues.

First, who makes Fair use determinations? In the absence of an OFFICE action, or direct response to an OTRS ticket, it seems that neither a consensus of editors (i.e., the xfD process) nor individual expertise (this is a field in which I have considerable professional experience, including both teaching copyright law and acting as a consulting expert in IP cases) is sufficient, but instead unilateral action based on an personal interpretation of policy is encouraged. At this point it seems pointless to discuss any Fair Use issues or rationales on IfD. As you know, a large number of images are speedily deleted as CSD:G12 or are nominated for deletion based on lack of, or insufficient, Fair Use rationale. I agree with the vast majority of those, and routinely delete images and materials based on that. But there are exceptions, and assertions of exceptions should be fully and fairly discussed.

Second, I worry that a total ban on Fair Use of news service photos (except as "iconic", or for criticism or discussion of the image) means that as a practical matter, Wikipedia will never be able to feature images of certain spontaneous or unrepeatable events, at least until we are rich enough to endow a Wikipedia News Bureau that is able to send photographers to (e.g.,) plane crash sites and produce free images for us. Our mission is to create free content, but foreclosing an entire avenue of entirely lawful Fair Use where free content would be impossible to find results in a poorer encyclopedia. Well, I suppose there are better places to debate this, so I'll sign off. Best, --MCB 23:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About adding a link to the sacred-texts.com online edition of Aradia, Gospel of the Witches. I was the first person to create an etext of this book in its entirety and place it on the Internet (about 2000). There are many copies of this file circulating at various websites, but mine was the editio princeps. This is why I was adding a link to this file. My website (sacred-texts.com) is devoted to creating public domain electronic texts. You are welcome to email me at postmaster (at) sacred-texts.com if you have any comments about this issue. My concern about the reversion is that my attempt to add a valid external link was confused with vandalism, which was kind of frustrating.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Brujo (talk • contribs)

Why are you removing the image of De Valera from this article there is nothing on the image page to indicate any problem with it.--padraig3uk 17:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I added that other image of him, I just can't understand why anyone would have tagged the other one for deletion if there was no issue with copyright.--padraig3uk 17:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. 70.220.63.18 17:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the Hoftadter image, all the others were produced by photographers or painters who are long deceased - certainly more than 70 years. Why do you need to know the names of the authors? Paul venter 18:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what Bridgeman v Corel was about. Paul venter 18:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I understand. Certainly all of the photos up for deletion (except the Hofstadter one) are true photographic copies of the originals, which are in the public domain because of their age. Paul venter 18:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, www.bnpbd.com is actually the official website of Bangladesh Nationalist Party ... the political party established by Ziaur Rahman. --Ragib 21:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the site's copyright notice mentioned that the material of the site is copyrighted by them. I don't see any reasonable doubt that the Zia's political party won't have copyright over the official photos of Zia. If you still have questions, then all the portraits of the US presidents can similarly be questioned as many of them are lacking the photographer name. Thank you. --Ragib 03:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I was intending to revert the PREVIOUS edit, as it appeared on my watchlist. I guess you beat me to it by a few moments and I accidentally reverted your correct reversion. CaveatLector^Talk 03:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jkelly, In view of the problems I've experienced with attaching the incorrect description and licensing information when uploading images, I thought it best to ask for your help. I've received 2 images through email with the note below. How do I go about it. Please leave a note on my talk page (ignore the warning meant to scare off trolls). Thanks. Paul venter 18:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Paul

<this letter is confidential and not intended for public viewing and has been removed j gallery girl>

Hello I am a relatively new user on Wikipedia, and got some information from you in relation to an illustration I [uploaded.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Advice_Please] I did not really understand the message. The image was taken from the 1947 edition of the Wolf Tone Annual, edited and produced by Brian O’Higgins. I was under the impression that the copyright expired after 50 years. I may be wrong, and I will endeavour to obtain the information from the local library. Could you let me know what your thoughts are on this, and if at all possible give me some advice on this? It would be appreciatively received. Regards --Domer48 18:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should aim for a free picture of Ian Paisley. However he is the leader of his party so the fair use case for using that logo is strong (we have no free picture of the man but we can use his party's logo to illustrate his strong connections to the party). When a free image of Paisley becomes available it can be put into the article. --Tony Sidaway 22:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An explanation might be order here Kelly. I added the logos as defaults where no photo was available. Now suddenly months later I find administrators and other ripping them out without proper explanation. Weggie 22:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what the issue is with using the party logos in the infoboxs, they are the symbols of political parties not commerical concerns, surely that is fairuse of them.--padraig3uk 23:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to this at Talk:Ian Paisley. Jkelly 23:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please check that whether I've used correct tags in these pictures or not?

• Image:Higherself.jpg
• Image:Rdance.jpg
• Image:Tavern1.jpg
• Image:Rumi concert nazeri.gif

Thanks--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 02:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jkelly,

Please do not remove others' talk page comments, as you did here. Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_comments makes it clear that "Editing others' comments is generally not allowed," unless it is a personal attack or incivil. As that comment was neither, there was no reason for its removal, especially with an edit summary of "um, we're not voting on whether or not to delete him". Edit summaries that begin with "Um" and are followed with a message about how the other user is wrong just aren't necessary. I realize the content of WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't entirely appropriate for WP:RFA, but there is no reason to remove another long-standing contributor's comments with a dismissive edit summary: doing so will likely only cause disruption. I have restored the comment for now. Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 21:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it. Are you saying that it's perfectly acceptable to remove other users' comments as long as you disagree with them, or because they are in WP: space instead of article talk space? Jkelly, you must know by now that removing other users comments just isn't acceptable in any portion of Wikipedia which is used for communication, as long as the other user abides by normal editing guidelines. Removing the comment with a dismissive edit summary beginning with "Um..." will only escalate an already tense situation. Please just don't do it. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 21:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me put it this way... if I paste "B'crats, please ignore any votes that do not adhere to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view" on top of someone's requests for adminship, would you really argue that this suddenly becomes immune to the normal wiki process because I signed it?

No, I would not: doing so could be seen as as disturbance. But user:Just H didn't post his comment to the top of the RFA page. He used the normal editing guidelines, the procedures we usually follow at RFA. He wasn't causing a distubance, he was just commenting, something all non-banned editors should allowed to do, even if they're wrong.

What if I put it into a pastel box and transcluded it into the RfA template? Would that be irreversible if I signed it?

Nope. Adding a pastel box and transcluding it onto the RFA page isn't following the usual RFA commenting process. But Just H wasn't adding a pastel box or transcluding anything. He was just commenting. Just commenting.

You seem to want things to either be okay or not okay, but writing and following rules is much less important than using good judgement, and common sense.

So it's OK to remove comments if you believe they don't make much sense?

In short, yes I absolutely am saying that there are times when people's signed comments should be removed,

When their comments make no sense to you? How often do you do this, Jkelly? I would ask that if you do this often, that you reconsider this practice. Just H wasn't adding a pastel box or transcluding anything; he wasn't being incivil or making personal attacks. He was making a comment, one that you didn't agree with. So you removed it, and with a dismissive edit summary. I would ask again that you not do that. It doesn't ease tensions; it only escalates the disagreement.

and we will never compile an exhaustive list of those times, and, further, it is not worth bothering to try to do such a thing. It is important for users to respect consensus, and of the three people who apparantly have any interest in this, I'm in the minority. Jkelly 22:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you respect consensus, Jkelly. I don't want to disturb you any further, but I hope you will consider not removing the comments of other users with whom you disagree, though I certainly cannot prevent you from doing so. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 22:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

> (rm -- not simple vandalism, inappropriate here)

Okay, I'm asking for your advice, please, on how to properly proceed.

I'm trying to keep my cool, but it's extremely infuriating when a total stranger appears to vandalize an article, and then justifies it by placing a non-removable-on-pain-of-being-blocked false accusation of something I regard with the same loathing as child abuse on my User Talk page. -- Davidkevin 21:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P. S.: A buddy of Matthew's, Illyria05, has deleted my vandalism warning from Matthew's User Talk page. I thought deleting warnings was an offense which gets one blocked?

Their laughing comments to each other seem to indicate that they think I'm making a vandalism report out of "revenge".

Yes, I'm angry at being falsely called a vile, filthy name -- but I also sincerely think that the article is being vandalized by having valid information deleted from it.

If you're unwilling to deal with this, please pass it on to someone who will. -- Davidkevin 21:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestions on how to proceed. -- Davidkevin 21:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Imperial Majesty, it gives me great pleasure to bestow these imperial triple crown jewels upon you for outstanding contributions to Wikipedia. May you wear them well. Durova^Charge! 02:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have requested a response to your statement that my article on John Barton is "plagiarism". There are some facts: date and place of birth, attendance at Cambridge, which are also covered in the article you cite, as well details of Peter Hall asking Barton to join the newly-formed RSC etc. Whether based on this information, you come to the conclusion that this constitutes "plagiarism" or not, is a decision surely best left to you. If you think it so, so be it. Feel free to delete as much of it as you see fit or to let another administrator do it. My original premise was that here was an important man of the British, subsidised theatre who was missing an article in Wikipedia. I started one as a stub, based on half-a-dozen easily verifiable facts from a reliable source (though, curiously, not the one you quote in your notice.) Whether this is plagiarism or an attempt to fill in a much-needed gap, I shall leave to your own, better judgment. Regards. Orbicle 23:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh crap. I knew that name was familiar, and I now remember tagging that copyvio, and then going away and forgetting about it.

Yes, I think we have to go through that user's contributions carefully. He/she has shown nothing but contempt for copyright from the start. Antandrus (talk) 02:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I took quite a lot of photos in the zoo, and I'm pleased with some of them, but it was very difficult to keep track of what everything was. I was scribbling notes on a bit of paper, and sometimes I couldn't get near the sign to see what I was photographing, because there were too many people. When I got back to the hotel, I transferred them to the laptop, and then tried to figure out is that an elephant shrew or a striped grass mouse? Is this an emperor flat lizard or a giant girdled lizard? Which one is the dwarf mongoose and which is the southern tamandua? I'll probably figure it out in the end, because the photos are numbered, and I sribbled things down in order. I'm particularly pleased with something that I think is called a rhino lizard, but I'm not sure. And I got a quite a good shot of some octopus-y thing. There was a German word "Kraken" on a sign near by. No idea what it means, or if it even referred to the creature. In any case, I'll probably find in many cases that what Commons already has is much better than what I can offer, and I won't clog it up with images that already exist in a superior quality, but it's going to be a bit tricky uploading what I have if I haven't figured out what they're called! I'm sure if somebody inserted images of cows into an article about elephants, he or she would be blocked for disruption. So I hope I don't end up blocked if I mix up the emperor tamarin with the rock hyrax. ;-) ElinorD (talk) 00:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for telling me about commons:Category:WikiProject Tree of Life. I have added it to my watchlist, as it looks interesting. However, I have managed to identify all the photos that were good enough to upload. The few that I couldn't work out were rather poor quality. I'm quite pleased with my picture of elephant shrew, as it shows more of him than the image that's currently in the Wikipedia article. There's no English Wikipedia article about the Rhino Iguana or the striped grass mouse, and I certainly wouldn't be able to start one, but the pictures may be useful somewhere else. I'll try and add proper categories later. Thanks again; you're always very helpful. ElinorD (talk) 22:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canildo said "A license template for images that would be permitted under Chinese fair-use law but not US fair-use law. Unfortunately, since Wikipedia is based in the US, we need to follow US law".

I disagree with him on this point. Fair Use in this case, is a common treatment in both systems. Is Wikipedia based on US and English only? How about Canada and Great Britain and other English speaking nations? They all have different law systems. How about other language version of Wikipedia?

Please explain in practical, how an image created in China which qualifies fair use of Chinese fair-use law would violate US copyright law here, thanks.

Lupo said “The U.S. does not apply Chinese law, and China doesn't apply U.S. law. Thus, "Chinese fair use" is irrelevant for us; we cannot rely on it. "Fair use" at the English Wikipedia is always and exclusively U.S. fair use.... This template should be deleted. Lupo 06:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)”

I also disagree with his point. The law of China and US are not totally irrelevant. The purpose of both laws are both for justice, fair, protection of the public and punishment the breachers.

I agree there are lots of discrenpencies between two laws. But they not always on the opposite. For example, stealing and rubery are illigal in both systems, and the right for girls to go to school are guarantted in both. Should we say that the illegality of stealing and rubbery are exclusively US illegality, and right of girls go to the school is exclusively US right????Dongwenliang 02:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your thanks. You're welcome :-) Its unfortunate that this work has to be done, but I find it somewhat engaging. I'll see you around. Sancho 04:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I seem a little peeved, it may be because I have had to deal with JB in all his various incarnations, including JBPuppets Repeatedly vandalizing my user page and bragging that he will continue to do just what he's doing. All the crap he's pulled on meta (the spam issues, etcetera). He's used open proxies to do massive amounts of defacement (look at his past RfCU, he's used open proxies and registered over 100 accounts that were blocked. He's a vandal who's decided the rules don't apply to him after being repeatedly banned. After being caught by the folks at WP:PW he vandalized the page, trying to remove the damning info here and here, and having another sockpuppet go to ANI in attempt to get the heat off him http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=122271728 here]. He's trying for drama. SirFozzie 20:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I submitted several chapters of the Phantom of the Opera, there seems to be some mix-up with the particular edition of the translation, I just wanted to let you know that it was translated by Alexander Teixeira de Mattos, I finally found out who translated it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.216.9 (talk • contribs)

I think that you're right about the translator, but I wish we had a source for it. Projet Gutenberg doesn't give the translator for the work on their website. Jkelly 18:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a descriptive summary page, hope it will be adequate, feel free to contact me if you have any more objections --LegalEagle 06:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You received a complaint from a "copyright holder" about the alleged portrait of Marie Laveau? I find this more than slightly far fetched, given that all acounts have her dying sometime in the nineteenth century, and the portrait is in the collection of the Louisiana state library. I unfortunately no longer have a backup copy of that image, which I uploaded several years ago, so its restoration is likely not possible in any case, but I find the claim that anyone could claim a copyright in that image extremely dubious. - Smerdis of Tlön 06:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I found another version of the image, and put it in Commons. The portrait was originally by George Catlin (d. 1872), and apparently the extant portrait is a copy of Catlin's original by Frank Schneider ca. 1920. So says the Louisiana State Museum, at any case. I have every confidence that the portrait of Marie Laveau is in fact in the public domain. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since our nameless "copyright holder" isn't apparently available to participate in any public discussion here, your user page will have to do, I suppose. The extant portrait is, according to the Louisiana State Museum, a derivative work originally by a painter who died in 1872, of a subject who (allegedly) died in 1888. So says the Louisiana State Museum, likely a reliable source as to these facts. The image is surely in the public domain, and surely in the public domain even if the nameless complainer is the Louisiana State Museum, and controls access to the original. So saith Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., which appears on many of the public domain picture tags. I apologize for re-uploading the image to Commons, but there really does not seem to be a convenient place to discuss this publicly or to involve the supposed claimant. Whoever it is that's trying to arrogate this picture out of the public domain is a shady operator. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, tell you what. Rather than argue about this with anybody, present or invisible, I have some small artistic skills. When I find time, I can make a third derivative image based on the evidence of the portrait, and we can use it instead. - Smerdis of Tlön 21:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My suspicion is that the Catlin original has been lost or destroyed, and that's why the Louisiana museum has a reproduction of it instead. My only access to it is through the several copies of the existing image on the web. - Smerdis of Tlön 22:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. While going through and deleting images that have been tagged as moved to Commons, I noticed images from Dannyg3332 (talk · contribs). I saw where you had deleted these images on Commons subsequent to uploading them there and then read the conversation you had with him. Since those images are incompatible for Commons use, should all of his uploads here be deleted as well? His statement above about retracting permission is obviously (1) incorrect and (2) if his actual intention was to authorize the image only for prime positioning on Wikipedia (in other words, only if his site gets free advertising), that's incompatible with our image use policy. So should all of his images here be deleted or should the moved to commons tags merely be removed? --BigDT 07:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I have gone through and removed all of the {{ncd}} tags from them. One of the images - Image:MAGIC8.jpg - is at Commons. I had deleted the Wikipedia version last night based on seeing that Commons:Image:Magic Johnson dgpics.jpg had been deleted only to find that someone else had uploaded it to Commons as Image:MAGIC8.jpg. Should the en version be restored and the Commons copy deleted?

I have also left a message at User talk:Dannyg3332. Feel free to tweak my wording if need be. I shared with him the stipulation of the CC license that says that the license is perpetual and asked him to clarify one way or another whether that is his intent. If it is, then that's fine. If it's not, then we should delete the images as a courtesy. Does that sound reasonable? --BigDT 19:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering indeed about those images. This and your response to BigDT clears that up. Garion96 (talk) 20:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I finally cleaned the backlog today at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. But there are a few I would like a second opinion on. I think they can be deleted but to be sure. If possible, could you take a look at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Fair use claims and Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Other. Thanks, Garion96 (talk) 12:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, now soon all of the backlog can be gone. I will go off now to find a free easter bunny somewhere. :) Garion96 (talk) 20:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... for your email and for indefblocking that user. To say I was concerned was somewhat of an understatement. Thanks again! - Alison^☺ 05:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as you were the administrator who raised the alarm about Orbicle and the copyright violations, I thought I should let you know that I have requested an unblock. I hope you don't mind. While I had no problem with the original blocking, to bring home to him how serious it is, I felt rather unhappy at the thought of him remaining permanently blocked, as I'm sure his intention was to improve the encyclopaedia rather than to involve Wikipedia in a messy lawsuit, and as I saw a lot of evidence that he had done good work. I thought that his inclusion of a link to the meta page about copyright paranoia didn't exactly help his case when he was requesting an unblock, but he did remove it, at my suggestion.

On an unrelated matter, I had one of my most satisfying Wikipedia experiences ever, today. You probably won't be impressed, as I'm sure you've done this kind of thing hundreds of times, but I changed an article from this to this, using a photo I took at Frankfurt Zoo. Sometimes I wonder am I trying too hard to push my own photos into articles that may have enough images. It's difficult to judge in a completely detached way. So it was very nice to find an article that was actually asking for a freely licensed image that I happened to have. I think the big ugly "Image manquante" box is quite a good idea, as it may motivate people to donate their own images more than just having no image would have done.

I'll be cutting down on my contributions in the next week, as I have some pressing commitments in real life. But after that, do please feel free to let me know if there's anything I can help with. Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 00:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi the reason for the removal was this information on the licenses, "Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement" can I go and remove images that are in use in more than one place? so it means it can only be used in one article, thank you. Ashkani 03:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please move Big Girls Don't Cry (Fergie Song) to Big Girls Don't Cry (Fergie song)? They're all kinds-o'-messed-up and it's circular-redirect city ovah there. Thanks in advance! - eo 15:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! And I won't cry! Well, maybe... only if someone holds me down and forces me to listen to Fergie's "music". - eo 17:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate if you could take a look at this. But if you think I'm being over fussy, by all means ignore it. :) ElinorD (talk) 20:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask why you've removed the information on here please? Breach of the peace conviction is sourced here, possession of an offensive weapon is sourced here, and the not appearing on a registry of clergy is sourced here, although it may need a clarification of not appearing on a registry in Scotland. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please move Hip To Be Square to Hip to Be Square? Huey will love ya for it. As always, thanks. - eo 21:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can please look at talk:Hezbollah#Fair use rational and write your idea about the issue there. Thanks.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 09:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your deletion of the image from this article. I am having trouble finding a freely-licensed image to replace it. See for example http://tools.wikimedia.de/~tangotango/mayflower/search.php?q=goebbels&t=n . Wouldn't this be a classic case of a good fair use? If you disagree I wonder if you know of a freer image we could use in place of the deleted one. Thanks --Guinnog 19:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I will try to find a better fair-use one if I cannot find a free one. I think the article needs a good photo in the infobox. --Guinnog 19:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lage Raho Munna Bhai is Indian film that revived the tenets of Gandhism (principles of Mahatma Gandhi) in India. The article is in FAC now (here). Fair use rationale for film articles are often debatable. Could you please see the article and comment whether the images used are ok?

After an object in the FAC, the following images were removed from the article: Image:Gandhicomparison.jpg and Image:VidyaBalan.jpg. The first of these removed images is a comparison between real Gandhi and the character in the film. However, probably such use is not allowed, right? The second image is not necessary in the article.

Since posters are usually considered fair use, I've uploaded three posters of the film: Image:Lage Raho poster4.jpg, Image:Lage Raho poster3.jpg and Image:Lage Raho poster2.jpg. Can these posters be used in the article? Thanks a lot. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who does this stuff? Can ya please move Release The Stars to Release the Stars? Please and thank you. - eo 18:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I asked you a question here about uploading someone's ice cream maker to Commons from fr.wiki, and did exactly what you said and everything turned out nicely. I'm now doing a little bit of work on articles about striped grass mice. In looking for interwiki links, I found that the Hungarian article had an image which is not available on commons, but which I'd like to use here at en, and perhaps also at fr. I'd like also to take a few centimetres off the margins, so that when the image is a particular size, the mice will be more visible. I've looked at {{NowCommons}} for interwiki links, and there doesn't seem to be a Hungarian one. So I'm not sure what would be the correct thing to do after I've uploaded it. I don't want to force you to type out a long reply for me, so I'll tell you what I intend to do, based on what you told me before, and perhaps you can let me know if anything is wrong.

1. Save the image to my hard disk.
2. Upload it to Commons, under GDFL and Cc-by-sa-2.5, as in the original. Use the same name — "Lemniscomys barbarus01.JPG" Mention also that it was uploaded to Hungarian Wikipedia by hu:User:Azay, with date.
3. Go back to the saved image on my disk, and crop the edges. Make no other modifications.
4. Upload the modified version over the original, adding a note that ElinorD cropped it but that the image is not modified in any other way. Leave the licence tags alone.
5. Look at user language categories on hu.wiki, trying to find someone currently active who speaks English. Leave them a message asking them to tag the image for speedy deletion. (I tried putting {{db}} on the image just using preview, as an experiment, and it didn't work. Obviously they don't use the exact same template codings.)

I think, based on what I've seen others do, that this is the correct procedure, but if you see anything in it that's wrong, please warn me. Many thanks. ElinorD (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken an occasional look at your contributions, and get the impression that you're busier these days than you were when you answered so many of my questions in January, and that the copyright cleanups you've been spending your Wikipedia time on lately are far more important than getting a pretty little photo of some mice from one wiki to another. I've therefore done what I should have done all along — I've asked the question at Commons. I wasn't completely sure if it should be the Village Pump or the Help Desk, but I chose the Village Pump. I'm sometimes a bit lazy about going to Commons, because the computer that I'm at most of the time doesn't allow me to log on to Commons if I've just been logged on to en (or to en if I've just been logged on to Commons), so I have to restart the machine before I can post my message. Anyway, I just want to let you know you can put my question out of your mind, and concentrate on more urgent matters than little striped grass mice. :-) ElinorD (talk) 16:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Kells - I uploaded the wrong photo on the Commons of Mary Stuart Masterson and when I reuploaded to the same file, the old photo remains on the the MSM page, but if you click on the photo it's the right one of MSM. What's up? --David Shankbone 00:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was he? Wasn't he? And then again, who gives a f--- (whoops). Sorry to bore you, but could you take a peep at this some time? I smell the vague and unpleasant odor of a broken probation, but who am I to judge. -- Hoary 14:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware of any updates regarding issues raised at Talk:List of best-selling albums (UK)? --Iamunknown 05:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page is now deleted. --Iamunknown 19:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, have a look here, please. Ciao, Frieda 12:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please excuse my lack of knowledge on the subject, but why did you remove the image from the page One Tree Hill (TV series)? Regards —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Niall Feighney (talk • contribs) 20:36, 4 May 2007.

Hi, Jkelly, I've attempted to answer that question at User_talk:Niall_Feighney#Your_question_to_Jkelly. If I misrepresented anything, please feel free to contradict me. I'm afraid I've had to revert at that article, as a whole pile more unfree content was added. I've also posted something here. I'd love to be able to help more with this, but I'm afraid I don't have the technical skills to remove images from those kind of pages without messing up the format of whatever is left. (It's much easier to remove a clear copyvio single image from an article that doesn't have the image in a kind of table.)

I want to let you know also that I've finally started making proper use of the Help Desk and the Village Pump at Commons, so I won't need to come bothering you with every single copyright-related question I have. I'm nevertheless grateful for all the time you spent patiently explaining things in the first month, and hope that you'll continue to call on me if I can do anything to help with copyright cleanups or other matters. ElinorD (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jkelly. An automated process has found and removed a fair use image used in your userspace. The image (Image:1915 Dance by Rodchenko.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:Jkelly/Archive04. This image was removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image was replaced with Image:Example.jpg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image to replace it with. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 22:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am recycling the name, not the license, whats the problem? All images derived from a state government should have a State Government Source tag. Individual state governments change their rules on displaying their images and all should be tagged to their sources. If a state declared all their images to be public domain, how would you track them down? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:8638926 109279137449.gif Instead of making me guess, just tell me what the legal status is of a death certificate. Can you show me a court case that determines public domain status versus copyrighted status? And if it is copyrighted, who owns the copyright? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, around the time that you were recommending a link to Wikisource from the Christianity article, I registered an account there, under the same name — ElinorD. So far, I haven't used the account, and am not really familiar with how wikisource works, or how to find my way around, or what I'm supposed to do there. I may look into it more in the summer, when I'll be less busy.

For the moment, though, one issue has arisen. I was looking at the Nicholas Garlick article here, and found that there was a mistake in it. One of the priests hanged with him was called "Robert Sympson" in the article. The correct name was "Richard Simpson". I wouldn't worry about seeing the "Sympson" spelling. Although most books that mention him use "Simpson", a lot of names of people from the 16th century have alternative spellings. However, I do have a problem with "Robert". That was definitely not his name. I won't bore you with a long list of books that give "Richard", but I really am absolutely certain.

I changed the Wikipedia article to show the correct name.[6] The article was based on the article in the Catholic Encyclopedia (public domain version from 1913), which also give the wrong name.

Now, this is my question. Just by chance, I stumbled across the Wikisource:Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Ven. Nicholas Garlick article. It has the same mistake. I'm not quite sure what the purpose of that article is — whether it's meant to provide information about Nicholas Garlick, or whether it's meant to provide a completely faithful copy of what the old Catholic Enyclopaedia said, regardless of whether it was right or wrong. Can you advise? Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 22:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As always, thanks for your prompt and helpful reply. I'll leave a message for Danny, but probably not until next week, as I'm busy at the moment and am about to go on wiki-break. Good luck with your copyright cleanups. ElinorD (talk) 00:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jkelly. Your mistake was probably my fault, as I had posted the wrong link in my comment. I've fixed it now.

But indeed, Artic.gnome closed as keep a case of an unsouced replaceable unfree image lacking a rationale (even not being an admin). This is the correct link.

You may (or may not) readd your vote to his RFA.

Best regards, --Abu badali ^(talk) 13:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edit to Tulip Festival (Ottawa), I don't believe that organize is Canadian spelling. The ITC Nelson Canadian Dictionary gives organize and does not even give the s spelling as an option. The Canadian Oxford Dictionary gives organize but notes "(also esp. Brit. organise)". I checked a few Canadian media websites with these results:

• torontostar.com: organize 325, organise 2 (both examples of organise are Reuters stories)
• theglobeandmail.com: (either search finds both)
• cbc.ca: organize 1660, organise 34 (a small fraction of organise is actually in French text)
• Vancouver Province: 72 organize, 0 organise.

Microsoft Word accepts either spelling for U.K. and Canadian English, but only the z spelling for U.S. English. I'm inclined to also accept both, but for consistency, I'm hoping you'll agree that the -ize form is general in Canada and change it back yourself. (I don't want to start an edit war over such a trivial issue.)

While I've got your attention, I think the article should be moved back to Canadian Tulip Festival. The festival has had this name since it began 55 years ago, as far as I know. It appears that the article ended up where it is today during a small redirect war among articles about several tulip festivals, each vying to be THE Tulip Festival. Although local people may refer to the Canadian Tulip Festival generically as "the tulip festival" I can see no good reason why the article should be called Tulip Festival (Ottawa) which requires a piped link almost always. Canadiana 16:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although it's hard for me to imagine the move being controversial, I've added the request to WP:RM just in case. I can't move it myself, because the proposed destination has 10 history entries. Canadiana 03:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JKelly - a curious thing. All across Wikipedia on the BDSM, gay rights and crossing dressing articles User:Gaynewyorker has plastered photographs of himself in, uh, interesting dress and poses. I wrestled with whether the encyclopedic value of graphic representations of some of these articles outweighed the self-promotional aspects. In the end, I opted against the self-promotion since he propagated the photos so widely, and appears to be part of some desire to be humiliated publicly, which is just a bad use of Wikipedia. I surmised this by where he was putting his photos (e.g. "Online humiliation" on one page). All of these photos are found on the Commons. Thoughts, comments, about what should be done about this, if anything? --David Shankbone 17:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not personally troubled by them, although I have absolutely no ability to understand the motivation (or, frankly, the turn-on). But that's not for me to judge. What I was more troubled by was their wide proliferation--he didn't just stick up a few photos on a page or two, but *widely* deciminated them. I am, however, bothered with how he has categorized them on the Commons, such as "homosexuality" et. al. I'm not particularly looking to make it a personal crusade; although I removed them from the articles (they are also poor quality) I wouldn't revert a revert. I just wasn't sure what to think about it on a Wikipedia/Commons guideline/policy level. They are definitely self-promotion in some...uh, "different"...way, but I also don't know if I care or if it's egregious. At the very least, perhaps my removal will put Mr./Ms. Holden on notice to not misuse Wikipedia for personal, uh, gratification. At least to be careful when he does... --David Shankbone 01:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as an administrator I would like to invite you over to the Elvis Presley page and see the work that has been done by mostly Rikstar and StevePastor along with myself. I've had a purpose from the beginning including in June of 2006 when I first attempted to shorten the article to wikipedia standards to be a featured article someday; to make this article a 'good article' and then a 'featured article' - It is to that point I am editing the page. This however seems to be oblivious to a rather constant disrupting editor named Onefortyone; who I tried to work with back in June 2006 (much to my failure then) and who has since I've been gone been in a spat with others (as is the case over and over again) going so far as being banned from the article for a short while and being on probation in relation to this article and others like Nick Adams. If Onefortyone didn't have the history he has I would gladly welcome his contributions and insight; if he would help out with 'new' edits it would be worthy to forgive and forget past transgressions by this editor and welcome him in the project at hand. But, rather, this user inserts the same edits over and over - usually blocks and blocks of quotes out of context including changing edits others have made to shorten the article and make it 'good' material. He responds to all who disagree with him by accusing them of being sock-puppets or part of the 'elvis cult' as he calls fans; or part of the 'memphis mafia'. Clearly he is obstructing good editing. I ask you judge our efforts and the past of onefortyone and help us out with this matter if you can. If you do not wish to be involved - I understand. At least keep an eye on me - helping me out when I get a little out of hand with this contentious user. Thanks --Northmeister 05:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jkelly, I don't use fr: enough to have met any friendly admins, and I know you're very knowledgeable about image copyright issues. I recently discovered that fr: has large numbers of fair use images in userspace, through the use of "this user reads Harry Potter", and "this user likes Burger King" type user boxes. I had a look at fr:Wikipédia:Fair use and the very first sentence said that fair use is forbidden since October 2006. The page mentions that some exceptions are listed at fr:Wikipédia:Prise de décision/Exceptions à l'interdiction du fair-use.

French Wikipedia is absolutely full of fair use images in userboxes. See for example:

• Modèle:Utilisateur Burger King
• Modèle:Utilisateur McDonald's
• Modèle:Utilisateur Quick
• Modèle:Utilisateur AB
• Modèle:Utilisateur Disney

I removed this image from this userbox, explaining why in my edit summary.[7] The template was transcluded on about seventy userpages. However, I was able to find a free Harry Potter image at Commons. (Many Harry Potter images at Commons are up for deletion as derivative, but in my non-expert view, this one looks okay.) If I remove the Burger King and similar images, I don't think I'll be able to find a free replacement, and may draw a lot of fury on myself!

I'm not asking you to get involved, but I'd just like to know, before I proceed any further, am I doing the right thing? From the amount of fair use that I found in templates, it would seem that fr: has a more liberal policy, but the page I read seemed to indicate otherwise. ElinorD (talk) 20:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merci pour la réponse. You're probably right that I should worry more about en: cleanups. I was just startled to see so much unfree content that wasn't in mainspace. I did a little bit more before you replied, and since the image was on templates that were transcluded, I seem, in just five edits, to have removed it from about two hundred pages, and seem not to have infuriated anyone! Thanks for telling me about Wikipédia:Le Bistro; I have added it to my liste de suivi, and may bring up the issue there later. Actually, while I've been familiar with interwiki links for some time, I have just discovered that pages which have them (including your userpage and mine) have direct links at the left hand side to all the foreign pages. I thought I had to be using a different skin to have those links (and I don't like the other skins). I don't know if they were there all the time and I never saw them, or if the developers have made some change so that they're now visible in the MonoBook skin.

One thing more — I endorsed an RfC "per Jkelly", even though you hadn't been near the page. It was based on your edit summary here. (I arrived at that page after the discussion was closed.) I hope you don't feel that I have in any way misrepresented your position. ElinorD (talk) 13:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Et voilà! Just in case you're interested. ElinorD (talk) 21:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the helpful note on the edit conflict. Yes i might have been puzzled if you hadnt written to me. Best regards. Anlace 23:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, image guru, some input please: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Images_and_media_for_deletion#Magazine_covers --David Shankbone 00:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And a real simple "Copylefted?" question on my jabber page -- with optional extra reading at User_talk:Thracia#Ivailo_Djourov. Ta fanx! Hoary 15:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some day you should ask me to do something.... -- Hoary 00:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly, I'm running into an issue with a couple of IP trolls, one in Washington, one in Germany. Since they edit the same pages and say the same things, they are perhaps friends...I don't know. But the Germany IP, User:84.178.254.52, is starting to take all of my portraits and rename them. They have done so with Michael Apted, Patricia Neal, Woody Harrelson, Brett Ratner, et. al. In their Commons descriptions, they mention that they are "removing the self-promotion of the editor." They also aren't giving the required attribution that is stipulated in the licensing. I spent 60-80 hours at Tribeca photographing, uploading and editing these photographs, that to have my work undone by someone with some kind of anti-me agenda is very frustrating and I could use some help. I have also been frustrated with Wikipedia in general lately, and some of the things I have witnessed happening on here, and have contemplated leaving. This kind of effort when I have spent so much time, money and patience to make improvements and provide some of the most difficult images to obtain will seal the deal. I won't even finish the projects I have started. I'm simply getting too burned out. I'm asking for some help. --David Shankbone 20:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jk. I just opened a discussion on the Corfu article talk page. If interested here is the link. Thanks. Dr.K. 19:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your excellent points and your fast response. I really appreciate it. Dr.K. 23:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, when I joined Wikipedia, KillerChihuahua, in her welcome message, gave me some very helpful links. In particular, Wikipedia:How to edit a page and Wikipedia:Manual of Style answered many of the questions I might otherwise have been asking, though actually, I still asked a lot of questions!

You were the person who helped me most with image copyright issues, but on many occasions I felt that it would have been easier for you if you had been able to direct me to a "How-to" page, instead of typing long instructions for me.

I added pages such as Wikipedia:Image copyright tags to my userpage, so that I could find them easily, if needed. However, while they give good information for a newcomer (or even experienced user) who wants to know what licence to use, they don't give any help to a user who finds an image and suspects that it's in violation of our copyright policy.

Recently, I found an image Image:Maddie.jpg where the uploader said he had taken it from Microsoft UK. He tagged it as {{PD-self}}. I looked at the Microsoft Home Page where the image was prominently displayed, but saw nothing to indicated that it was public domain. I wasn't sure how to tag the image. I felt sure you had given me some kind of help on that issue before, but since I don't do it regularly, I couldn't remember. I looked through my talk page and the archives for messages from you, and found one here, which led me to the {{PUI-disputed}} template. From there, I got to Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images, and worked out that I should put {{subst:db-copyvio|url=http://www.microsoft.com/en/gb/default.aspx}} on the page. I did, and left a note for the user.[8] The image has now been deleted, but I spent a lot of time tracking down the information on how to proceed.

More recently, I was voting in a deletion review, and found the article through Google cache. It had a "fair use" image Image:Sofia Rodriguez-Urrutia-Shu.jpg. The article has been deleted, but the image is still there, and is not being used in any other article. I would have tagged it, but I wasn't sure what tag to use. I suppose (hint!) that some administrator should delete it.

This is my question: is there a page that gives information not for people who are uploading images and want to know which licence to use, but for people who would like to help out more often in cleaning up copyright violations, and need to be told of the existence of {{subst:db-copyvio|url=source URL}} and {{subst:nsd}} and {{subst:nld}}? If there isn't such a page, I'll create a subpage in my userspace, so that I can look up these things easily, but I don't want to waste time if such a page already exists.

People like you and Durin and others seem to know exactly what you're doing, without having to stop and look up which tag to use. But I really think you'd get more helpers if you had a page that listed all the different things that should be done when you think an image doesn't have the right tag or should be deleted. You'd certainly get more help from me. Thanks. (No hurry for a response.) ElinorD (talk) 00:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since posting to you last night, I've found {{Orphaned fairuse not replaced}}. I just made a wild guess and searched for Template:Orphanedfairuse, which redirected to the template I was looking for. So I've tagged Image:Sofia Rodriguez-Urrutia-Shu.jpg, and it will probably be deleted soon, unless an admin thinks that the article it was in is going to be undeleted — the deletion review hasn't closed yet.

I've uploaded a scan of the title page of the first edition of Wuthering Heights. It's not of great quality, as opening the book completely flat in the scanner damages the spine, but I've used it to replace the fair use Image:Wuthering Heights.jpg in Wuthering Heights. I've found the template {{orfur}} and have added it to the Image:Wuthering Heights.jpg, though I suppose one could make the case that an 1847 title page is an altogether different image from a modern bookcover. I've also found the correct (I think!) tags with which to notify users.

My question remains concerning the possible existence of that highly-desirable page for users who have some understanding of image policy and know how to tag their own images, but don't know how to help with general copyright cleanup. I promise I'll help you more in that area if you point me to such a page! ElinorD (talk) 14:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jkelly - I'm not sure if this issue is going to "die on the vine" or if there is just a lull in it. As you may know, I have two trolls who are friends with each other, one in Washington State, the other in Germany (study abroad?). The German IP has been the one messing with my Commons images, but doesn't seem nearly as dedicated (better things to do in Germany?) as the Washington State IP. We had a lengthy engagement on Siebrand's talk page. I have Dschwhen on the Commons also sympathetic, and I made this point to him:

The question also remains as to the Wikistalking of a User (with no original Commons images of their own) against an accomplished editor. It's problematic to adopt the stalker's mentality of, "Thanks for the free images, Sucker!" because if people feel that a personal vendetta against them and their work will be fruitful, they simply won't contribute. Why go through all the hard work? There's a natural progressing of editing and cropping to media I expect. To have one user decide they are going to nix my file names with that intention in mind, as this User has done, brings it to another level. If I am putting 20-40 hours a week into the Commons and Wikipedia to improve the website in ways that, frankly, few people can, then a stalker shouldn't be successful in their stalking. Otherwise, there is little reason for me to be here. --DavidShankbone 20:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't had to take Dschwen up on his offer to resort to further measures - "Frauleinwunder", the German IP's registered name on the Commons and the Deutsch Wikipedia, has been inactive. Like I said, possibly better things to do in Germany than in Washington State. I'm building a case, slowly (I'm only up to February!) of my WA Troll's behavior here. --David Shankbone 18:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I am a new user, but I'm curious what steps can be taken to prevent somebody from erasing one's additions to a Wiki page? About a week or 2 ago I came across the page on Burt Reynolds and noticed that his birthplace was listed as 'disputed'. I went to the discussion tab and noticed a great deal of discussion there. Being an avid genealogist, I decided to jump in and see what I could lend to the topic as well. What I've found certainly seems to back that the version that he was born in Lansing, Michigan (see the "More genealogical evidence, Burt's place of birth" section). In adding my comments, I've been accused by "Rogue Gremlin" of being Lugnut215 hiding under another name, etc. (clearly because I also had the nerve to disagree with him).

At any rate, I don't have any problem with keeping the debate on the subject to the discussion page, and Burt's birthplace IS listed as 'disputed' on the main page, however, on the article page, he starts the Biography section with "Burt has stated on various talk shows over the years that he was born in Waycross, Georgia[3][4][5] to Fern and Burton Leon Reynolds." and leaves it at that. I did not delete or modify anything he typed, but added that other sources (including a phone interview with Burt refererred to in the Lansing State Journal) suggest he was born in Lansing, Michigan. He has deleted my additions which are no less legitimate than his, which are clearly designed to leave the reader with the impression that "No matter what anybody else might tell you, THIS is what Burt says."

I haven't deleted anything of his, but my additions get deleted. It seems reasonable to me that either both versions should be allowed in the biography section, or the biography section should be left at something along the lines of "There is a good amount of debate as to whether Burt was born in Waycross, GA or Lansing, MI (see discussion page)" or something similar.

Hope to hear back from you on this issue. Thank you.

JSDA

If the main image gets deleted, you can speedy this one. Pretty much, all I can tell you is that the original source of the image is based in South Korea and I don't know who originally took the photo (or when it was taken). This is just a blurred version of Image:DogPoopGirl.jpg. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jk again. Sorry for the unexpected intrusion of your talk page again but I have opened a couple of discussions on Talk:Gorgon and Talk:Perseus because there is a disageeement as to the quality of the gorgon image at the Corfu museum and its inclusion in the above articles. It's rather a silly situation but if you can help with any advice and/or arbitration I'd appreciate it. Thanks. Dr.K. 03:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. This user is on some mission that I do not understand. I replaced the picture with a cropped version but given his comments I would ask that if he continues his destructive edits that this matter be referred to some higher process. I'd appreciate any feedback as to the options. If, however, you are too busy I'll understand. Thanks again. Dr.K. 22:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't going away. I am not used to spending my time this way in Wikipedia. I was proud of my edits up to now. But to waste edits and time talking to unrelenting deletionists is not my cup of tea. Since you know my picture contributions best, I would appreciate if you took part in the above two discussions. Sorry for this but it is a matter of principle, especially for Wikipedia, to determine if a user can abuse articles and process this way. Dr.K. 20:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I was wondering if you could help me with user Coffeenotwar2. This user has been removing free content from the article on Goldfrapp and adding unnecessary images such as graphics used on the band's website. The user has also removed audio samples from the article. I posted on the user's talk page asking him to stop and then gave him a warning, but he keeps on vandalizing the article. Thanks! -- Underneath-it-All 22:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew did not know that the user in question (Gurch) had been blocked. He gave me a chuckle though :P. Matthew 21:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jkelly, for supporting my adminship. As I'm sure you know by now, it was successful. It's very nice to have the trust of someone who has been so helpful to me from the start. I hope that if you ever see me messing up in any way, you won't hesitate to point it out. And I hope also that you'll feel free to call on me if ever you need any admin assistance with copyright issues, or indeed with any matter. I intend to become more active in image policy issues, but still feel that there's an awful lot that I don't know — although I've found Durin to be very helpful also. I'll send you an email as soon as I feel confident that you're not too busy to read it. :) Thanks also for your comments at Richard Simpson (martyr) I've tried to modify the wording. ElinorD (talk) 21:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just finished last night a project I had planned for awhile: I photographed every inch of my friend Ernesto's body. I only have one up so far, on Armpit. I'm wondering how controversial it will be to introduce some of them to pages such as Taint (slang). --David Shankbone 12:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jkelly, there's a photo on Striptease of a Burlesque performer and there's an IP who continually re-inserts the name and the club where she performs at. This seems to me to be a pretty clear-cut case of advertising; neither she nor the club are notable. Could you weigh in with your opinion? --David Shankbone 13:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your mailbox is full. Please ping me when it isn't... Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 21:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is funny - lots of bombast: http://sportsreviewmagazine.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1194
--David Shankbone 16:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you already had a discussion with PierreLarcin on the Rotary International page. I draw your attention to the fact that an arbitrage has been opened concerning this contributor here. Feel free to bring your contribution to the case. Best regards --Bombastus 22:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are busy. Let it be known, however, that you are also missed. You are kind and do not contribute to drama (:D); it is gloomy when you are away. --Iamunknown 08:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very much missed; very kind; very gloomy when you're away. Perhaps a chocolate ice cream could tempt you back? ElinorD (talk) 17:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Bring 'em In Mando Diao Album Cover.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. 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 you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NAHID 16:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Witchcraft Today book cover.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. 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 you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NAHID 16:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Rum Sodomy and the Lash Pogues album cover.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. 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 you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NAHID 16:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:The Whole of the Moon The Waterboys 19 sec.ogg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NAHID 16:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Crawfish and Caviar Thistlethwaite album cover.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. 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 you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NAHID 16:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:The Big Music Waterboys Single Cover.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NAHID 16:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:The Raggle Taggle Gypsy The Waterboys 13 sec.ogg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NAHID 07:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Ways of the Strega book cover.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NAHID 07:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, yeah, right, OK. (Is such prolixity really needed?) Done. -- Hoary 11:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:The Live Adventures Of The Waterboys Album Cover.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NAHID 07:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:The Secret Life Of The Waterboys Album Cover.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

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

Or in a word, "Huh"? I've never seen anything like this before. My curiosity is piqued. -- Hoary 11:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This may be of interest too. -- Hoary 13:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This ended in their being iced; I'm wondering about papa's "temporary" state. -- Hoary 05:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't the one who decided to keep it; I was doing it on behalf of an OTRS agent who asked me to do it. (He is not a Wikipedia administrator.) MessedRocker (talk) 21:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Somitho. MessedRocker (talk) 14:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to your blanket statement regarding G12 on the Non-free content talk page. I really would appreciate a specific response to the question about Image:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg, which most definitely is on the Corbis website. This demonstrates that mere presence on a image library's website is not enough for G12. You have to know who owns the picture. Carcharoth 10:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with this image, but people are inconsistently applying the standards. Please review and contribute to the continuing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#The Corbis/Getty argument. In that thread, you said "images owned by companies" - it is the definition of "owned" here that is disputed. Carcharoth 16:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As well as the deletion review (which seems to be going OK since only image specialists are commenting so far), I have made a proposal to revise G12, see here. As you mentioned G12 initially, I thought I should let you know so you can contribute to that discussion as well. Carcharoth 21:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm losing track of this discussion. I've copied it over to my talk page and will reply there. Carcharoth 23:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jkelly,

You might be pleased to learn that I've just completed the translation of Aradia, or the Gospel of the Witches in Esperanto (eo:Aradia (libro)). Thanks for this brilliant article, I really enjoyed working on it ! Best wishes, Thomas Guibal, August 3rd 2007.

I'm looking for some guidance on Template:Cleanup-gallery. This tag has been inserted into an article where we have a picture gallery and I would like to create one at commons as suggested. How do I do that? Thanks. --Kevin Murray 11:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. I'll give it a shot and maybe bug you later with a question or two. --Kevin Murray 17:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All my old photography with my crappier cameras doesn't come out particularly clear. You can see the difference by looking at the top photos on my User:DavidShankBone/AuthorsWritersPoets gallery, and then scrolling down to the earlier photos. But I re-did Mary Woronov's photo using Photoshop, which I also did not have for th earlier photography, and it comes out clear as a bell. That was exciting to discover! It means that many of the earlier "fuzzy" images I can re-upload after photoshopping them to clarity! --David Shankbone 20:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like Sunday, September 16 is the best day for a September SF-area meetup -- hope to see you then! Check the meetup page for details and to suggest a location and time. -- phoebe/(talk) 05:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for coming! and for everything :) was good to see you. Also, hurrah for beer :) -- phoebe/(talk) 00:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've just removed a thread from your page under the following policies and guidelines:

1. WP:HARASS - said thread included personally identifiable information, and;
2. WP:BAN - the IP has been proven by two checkusers, one at Encyclopedia Dramatica and one on Wikipedia to be User:Geoffrey Mitchell (who edits from the 24 range) and User:Sixty Six (who edits from the 66 range) - Sixty Six

I request you refrain from reinstating the thread due to the implications of doing so. Thanks, Will ^(talk) 22:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This note is kind of weird -- "...due to the implications of doing so."? You can just assume that I would trust your judgement when editing my userspace; I don't need either the details or vague warnings. Jkelly 19:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you seem to be around a very little bit, so I'm coming to you with this request. I was deleting images with unclear copyright status tonight, and I came across Image:Elio v Schaerlig im Juni 2007 klein.jpg. It had been taken from German Wikipedia, so I looked there, and it seems that it's a free image, as confirmed by an OTRS ticket. Could you please, if you have time, take a look at the image? I removed the template saying that it didn't have copyright information, and replaced that with a link to the German image. But of course, it still doesn't have a copyright tag, and some bot will probably come along and put it back in a category for speedy deletion. If you have a free moment, could you put the correct tag on it, please? Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 01:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you seem, of the Wikipedians I know, to have the most understanding of derivative works. If you're around and can comment, please have a look at the question here. I know there are places where I can ask, but I haven't got time to look for them right now. If you turn out not to be around, I'll post a question somewhere else later. Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 12:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back again. I see you are still going strong, and just wanted to say that I enjoyed your common sense in the past. :) Wallie 17:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Your email is bouncing and I have no other way of getting in touch with you...

Cary Bass ^demandez 14:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've had some sort of email catastrophe (again). I'll get in touch with you. Jkelly 15:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the problem. Jkelly 19:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jkelly, some time ago, you deleted an image because no source was given. In this case, it might be necessary to consider this image als well as it is derived from the one you have deleted. Regards, AFBorchert 14:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Music of the United States has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:U2_boy.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. 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 you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. –Dream out loud (talk) 18:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've been sprucing up the triple crown awards. Here's the new version of the imperial triple crown jewels you've already earned. Feel free to replace your old one with this if you like the new version better. I've also introduced two new triple crown awards for editors who've done a lot of triple crown work: the Napoleonic and Alexander the Great edition awards. If you're active in a WikiProject, check out the new offer for custom WikiProject triple crowns. I'll make those upon request if five or more editors qualify. See User:Durova/Triple crown winner's circle for more information. Thanks for your hard work, and cheers! Durova^Charge! 22:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I was looking at Image:Barenaked Ladies miming golf.jpg and thinking... hmm, that's not a filename I would have used. So I looked and saw that you reuploaded the image. I'm just wondering why, or if something was wrong, so I can avoid it in the future. Thanks TheHYPO 00:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]