Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:11, 22 July 2006

RFA thanks

I give you credit for creativity, but good grief, that's big! Congrats ;) BigDT 22:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

King of Kings

Actually, King of Kings is in reference to the song, King of Kings which is Triple H's current theme music. King of Kings, in my signature, has no other meaning to me. — The King of Kings 04:51 July 03 '06

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lists of Irish-Americans

Hi, I am contacting you as you commented in the deletion discussion for these lists. You may not have realised that recently some users have placed conditions for inclusion on these lists that many users find unreasonable. Currently, no common sense is permitted in judging whether a person should be on the list. Even if a person is sourced as having both parents born in X Country, or if they say "my family is X", or "I have X blood" we still can't list them. Many users disagree with Jack'O Lantern and other users who have adopted this position. For more discussion related to this and proof many people disagree see Talk:List of Estonian Americans, Talk:List of Greek-Americans, Talk:List of Polish-Americans, Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(policy)#Is_deductive_reasoning_original_research.3F, Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(policy)#ethnicity.2C_hyphenation.2C_and_membership, Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(policy)#Deductive_inferences_in_OR. Please also see the continuing discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lists of Irish-Americans. Thanks Arniep 10:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

If you don't wish to read through all that please state your support or opposition for my proposal here Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Rules for lists of X-Americans. Thanks! Arniep 11:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Iranian copyrights

Hmm... So, is it realy just "we feel like using it" and "decoration "? I mean, Don't they have the "clear purpose" of showing the Iranian economy and achitecture? How is one supposed to visualize that, if not by examles? --Striver 01:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• The picture of the car is a completely different issue - that is a photo from the news media. Even if a news media photo is of tremendous benefit to an article, that is not permissible, unless the photograph itself is the subject of the article. As for the hospital and the Mofkham House, policy #8 says, "The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose." The Mofkham House is not discussed in the article. The hospital is not mentioned in the article. Qajar architecture is not discussed in the article. There is no way that either of those images are central to the text of the article when the article doesn't even mention them. Even if they were, there would almost certainly be a free equivalent available (policy #1) - surely, somewhere (perhaps on Commons or on an Iranian-language Misplaced Pages), there is a free photograph from the Qajar era. BigDT 01:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi BigDT,

I have cleared this issue already with other editors and admins in the past. These images can be used because Iran and the United States hold no mutual copyright agreements or relations , therefore the WP:FU laws do not apply, and Misplaced Pages is under no legal obligation vis a vis these pictures. We should make a template for this so this doesnt keep happening again. As for the Mafkham House images, instead of tagging them for deletion, you could have notified me first, and I would have added text to the corresponding articles to alleviate any FU concerns.--Zereshk 16:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

If that's the case, then fair use is still the wrong tag to apply. I don't think, though, that just because we (America) don't have a treaty with Iran on the subject means that Misplaced Pages is free to use anything it wants from anyone in Iran. Perhaps this should be discussed to determine what the policy is. I have posted a request for clarification on the issue at Misplaced Pages talk:Copyrights/Can I use... BigDT 17:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I posted a request for information about Iranian copyrights at Misplaced Pages talk:Copyrights/Can I use.... One user replied with this link to a message from Jimbo Wales on the subject. BigDT 23:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi BigDT,

The Jimbo Wales statement has come up for debate before. regarding the statement:

"Unless there is something particularly strange about the copyright situation in Iran, we should generally respect Iranian copyright law as best we can, the same as we do for other countries around the world."

two things can be said and have been brought up before:

1. Regarding the first sentence, the copyright situation in Iran is anything but usual. Iran is not a member of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, or its extension WIPO Copyright Treaty, or WTO. This is e.g. stated here in non-technical terms, and is also stipulated in WIPO's own Berne membership list.
2. Regarding his second sentence, in "respecting Iranian copyright law as best we can", the fact of the matter is that we are doing just that. Nowhere on Misplaced Pages have we allowed any image to be uploaded with its origin from Iran that has an unclear copyright status. The only exception being images from Iran's Cultural Heritage Organization. And the reason is that their images are strictly promotional; they are in fact encouraged for use in media such as WP, because the images serve as a form of publicity for them and for Iran. I have been to their offices on many occasions, done photography for them, and used their images. We are actually doing them a service in using their images. I dont see any reason to ban usage of these images. It highly enriches wikipedia, and entails no legal consequences whatsoever, and it actually does ICHO a service. But we can make it clear that this exception doesnt extend to any other image from Iran. Only ICHO.--Zereshk 13:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

If it does them a service and you frequent their offices, why not just get a letter of permission to release the images under the GFDL license? That would completely put to rest the question. BigDT 13:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Fine. So please dont erase the pictures during this process while I correspond. And I certainly do hope this will put to rest all such silly obstructions in the future. They are getting quite irritating. I dont know why people are so adamant in getting rid of any article or picture about Iran we try to put up. As if it's a politically charged thing or something.--Zereshk 16:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not an administrator and I have no capacity to erase or not erase a photo. I nominated your three photos because they have patently incorrect fair use claims - not because I care one way or the other about pictures from Iran. If photos from Iran are being deleted, then the solution to that is to provide sufficient information on the media pages to prove that either (a) you have permission to use them under the GFDL or another free license or (b) they qualify for fair use under WP:FAIR. If the information isn't given on the media page, then neither I nor anyone else knows the justification for keeping the image. BigDT 17:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Please adopt your state

I am trying to improve Girl Scout articles in the United States. Please help fill in some blanks for Girl Scouting in Georgia! Thanks, Yours in Scouting, Chris 02:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Well ... aside from the minor detail that I've been to Georgia three times in my life and know nothing about Georgia or Girl Scouts ... BigDT 03:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Userbox index

Hey, I think your work is awesome. I hope you continue the project. It's a real pain to find boxes without an index. Jessesamuel 01:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words ... I may finish it up at some point ... but as of now, most things are userfied ... although, it may be useful as a tool to see what was missed at some point. BigDT 02:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Webmovie

Hi, I've taken the liberty of redirecting webmovie (which you just added to proposed deletion) to web film as they both seem to be the same thing. Thought I'd let you know. --PhiJ 18:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

myg0t

Hi, I noticed you had some history reguarding the myg0t article. Well, the article is up for DrV, and I ask that you post your thoughts on whether or not it should be undeleted. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#myg0t - thanks, cacophony 23:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Cornell

I have just started WikiProject Cornell University, an attempt to thoroughly cover topics related to Cornell. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Thanks! —mercuryboard 05:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Wrong

Your knowledge of the law and the process of downloading images and in other areas is wrong.

• The process of downloading requires an immediate categorisation. Many of the categories are poorly defined and inaccurate. I and others used to download things without categories and then once downloaded added in the templates. This however is no longer possible with the bots. Even in the few seconds it takes to update a file once downloaded, the downloader will still find that their userpage will have been defaced by a bot claim that they did not insert the required information. This flaw has been pointed out repeatedly but not fixed. As a result, to stop the continuing defacement of pages with false bot claims it is necessary to insert a category while downloaded. If due to the shoddy wording of the options the image falls between two categories or whatever, users have to post the least wrong one. So categories like {{political event}} etc have to be used, to dodge inaccurate bot attacks. If you want people to stop using these inaccurate categories then you will have to get those responsible for the bot to fix it. Until it is fixed, those categories will continue to be used by users. Accusing users of adding in false claims is grossly unfair. The problem is with flaws in the download procedure and the bot, not the users.

• The claim about the picture of the queen and the pope suggests you don't know how photographs are taken in the Vatican. Unlike some other locations, where numerous photographers and television crews are admitted, in the Vatican to avoid an unseemly scramble in frequently limited space has its own photographer and camera crew and they then supply their images to all media outlets, without exception (they even supply their photographs to anti-Catholic publications). The image from the BBC website is a Vatican photograph. The issue of Vatican images was discussed numerous times on WP. The overwhelming consensus was that they are perfectly legal to use. They are issued, with no conditions, by the Vatican to all publications; print, broadcast, books, magazines, encyclopaedias, school books, pamphlets, etc. If, as you seem to think their use is not permissable, that would mean that practically every image of, or taken in, the Vatican, would have to be deleted because they too are all taken by Vatican photographers and crews for issue. Misplaced Pages would have to delete every image of every pope taken in the Vatican, every image of every religious ceremony in the Vatican, every image of the Apostolic Palace, the Lateran Palace, etc. All these images are taken by the exact same source as this one, the Vatican, and all are issued, without restriction, by its press office. Indeed the classic official image of Pope John Paul II, which has been copied worldwide by the billion, and has appeared in every publication on the planet at some stage, as well being hung in churches worldwide, would be unavailable on Misplaced Pages, making Misplaced Pages quite literally the only location on the planet supposedly not able to use it. That is quite frankly ridiculous.

Your knowledge of the law on fair use is not accurate and you are misinterpreting rules in ways that were never intended and, as in the case above, frankly both ludicrous and unworkable. The nonsense is shown in your claim about the image. Mantillas are (or more ofter were) worn to meet popes. People need to be able to see what a mantilla is. As they are only worn in the Vatican at meetings with popes, the only source of images of them will be from the Vatican. So there is no alternative but to use this image, an image from a source Misplaced Pages uses widely, in fact the source Misplaced Pages uses most widely throughout the encyclopaedia. FearÉIREANN\ 19:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• If it is necessary to pick an incorrect license temporarilly, why not correct the license once you upload it? I pointed out several of your images that still have incorrect tags applied. I didn't "accuse" you of anything. Stating that the images are incorrectly tagged is a statement of fact, not an accusation. You have given a logical reason for it and assuming good faith, I accept that reason, but I fail to understand why the incorrect tag cannot be corrected after you complete the upload.
• As for Vatican photos, you are correct, I have no idea how the Vatican sends out photos. The image description page offers no such rationale so I would suspect that the vast majority of Wikipedians would be unfamiliar with this claim. If the Vatican supplies these photos free of charge for anyone to use, why not simply state that on the description page and provide a link to the policy? As it is, all you did was provide a link to a news media site using the photo that gives no indication that it is a freely available image.
• As for my knowledge of the law or fair use, please feel free to correct me on any area where you believe I am wrong.

BigDT 20:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I sounded unduly critical, mate. I have been suffering from severe physical pain for the last few weeks and it has left me rather grouchy. (I am chewing painkillers like sweets at the moment!) I and others weren't sure if, in taking off the other caption we'd then be botted again!!! If we know we can be sure of that we can be free of that "pleasure" then of course they should be taken off. What happens is that if someone is working on a number of things, constantly going in and out of old images just adds more work when in fact we may have moved off to another topic completely and forgotten about an individual image.

Re the Vatican: it is confusing. There was a template created to list Vatican images and their context but that was deleted, so users then end up linking to where the image was displayed, not where it came from. Organisations which use these images don't state they are Vatican images because they don't have to.

In the media (I do some media work) we often like to maintain that something was taken by our photographer or film crew — it sounds good to the viewer. Newspapers and TV stations don't explain to viewers and readers the concept of pooling where one agreed photographer takes images that then everyone uses. People would expect that if the Queen meets the Pope, that it would be the BBC who would record it, or if President Bush meets the Pope that it is CBS/NBC/ABC etc who were there, not the Vatican's own guy. I simply know how these things work because I work in the media and have had dealings with the Vatican Press Office — I am on their email list. In any case, as mantillas are worn exclusively in relation to meetings with popes, the only images available are going to be news agency images in the Vatican. Ordinary people aren't able to be there to photograph the head of state wearing one unless the head of state goes walkabout with tourists (and their cameras) in St. Peter's Square, etc. So there is no alternative to those images. If there was, I'd use it immediately. (I spent an hour searching for alternative images. News agency images are only ever used by me as a last resort where we need to be able to show something and there simply is no other way of doing it. FearÉIREANN\ 21:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

That explanation sounds reasonable. Why was the template deleted? Unless the reason for deleting the template is that there was a dispute over the copyright status of those images, why not just add some scaled down version of what you just told me to the image, preferably with a link to the Vatican press office where the policy is described? That way, there will be no question that the use of the image is considered fair use.

I guess my only remaining concern was Image:Eamon de Valera (portrait).jpg. Do you know the original source for the image? It might still qualify for fair use even if the original source is not PD. BigDT 21:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

My RfA thanks

Hello B/archive200607, and thank you for your support at my Request for Adminship (especially right after tagging several of my old pictures for deletion), which succeeded with an overwhelming final count of (105/2/0). I was very pleased with the outpouring of kind words from the community that has now entrusted me with these tools, from the classroom, the lesson in human psychology and the international resource known as Misplaced Pages. The 💕. Please feel free to leave me plenty of requests, monitor my actions (through the admin desk on my userpage) and, if you find yourself in the mood, listen to some of what I do in real life. In any case, keep up the great work and have a fabulous day. Grandmasterka 07:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Lets delete every image taken by a digital camera

Your rationale for deletion of pictures that don't appear elsewhere on the Internet seems to imply all images taken with a digital camera will have to be deleted, unless the user has posted them elsewhere. How do you verify those images? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 11:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• If someone claims to be the person who took the photograph or created the artwork and there is no reason to doubt their claim, there's no problem there. However, in the case of some of the images you have uploaded, you don't make a claim either way. For example, with , you have tagged it as being licensed under the "Creative Commons Attribution License v. 2.5". That statement needs some justification. If this is a photo from a family scrapbook that was passed to you and you own the rights to it and have scanned it in, just say so. I, and most others, will assume good faith. The same is the case with Image:Kahrar-Charlotte 04a.jpg. But if they are images you found somewhere, then you need to tell exactly where the source is. In other words, where does one find the "James Gerard Kennedy archive"? BigDT 13:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Smile

Bhadani has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

--Bhadani 15:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

CTMU

Hi—sorry to bother you. I replied to your comment at the CTMU deletion review, and thought you might like to take a second look. Thanks. Tim Smith 05:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It's never a bother. I read your comments ... and honestly, my opinion is unchanged. Misplaced Pages really isn't the place for novel theories. BigDT 05:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

NCAA Football

Thanks for the Photo Edit... that's a good change CJC47 19:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Glad to be of help ... and I'm really glad you uploaded it - it's nice to have a separate image to distinguish ourselves from WP:NFL. BigDT 20:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Scouting

Glad to see you joined the project. RandyRlevse 23:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I've messed with Scouting articles here and there ... I figured I might as well list my name ;) BigDT 23:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: List/AGF

(This converstation will take place on your talk page, or not at all - I have more important things to deal with on mine) You posted on my talk page that a certain revert I made wasn't in fact vandalism. You claim it was a duplicate list, and therefore should be deleted. On closer inspection, I found that it wasn't in fact a duplicate list, but instead a more concise and better-organised version of the other one, therefore making this list, in my opinion, the one that should stay, as opposed to jumbled and bad-to-read other list. I counter-request you to assume good faith when dealing with people who service the community tirelessly by reverting vandalism. I will not revert it back (as it's a content dispute), but please AGF when accusing people of not in the future, as to aviod the hypocritical state of affairs that have arisen in this case. Killfest2 01:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah! A friendly missive from a kindness campaigner! The offending message (of inadequate importance!) may be viewed here Bravo! 64.198.252.146 14:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I've been wanting to clean that section up for a while. Honestly, I wish someont from Tech who is more familiar with the Corps than I would work on it. Either way, whether he picked the right or wrong list, I'm pretty sure that it was a good faith edit by someone genuinely wanting to contribute to the article. I apologize for my choice of words ... it was not my intent to imply wrongdoing on your part or to imply that you do not do a good service. BigDT 02:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. Having absolutely no knowledge of the topic myself, I'll leave it to you guys who know something about it to fix it up. Killfest2 02:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I never let "having absolutely no knowledge" of topics stand in the way of some forcible kindness campaigning! What is this? Some kind of encyclopedia? Bravissimo!! 64.198.252.146 14:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Running Man Barnstar
		The WikiHokie award: given in appreciation for creating so many new articles and making so many substantial contributions to existing articles about Virginia Tech. --CJC47 23:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you - I appreciate your kind words. BigDT 03:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my page. --Nlu (talk) 07:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Misza13's pile!

Image:One-hundred-WikiThanks.gif

Thank you for contributing the impressive the pile of supports gathered on my RfA, which passed with a final tally of 0x0104/0x01/0x00. I'm happy that so many people have put faith in my abilities as an admin and promise to use the tools wisely and do my best not to let you down. If I ever may be of assistance, just leave a note on my talk page. Misza13, the rouge-on-demand admin wishes you happy editing! NOTE: This message has been encrypted with the sophisticated ROT-26 algorithm. Ability to decipher it indicates a properly functioning optical sensor array.

Re: Image:ADSK Founders.jpg

The most I've been able to get about the copyright status of that pic is that Autodesk owns it and said Duff can do whatever he wants with it. So "presumed" is right. --jpgordon 16:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem if you or someone else knows more about it, with someone changing the license to be correct or putting it on IFD. I'm just blindly going through the uncat image list and adding licenses where I can, tagging for deletion where I can't. BigDT 16:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar Awarded to BigDT for his observance and alertness of the finest quality to expose and uncover the B list. - Mailer Diablo 17:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL ... thanks ... but I didn't actually discover it - I just brought it to ANI. Gurch is the one who found it ... I followed a link to Cyde's talk page for something unrelated and saw it there. BigDT 17:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oh, yes... I've given a similiar one to him as well. ;) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 17:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'm dying over here, you guys are actually giving each other barnstars over this?! Hahahaha, if only you knew what this was actually all about. --Cyde↔Weys 17:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, rather than mocking us or being insulting, it would be more productive to simply tell your great purpose for the list. Everyone, as far as I can tell, was added after disagreeing with you guys in an RFA. To me, that says that its likely intent is to be used for revenge and/or pointing out hypocrisy in the event that anyone on the list eventually becomes the subject of an RFA. Am I close? BigDT 17:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Hang on a minute, we're spreading the love, aren't we? ;) - Mailer Diablo 17:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry BigDT, you're not close at all. The reason I find it so funny that you all are giving each other "Defender of the Wiki barnstars" is because you've uncovered an inside joke and utterly blown it out of proportion. I find it hysterical. Here's a hint: "B" is not just an arbitrary letter. --Cyde↔Weys 18:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)