Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ΚΕΚΡΩΨ (talk | contribs) at 16:09, 19 August 2008 (→Epirus map: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives
– July 2006 – October 2006 – November 2006 – January 2007 – 12 March 2007 – 5 May 2007 – 8 Sept 2007 – Dec 2007 – Feb 2008 – March 2008 – 12 May 2008 – 20 July 2008 – – –

Note: If you leave a message here I will most often respond here

Greece and Epirus, Kosovo Vandalism

I had written some real facts about Greece, Epirus and Kosovo.

Greece facts proven by BBC and CNN reports. Epirus facts true from many years, reported by historian and discovered in a research in 2005. Kosovo is INCORRECTLY spelled, since It's populated with Albanians, it IS THE RIGHT OF ALBANIANS TO NAME IT, and it's real name is KosovA!

I'm very dissappointed with your service, you are unable to verify real facts and just remove what you think not true, I want to contribute but in this circumstances it is IMPOSSIBLE!

AND THIS http://my.telegraph.co.uk/f_off_telegraph_censors/may_2008/country_list_of_most_homosexuals_born_live.htm IS A SERIOUS TELEGRAPH! HOW THE HELL YOU KNOW THAT IT ISN'T? GO GET A LIFE, MAN!

Criticism

I am really having problem with vandals and your criticism. see this Rjecina

Dodona apology

Dodona is back , in fact i have been around , i came to apologias specially to you because i feel guilty somehow truly , we had a Besa and i broke it because i though you were just misleading me ( and you were somehow..) . I truly i am no matter if decide to release my account or not ...Any way i think also you had a role in my blocking.Could this situation change?? you need another hand to improve Arvanites without me the view would be mediocre

Image:Karren brady.JPG speedily deleted

You speedily deleted Image:Karren brady.JPG under BLP policy. Could I request that you consider restoring it, and perhaps take it to IFD or DRV for further discussion?

I haven't seen this person in the flesh, but her nose also looks large in these pictures: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-558490/Birmingham-City-bosses-Karren-Brady-David-Sullivan-deny-wrongdoing-arrested-corruption-probe.html

(Though newspapers have been known to doctor photos, I don't have any reason to suspect those ones are distorted.)

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The image is most certainly distorted, in the sense of being horizontally stretched. Even if it weren't, and if it were "only" an extremely disadvantageous and technically deficient shot, I consider it simply a matter of human decency that we shouldn't be forcing such an ugly image on a person. No BLP subject should have a personal image on Misplaced Pages that they have a good reason to feel uncomfortable with. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't see the image any more to respond to the technical comments. Could the stretch be repaired? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I tried a bit; with horizontal compression to about 85% the face began to look roughly human, but then I had the feeling the proportions of the rest of the head were wrong. And it's very poor quality in a number of other ways too. There's a google cache version still around. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

(Google cache has expired.) I appreciate you trying the repair. Consider the matter closed. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Image removals

Why are you removing images simply because they are "nonfree" with no discussion at all, orphaning them? Two exmples: and , which only had discussion start afterwards? — Rlevse • Talk • 14:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I am boldly improving the encyclopedia by cleaning it up. Every step was clearly documented and argued for. These are all extremely obvious, open-and-shut cases. In the Micronesia one the case was so obvious I am certain every interested editor understands exactly what's happening by now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Uh, it's a patch about the organization, it's not so obvious nor open and shut. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I'm terribly sorry, my bad. I only now realise I removed the wrong one. I meant the other one. The logo seems okay. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough. That one you ifd'd. no problem. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's be clear: you are boldly removing valid and useful material from Misplaced Pages for no good reason, using obscure and pointless rules as your justification to be destructive and commit vandalism. RedSpruce (talk) 17:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Can somebody now please block this abusive editor for their persistent pattern of personal attacks and campaigning against the project's core principles? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

As is perfectly obvious, I am not "crusading" against anything. I am expressing an opinion about your activities. It's not a complementary opinion, but it's one that has been stated by others and deserves to be restated. RedSpruce (talk) 19:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Please have at least the marginal remnant of decency to spare me the yellow bar, and keep off my page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Falklands War Montage

There is nothing wrong with the use of that image, a fair use rationale has been provided for it. Furthermore, I took advice before including it, there is a fair use rationale, there is no equivalent non-free image. I find it quite disturbing that you're threatening to go after it for deletion simply because of a dispute on an another image. Justin talk 08:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Really, well as I said I took advice before creating it and putting it up. The advice I received was that it was within the policy guidelines. For information I've placed a note on the Falkland War Talk Page indicating your intention. Justin talk 08:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I really do think you have an overly rigid and narrow interpretation on NFCC#8. By the way in passing, you keep mentioning rules. Well Misplaced Pages does not have rules, it has policies and guidelines. In fact once of its policies is that policies and guidelines should not be interpreted as rules, individual cases should be treated on merit and that agreement is achieved through consensus. You seem to have forgotten that. I must admit it had never occurred to me before but there are several iconic images from the Falklands War that really could do with their own articles. I guess that my list of things to do just got larger. Justin talk 09:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I politely asked that a none involved admin should look at this, your nomination of that image for speedy deletion has all the hallmarks of retaliation, not that I especially believe that is your reason but it does certainly give that impression. You really should have recused yourself and asked someone not involved to look at it. Justin talk 12:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

(a) I already told you why I did it; if you don't "especially believe" I'm lying (thanks) then why are you going on about it? (b) I already tagged it so that others will see it and can step in. On reflection, however, and with due consideration given to your polite request, I do not promise I won't process it myself. I just can't allow for editors to just shut me out from their favourite turf like this at their will. If, every time I was in a dispute with some editor over an image, I subsequently had to withdraw from all admin action regarding that editor's other stuff, I'd soon be left with nothing to do. It would immobilise me in my dealings as an admin. Sorry, can't accept these terms. Speedy deletion criteria are meant to be processed by a single admin without need of consultation; that's why they are speedies. I'm totally capable of fulfilling this job with respect to the present case, so I'm not recusing from it.

By the way, in the interest of minimising disruption on the article, I'd recommend you already start looking for a replacement. Deletion can wait until you've uploaded one, no problem about that. And, on a totally different note, if you make one I'd recommend finding some other solution for that map of the Falklands you included. I personally found it quite confusing, it took me more than three or four looks until I realised what it was - I first thought it was some strangly photographed bushes or thicket. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I asked for an uninvolved admin, as you've clearly mind your mind up and nothing I could do or say would change it. I happen to think you're wrong based upon my reading of the policy. If it is as clear cut as you seem to think then asking another uninvolved admins opinion is not going to make any difference. It would avoid the appearance that you have simply done this in retaliation for my disputing your actions. It is not an attempt to shut you out of my "favourite turf" and I do resent the implication that is what I was trying to do.

And if you're trying to find another none free image in that montage there isn't one, and you could have saved yourself the trouble as I listed the source of all the images when I uploaded it. Justin talk 20:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Tag team

Hiya, just wanted to let you know about this page, which is an outgrowth of our discussions at the Working Group wiki. Since you were involved with the development of the definitions there, I wanted to invite you to the new page here on EN, in case you'd like to participate with its development. --Elonka 17:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

An image question

A truce (at least momentarily) on our Dunstan Dispute. What do you think of this image?

Image:Chozenbuff.jpg

It seems to me to be unnecessary to the article, doesn't depict anything of significance to the topic, and could very easily be deleted. It seems a purely decorative image to me, and I would support deletion of it, pending an IfD nomination, but I've never nominated an image for deletion (though I have recommended deletion at several IfDs), so I wanted to leave it to a more experienced nominator, if you wouldn't mind. _D.Jameson 22:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Mmmmhhh, a TV series episode screenshot lacking analytical commentary and specificity to the episode. Yummy. My favourite.

You're totally correct, of course. There's plenty of precedent for deleting that sort. But cleanup has tended to concentrate on some series and hasn't yet reached certain others very systematically. If you want to nominate I'll let you do the honours, otherwise I'll probably do it tomorrow.

Thanks for bringing it up. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'll leave it to you, my friend, as I have an inclusionist reputation (however unearned) to uphold... ;) _D.Jameson 22:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

GK1973

Please see the TalkPage on "Ancient Macedonians" and see why this GK1973 doesan't answer me, just keeps on deleting my posts?

THX 212.120.7.4 (talk) 14:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Master of the world.jpg

Hi, good job on finding that image and on making that stub. I searched online for the book cover but couldn't find it. I never thought about searching for just a book illustration which works just as well if not better. Garion96 (talk) 16:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyvio

At the top of the 14 August IfD page is a clear copyvio. Would you mind speedying it? _D.Jameson 21:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Lexico's edit

He is doing such a huge edit without consensus. And, he neglect rebuttal by Japanese scholer after Mr. Yu's report(I already presented)　and pushed only Mr. Yu's logic. And he cuted and pasted some sources and maked original logic. I recommend revert to old simply version.--Opp2 (talk) 06:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:CrystalCityGirlScoutsDrama.png

Hi Fut.Perf, I will respond to your comments in the next day when time permits me to compose a well-thought out response. I do note that none of the NFCC requirements are ever significantly debated over except #1 and #8 (the latter of which was just changed). Over these two requirements there seems to be unending debate and acrimony; there seems to be a minor battle going on in Misplaced Pages:Non-free content. The headline comment on the talk page ("Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate") is both true and terribly unfortunate. We have a constant struggle between sides who verge towards the strict German Misplaced Pages rules (no fair use) and the old oft de-facto rule here (any rationale is a good one) - Peripitus (Talk) 07:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The issue here, as with most disputed deletions of images that I've seen go to the wire, is that NFCC#1 and NFCC#8 are only unequivocal in meaning to those with strongly set opinions.

I guess the first thing to address is the closure which, on reflection, I still feel is correct, though am happy to be proved wrong at say DrV. The issue in the debate was entirely whether it was significant enough to pass the NFCC#8 requirements—a qualitative decision. Ignoring C.S. with his "stick it to the deletionists" comment, there were strong arguments that I cannot discount given on both sides. If the image was not mentioned in the article I would have had no issues in deleting it but in this case; the mention in the article (a simple paragraph though it is) and the majority argument in the debate that this and the images properties meant that it was significant →leads to the conclusion that the debate's consensus is that it passes NFCC#8 and should be kept. The assessment of whether the mention in the article is a significant or trivial is one was considered by those participating and, if I had a contrary opinion to the consensus that I wished to have effect, then the correct approach is for me to participate in the debate rather than use it in closing.

As to my opinions on whether it passes the requirements particularly in light of your comment about WP:NFC#Unacceptable use point 4: The prime difference here is that while it is a photo of some girl scouts in an article on the same (if this were the only match my finger would be on the delete button now), it is also of a particular scenario that is mentioned (albeit in an unsourced way) in the article. If I were to participate in the debate at the moment I would be just on the delete side of the debate, but only just. Note this is based on my interpretation of the NFCC criteria not my personal preference. Personally I've read thousands of books, and some encyclopaedias, that are have no images at all, but are completely comprehensible. Many rationale's and arguments to keep seem to be from those who have not and feel lost without images.

As for the legal stance, this is really something that I cannot comment extensively on as I lack both the in-depth knowledge and the enthusiasm to gain the same. As with all legal positions, what is legal is what courts allow and what is illegal is what they forbid or punish. While there are many opinions on legality, copyright, freedom of panorama etc. here (some by lawyers with appropriate background), definitive rules come only from legal judgements. Given that, if a case is launched against Wikixxxx, the offending material would be promptly removed and perhaps the case rendered moot, we are unlikely to ever get this certainty. I think we have to leave it to Wikimedia's legal council to pay attention to local communities NFCC criteria and intervene if they are passing out of their comfort zone.

I do agree that the debate has drifted though it has not all been unidirectional. In 2006 (when you and I started editing here) simple templates were seen as good enough - a situation that changed for the better last year. If you look through the many many debates here it is clear that NFCC8 is vague in that experienced wikipedians can quite convincingly argue both sides using the same rules and information. I see this as a natural outcome of the way we make policy here→a number of strongly opinioned editors write the policy based either on what they think we do or what they think we should do. As Kurt Weber has inelegantly pointed out numerous times this often means that policy is a set of de-facto outcomes rather than de-jure rules.

My personal feelings on how I should operate as an admin mean that I must subsume my opinion on a debate sometimes to close it per consensus—being the lifeblood of this place and something that should only be ignored after great thought. Were I the one setting the rules, and the site structured such that this was possible, there would possibly be very very few fair-use images, articles on individual Simpson's characters and some other things left (I'm channelling a German editor here). My opinions on fair-use clearly do not gel with the consensus position on Misplaced Pages. For example I cannot see what the claimed fair-images in this article, this FA and many others add to the readers understanding; the same goes for almost all album covers, book covers and so on.

As to what we do from here ? I see reversing my decision is not a clear reflection of the consensus and that rerunning IfD (given the limited audience) is perhaps a step that would lead to an acrimonious null result. I'm happy to punt this up at DRV; where I would not put money on the outcome, given some of the bizarre debates I've seen there—I'll create the DRV entry if you think it's a worthwhile step. Perhaps something like Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes for images would help in guiding debates ? - Peripitus (Talk) 13:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I think perhaps you misunderstood my comment on the legal side of things, probably because I was not clear. As with all things legal, there is no hard line between good and bad; were it otherwise judges could no judge. We certainly push fair use beyond what I think is reasonable and "fair" though less far than many here would like. "Shall we wait to hear more from them, and then decide how to proceed further?" - yes. If the source says take the image down then we can't disagree...if it's agreed to freely release it then the problem is no more - Peripitus (Talk) 21:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Nova1 in Flight.jpg

Last time this was proposed for deletion (result was keep), I had considered uploading an image of the balloon just after launch; thus the image would actually be showing Nova 1 in flight - such as this - but it seems that only the image to be speedily deleted was released as a promotional image, so I'm not sure whether we could claim fair use for the launch image (if not, it may be possible to have the launch image released under GDFL - I know one of the people on the Nova team). --J. Atkins 14:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, if you could get them to release anything free, that would obviously be the best solution all round. But my point here is, you already have that image of the earth's surface, the one that won the prize. This one isn't doing anything that the other can't do, is it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair point, just that the one that won the prize is an achievement by CU Spaceflight, whereas the launch image would give an image specifically for that mission. But like you said it won't serve much of a purpose, so I guess we might as well leave it out. --J. Atkins 12:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Skopje

Please see this. It is the official website of Skopje, where albanian version exists, and the city is called Shkupi, exept of its macedonian and english form. What do you think?balkanian (talk) 20:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Arvanites page

Please see this . My edit was reverted twice without a single argument. I do not want to start an edit war. Can you help me?

Attiki odos map

I have already answered at the corresponding page of Misplaced Pages Commons a few days ago. It is true I didn't design the map by my self--I wish I could after all!-- but there was no clarification about the copyright. User:Dimboukas

I really appreciated that when you received my answer you didn't start preaching like others would do! Anyway, thank you for your comprehension!Dimboukas (talk) 23:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Bouboulina

Congratulations! Your ability of destroying and your democratic way of thinking are perfect for one more time! - Sthenel (talk) 19:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm pretty good at destroying things, it's my long practice in the service of the Cabal that makes me so skilled in being evil. Now, are you denying the text was plagiarised? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes the text is not plagiarised or copy-edited. Btw why User:Arditbido changes the leading paragraphs in Mirela Manjani and Savva Lika from the formal and stable style? - Sthenel (talk) 13:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:SanJuanPotters.jpeg

Kindly restore this image, which you deleted without notifying me, the uploader. Did you first delete the FUR for this image? Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The image tag claimed this was a "unique historic image" used to illustrate an historic "event or historically notable person(s)". Moreover, the FUR claimed it was "a historically significant photograph", used for "identification and critical commentary", and again, "depicts a non-reproducible historic event".

All of these claims are quite patently false.

According to WP:CSD I7(a), images wth a clearly invalid fair-use tag can be deleted at any time, without notification of the uploader.

I can undelete it if you give me some description of how you are going to fix it. But I don't think it will work. According to WP:NFC, we don't use old photographs simply to illustrate a typical situation. We use them only where the image itself is so notable that it becomes itself an object of encyclopedic discussion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It's difficult to fix it, when I don't even have a link to the original photo!

WP:CSD I7(a) reads: "Non-free images or media with a clearly invalid fair-use tag (such as a {Non-free logo} tag on a photograph of a mascot) may be deleted at any time."

This clearly doesn't apply to a good-faith situation such as this.Please restore the image, and I'll work on the FUR.

In the future, please observe common courtesy in your proposed deletions. --Pete Tillman (talk) 17:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Undeleted. But, as I said, I remain skeptical if it can work. The article doesn't even mention what the image shows. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added some information to the FUR, and revised the caption accordingly.

You clearly don't like use of this template, but it's grossly inappropriate to delete work on the basis of your personal opinions -- and even less appropriate to do so without notifying the uploader. Please don't confuse your personal opinions with Misplaced Pages policy. Thank you, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

My new Project

Where in policy does it say I can't have the images whilst I'm creating an article in my user space. It doesn't mention user space at all in the article you've linked to. Justin talk 00:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Vlorë (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Concencus reached. Can you unprotect the page.balkanian (talk) 12:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Northern Epirus

Nice start. I think we should create a new page for the Greek minority, and to add just a summary in Norther Epirus page. Also, if you agree I would like to create a Southern ALbania article, in order to remove the confusion. What do you think?balkanian (talk) 12:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Himarë

Could you keep an eye on the article, now and then? It certainly needs some serious sourcing but the kind of defacement that went on during the last 3 days we don't need. 3rdAlcove (talk) 18:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Wah. This is the Diff from Hell. Diffs are called diffs because sometimes it's so darn diff-icult to diff-erentiate which of the two versions is worse... Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

East Aegean Islands????

Can you take a look into this at Aegean Islands and it's related articles. It seems User:PKo and a bunch of Ip Users keep changing it. Now I've never heard of the East Aegean Islands at all until now. Is this for real, because I'd be very surprised if English Wiki was behind the curve, cause the user apparently got it from here: Nordägäische Inseln, Thrakische Inseln (North Aegean Islands, Thracian Islands) and Ostägäische Inseln (East Aegean Islands) (see my talk page), so I don't know how factual those are. _{El Greco} 00:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

So should it just be left as is? I mean a whole new article (East Aegean islands) would need to be created if left as is. Plus as you show Samothrace and Thasos are considered North, while Lemnos and all the others are considered East. However to the user's recollection, it's different. _{El Greco} 21:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment

Please review your edit comment on the Patricia Racette image description page. You said: "reinstate replaceability tag misleadingly removed by uploader himself". How is the assumption of good faith? At that time, there was an enormous backlog of images that had not been reviewed, because the replaceable fair use image template and policy was brand new. No admins were patrolling those backlogs. After consultation with an administrator, I was given the go-ahead to help clear that backlog. This did include closing several of my own images. The concern at that time was that some images, like this one, lacked a fair use assertion statement in the image description page and in the article source code. I added same for both prior to closing any of them. Your comment send a different message than a good faith effort by a non-administrator (at that time) helping to clear a new backlog; it implies "this guy is a bad boy and lied and deceived us by removing the tag". Please work on improving your AGF and communication skills with other editors. I have had this same problem with you in the past, and had hoped it was put behind us. I am now concerned that you may be starting back your old bad habits, something that must not happen. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 13:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

New user vandalising

There is a new user who is vandalising pages in a Greek POV. please see this and this. The user is User:Stavros hellas.balkanian (talk) 16:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Your comments

These sorts of insulting comments of yours really need to stop. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Forget it. I will call crap crap whenever I feel like it. It's bad enough I have to wade through it. I feel insulted by that fact alone. Crap. Crap. Crap. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, whose sensitive soul did I hurt here that they had to run to daddy to complain about me behind my back? Or are you watching my edits? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Gian Maria Volontè

You do realise that Mr. Volonte died back in 1994 don't you. If the commons image was taken in January 2008 do you think it is reasonable to say that there may be something wrong with the details? The Bald One 13:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying it's not really him? The flickr image is from this set: ; those may well be old pre-digital photographs from the early 90s; the date displayed in the metadata would just be the date of scanning. In any case, if you really doubt the legitimacy of the image, that's a case to be solved at commons; the item here on en-wiki will have to be deleted independently anyway, because it duplicates another screenshot that fulfills the same purpose (WP:NFCC #3). Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

He changed a bit by his old age but it is him. There should have been something to indicate when it was taken. How do we know the image isn't copywrighted and the uploaded at flickr uploaded it under a wrong license? . About deelting the existing image. Not neccesarily. Two image in the same article is not permitted no it will have to be rmeoved from that one, but if I add an adquate rationale it can be used in the main body of his article to represent his work as an actor. The Bald One 13:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's keep the discussion at IfD, shall we? Cheers, Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Why bother? The Bald One 13:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Uhm... because that's where it's going to be decided and others can see it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Vandalising again

User:Stavros hellas is keeping vandalising every albanian page, where is a consencus reached. see his edits in Vlora, Saranda, Finiq, Northern Epirus, Korca, Berat, Gjirokaster, etc, etc. Please do something, as an editor.balkanian (talk) 13:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanksbalkanian (talk) 13:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Alltimelow.jpg

Would you take a look at this image, to see if it is genuinely free or possibly a CV? It is watermarked www.Dmetschke.com which appears to be a professional photographer's copyrighted website, although I can't tell for sure (I'm at my summer home with a very slow, dial-up connection and an old W95 PC, and can't fully access it)

Laquena (talk · contribs) has uploaded several images from that website. Thx, JGHowes - 14:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

They imply they are themselves the owner, which seems plausible. I've asked them to send OTRS confirmation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Epirus map

Regarding this, Iannina? And since when is Corfu part of the periphery of Epirus or the Ambracian Gulf a lake? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 16:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)