User talk:Carnildo

Archives: The beginning through April 22, 2005

Thanks for editing my contribution. I was suprised Lt. Col Cole didbn't have a Wikipage until today.

Follow one of my edits again and comment adversely on the # of edits I have and you will regret it. That I promise you. Zenupassio 03:35, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. I plan to ignore it. --Carnildo 03:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi there! Because the RFC about Xiong seemed to deal mainly on his disagreements with Netoholic, I thought it best to start a new RFC to see if people have comments on Xiong's behavior that do not relate to Netoholic. Please give your thoughts and/or opinion on that at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Xiong. Radiant_* 08:27, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

That approach to Wikipedia appals me. It never seems to have occurred to you (not you, sorry, User:Master_Thief_Garrett) , prior to VfDing the article, to just type reception-theory into Google. There youhe would have found oodles of material, quite enough to make a good stub. It's sheer laziness to VfD an article simply because you, personally, cannot make sense of it, you have to actually make an honest effort to perform at least *some* cleanup, otherwise you cannot say that it qualifies for deletion (I do understand that it wasn't you who listed the piece). You say "little or no context" but the name Stuart Hall should have been adequate context (if you don't know who he is, take a look, it's what Wikipedia is for!) From Stuart Hall (cultural theorist):

Stuart Hall is one of the main proponents of reception theory. This approach to textual analysis? focuses on the scope for negotiation and opposition on part of the audience. This means that a text — be it a book or a movie — is not simply passiviely accepted by the audience, but there is an element of activity involved. The person negotiates the meaning of the text. The meaning depends on the cultural background of the person. The background can explain how some readers accept a reading of a text while others reject it.

This kind of thing makes me scream and pull my hair out. Dealing with vandals is bad enough, but encyclopedists who can't be bothered to use the encyclopedia and do some research, that fills me with despair. Coming back to VfD after a couple of months away, I'm left with a profound sense of betrayal. Some perfectly good articles have been listed simply because the editor who listed them couldn't be bothered to do the most basic research. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:55, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Carnildo. Have your issues regarding your vote of "Conditional support" for "Tick ToC" here been resolved? If so would you consider moving your vote to "Support"? Not campaigning here, just trying to make the results easier to interpret ;-) Paul August ☎ 16:49, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your vote on this VfD. I won't use a winkie emoticon, but I'm grinning as I type this. Barno 01:52, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your revert. I probably used up all mine, so we need people like you to keep an eye on the page. I also request you watch the partner page, Gallery of national flags. That too is getting hit by people who are adding the Palestine flag without having the consensus reached. Thanks again.

I'm reporting a 3RR violation, as User:Tagteam213 is clearly a sockpuppet. --Carnildo 23:27, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your report on the 3RR page seems kind of mangled. There was some page-doubling and subsequent repair on that article - perhaps you should check your entry there. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 23:37, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It looks OK to me. I noticed the page-doubling when I went to make the report, and did my best to fix it before reporting. --Carnildo 23:40, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you were fixing it as I was typing the above message; it looks fine now. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 23:43, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I realized that a discussion can quickly get messy, so I've split it into categories by preference. -- BDAbramson ^thimk 01:48, 2005 May 6 (UTC)

The discussion has run its course, and with 22-to-6 votes I'd say there is enough consensus to implement Ten's merging proposal. I've closed the discussion and put up some conclusions as such. Could you please take a quick look at it and indicate on its talk page whether you agree? Yours, Radiant_* 09:02, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Yes there were eleven votes for getting rid of the page, but there were six to keep it. In general a two-thirds majority is the minimum needed to remove an article. - SimonP 23:19, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Anon votes are discounted when there is a suspicion of a sock puppetry. In this case the five other keep votes were by highly respected users. Moreover even if I had ignored the vote then the vote would still been a very dubious consensus. Also looking over the count again I don't see where you got your 11 remove votes, I can only find 10. If you fell strongly that the page should be removed, and I actually agree with you that it should go, the best option is to relist it on VfD. With such a close result the outcome may very well be different a second time round. - SimonP 23:49, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Hi there, I answered your querey on the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate page, but just to let you know, if you vote "oppose", then that will result in a vote for the current system. --Silversmith 04:01, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the comments following your "confused" vote. I think you mean to vote "opposed" Slrubenstein | Talk 04:11, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Postdlf. It's nothing more than a cheap trick at distraction and/or retaliation for my role in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Daniel C. Boyer. It'll disappear after he fails to get anyone to join his certification within 48 hours of his posting. Postdlf 01:13, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion seems to have run its course, so I have closed it and drawn conclusions. Could you please briefly look at the conclusions and note on the talk page if you agree? Thanks, Radiant_* 09:38, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Hi there! I've reworded this a bit per everyone's comment, and would like to get support to make this a guideline and allow it to be used. Could you please indicate if you agree? I was unsure if your earlier comment indicated agreement; in current practice, people who create a sock like Smell Etitis walk away unpunished, because they can hide behind anonymity. Even if they do it dozens of times. Is that desirable? Thanks, Radiant_* 12:28, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Hello! I attempted to resolve your objection on the FAC page of this article. I removed pure fan ranks and referenced the others with source material from books and live action productions. There should be no more unsupported fanon ranks in the article. I was hopeing you could now change your vote. -Husnock 15:54, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carnildo. I've been thinking over the recent number of interwiki bot requests and I feel that introducing a more restrictive policy would slightly benefit the Wikipedia. I'd be delighted to hear your thoughts on the matter. Please see my comments regarding this matter at: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Interwiki_Bot_Policy_Proposal. Thank you for your time. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:22, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think if you reflect a bit you will probably want to moderate your comments on this VfD. We don't refer to one another as fanatics in this encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:06, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Carnildo, I wish let you know that I am approving User:RobotE to run for a duration of one week. If you are watching its edits, and have a complaint, please leave a comment at Wikipedia talk:Bots. Thanks. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:54, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You do have a fair point about some of those templates. I'll see what I can do about sorting those ones out that are not linked to by multiple articles, like the USS Wright ones. However, some of those, despite the fact that only one article links to them at the moment will be linked to by multiple articles once those articles are written. That is certainly the case for the Suribachi- and Lassen-class ammunition ships. In those cases I would say what I have done is exactly in line with what templates should be used for: ie content that needs to be the same over multiple articles for both consistency and ease of maintenance. David Newton 07:28, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hallo Mark - my students exercised as oceanographers, taking code from my space preparing for a German demonstration project on virtual university, the idea of Erik Moeller (user:eloquence) of the Wikiversity for online e-teaching and e-research and I offered my cooperation as teacher and my interactive virtual microscope for a course in Meeresbiologie and Biologie der Antarktis - for that project it is important to have reproducible credentials for the teachers. We also plan to move educational content from expensive university servers to the free project (in Germany we don't even have tuition in the University) - help us - or not - I really don't care if I am sysop or not, I have that all behind me - we try to help the NeXT generation - best greetings - keep up with your fine work Uwe Kils 68.46.71.104 17:47, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ranks and insignia of Starfleet, you wrote: In that case, you should probably list the article on VfD as being a mix of trivia and original research. I admit that's tempting, but I'm not sure that's the way. There are literally thousands of these crufty pages, and I oppose in principle blanket nominations for deletion. Nor do I want to start a battle with users who spend most of their lives immersed in fantasy warfare.

Please see Wikipedia:Wikifan for discussion of a solution to all these obsessive, repetitive articles. Note that your distaste for this matter should not keep you away from the project; if only fans participate, then obviously nothing will be done. What's wanted is activity by community members willing to put shoulders to the wheel to provide a graceful exit and destination for fancruft. — Xiong熊talk* 07:21, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

Please comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Starfleet ranks and insignia. I'm particularly worried that the article goes into more detail than almost all readers would be interested in reading (not going into so much detail is a FAC criteria). Thus longer sections should be summarized and the detail spun off into daughter articles, allowing readers to zoom to that level of detail if they so choose. --mav 16:20, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I've just rewritten this article which you voted delete on at vfd - thought you might like to take another look...? Grutness...wha? 03:13, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I actually did not know the full details of copyrights on the movie pins from Starfleet ranks and insignia. Its actually something that most likely needs to be researched. And no need for name calling. I'm not made of straw and neither was my answer. It was simply the best info I knew. I wasnt trying to be a smart guy by using the Colonel metaphor, either. I work for the National Personnel Records Center and there is a law in place to deal with recreation of U.S. Army ranks, insignia, and medals. Its very complex, but I do know the Army waived rights to rank insignia copyrights a long time ago, possibly in World War II. Anyway, in all seriousness, thanks for the copyright update. The rank pins I would be interested in what you find out. -Husnock 00:40, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see no namecalling. A straw man argument is a particular rhetorical technique where a point that appears to be relevant to the debate is made and defeated, when in fact it is irrelevant. --Carnildo 01:49, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just letting you know about Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/HYP (universities) 2. If you have an opinion, please vote. I am notifying people who have been active on either side of the debate. —Lowellian (talk) 23:49, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

In that discussion you wrote "Maybe move to Harvard-Yale-Princeton or a similar title". The article has been split and expanded (in a way that I think won't incur GFDL problems) using as one half of the split that very title. Please re-visit the discussion. Uncle G 04:44, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)

Thank you for voting on my RFA. Have some pie! I was pleasantly surprised by the sheer number of supporters (including several people that usually disagree with my opinion). I shall do my best with the proverbial mop. Yours, Radiant_>|< 08:02, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

You are quite wrong that merging will "keep the inclusionists happy". Merging is a form of deletion. It is deletionists who advocate merging. CalJW 05:27, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Raul654 - Remove misplaced RfC request. If you want to file an RfC, do it in the same way as everyone else"

I don't have the time to file one, you stupid prick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.253.96.42 (talk • contribs) Mgm (UTC)

• I moved the comment to the correct place on your page. Please don't use the roll back future if you decide to revert this comment by the anon. I manual removal with a more detailed message would make it easier to notice the comment in your page history. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:56, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

I appologise, that comment was made by my facile younger brother

Why are you removing the off-road speed from the infobox tables of German World War II vehicles?

Off-road speed depends of the terrain. Difrent terrain, difrent speed.

Thanks for your support for my adminship. Your comment on the "stalking" issue was very helpful, _ appreciate you taking the time to look into it. BTW, if you enjoy BJAODN then you should visit Harrison Dimple Jr. before it is deleted. Cheers, -Willmcw June 28, 2005 18:19 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out! --Carnildo 28 June 2005 19:48 (UTC)

Thank you for removing your objection to the FAC of the article, but I was wondering if you would also consider supporting it? Thank you! Páll 30 June 2005 09:32 (UTC)

Now that I've had a chance to do a thorough reading of the article, I've still got a few objections, but they should be easy enough to fix. --Carnildo 30 June 2005 18:35 (UTC)

The article has been improved drasticaly, I think this is a good enough reason to reopen the FA status of this article. To be fair I am notifying all parties involved with the article on old candidacy. If I forgot one of you, its not intentional. Thats all for now --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 1 July 2005 00:15 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you, but I do hope that you could kindly rethink your redirect vote. Another kind of stilt house, the Papua New Guinea stilt house, is added. I've stated some other reasons supporting to keep the artice in this page as well. Thank you for your attention. :-) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 2 July 2005 18:47 (UTC)

From your message at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/African-American literature I understand you can't respond for a few days, but when you get back please let me know about the issues surround the Toni Morrison image at African-American literature. As someone who worked in book publishing for a while--and had to constantly deal with copyright issues--I think the image I am using falls under fair use and permitted use (due to the permission statement at the bottom of the image). I have also made a strong effort to have the minimum number of fair use images in the article (with compares well with most featured articles, where almost every image seems to be used under fair use). Thanks. --Alabamaboy 2 July 2005 19:52 (UTC)

Hi. You added a note on the Alice (web comic) article to the webcomic WikiProject page last month, saying that it needs to be written in a more encyclopedic style. As the self-nominated guardian of the article, I was wondering if you had any suggestions for it or criticisms of its present state. The contents have been cleaned up to some extent after the note. -- Kizor 4 July 2005 06:14 (UTC)

I am trying to answer some of your objections about the copyright status of pictures.

• Image:Nowahuta.jpg is used on the Polish Wikipedia, where it originally came from. However, no copyright was given over there.
• I replaced Image:Ac.gomulka.jpg with Image:Wladyslaw Gomulka.jpg, so the first image can now be placed on WP:IFD.
• I found three sources for Image:1981 01 Lech Walesa.jpg. Originally, it came from a Mexican website, but it could have been copied from other locations. I think this photo was taken by the Vatican or the AP.
• I tagged Image:Wyszyński.jpg with the template Polishpd, since I assume it was taken in the 1950's or 1960's, sometime that is covered by that template.
• I am trying to find a source or a new version of Image:Pope-poland.jpg
  • Stupid me, the source is at http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/rvp/pubaf/chronicle/v13/a14/pope-poland.jpg. However, the Christian Science Monitor has said the image was taken by the AP. http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1016/p06s02-wogn.html?mostViewed

If you have any questions, just let me know. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 8 July 2005 02:29 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the fair-use images should be removed from the article, since they aren't essential to it. Image:Nowahuta.jpg is probably GFDL or another free license, since the only copy of it I could find online was a defunct Wikipedia mirror, but it's not likely to be clarified, as the original uploader is only sporadically active. It should be replaced with an image with a known license. --Carnildo 8 July 2005 04:03 (UTC)

That means we have almost two more images we need to figure out. But, I am not sure if we can find free sources. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 8 July 2005 04:28 (UTC)

Have you checked Commons? --Carnildo 8 July 2005 05:44 (UTC)

Nope. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 8 July 2005 06:48 (UTC)

Which images are disputed now? If none, could you change your vote? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 10:56, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Nowahuta.jpg still doesn't have any information on its copyright status. --Carnildo 17:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot seem to locate a similiar picture, or even pictures of the place. I suggest to remove it for now from this page, then look for copyright OK photos. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Bible source text ~~~~ 9 July 2005 18:14 (UTC)

In case you haven't checked back, I have cited several "diff"s, providing concrete evidence of DreamGuy's snide and detestable behaviour, on the page. elvenscout742 13:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Carnildo, please remove or revise your "Outside view" as it shows that you have not really looked into the references provided. --AI 00:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think it shows quite well that I've looked into this matter. My "outside view" stays as-is. --Carnildo 04:03, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Your view that "I see nothing particularly serious in the way of personal attacks by DreamGuy, particularly nothing worthy of a permanent ban" is contrary to: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors.Wikipedia:No personal attacks You should have ignored any suggestion of a permanent ban because such suggestions are not part of the RfC protocol. You have gotten 10 people to endorse your off-policy view. --AI 08:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gee. You think maybe there's a reason ten people endorsed my view? --Carnildo 18:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There could be many reasons. Some of them could be questionable considering the individual involved and the responders endorsing your view. --AI 10:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why this might be put on the Lamest Edit Wars thing, but it's not really amusing when DreamGuy can consistently find new ways of damaging it, and when now the best argument against has been mysteriously deleted. elvenscout742 11:20, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to ask that you comment on Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/List of Nintendo Revolution games, now that I've improved the list to disclude rumors. -- A Link to the Past 05:00, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing and endorsing the second RfC on Charles Taze Russell

Are you an admin? If so, could you please put up an NPOV banner and then protect the page for 48 hours? There appears to be a consensus that it is not a neutral point of view. No one but Pastorrussell has disagreed.

If so, thank you.

Robert McClenon 00:32, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no. If I was an admin, I would have protected it with the NPOV tag on after the first time the tag was removed. --Carnildo 03:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, just a quick note to express my gratitude for your support of my RfA. I'm sure I'll become a familiar face on places like the Administrator's Noticeboard and Requests for Adminship, as well as the murkier parts of my new job. "From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked." (Luke 12:48, NIV) Never was a truer word spoken. I feel empowered, yes, but not in the "oooh cool delete button!" way I was kind of expecting. Already I feel the weight of the responsibility I have now been entrusted with, a weight that will no doubt reduce given time. Thank you for believing in me. :) Garrett^Talk 10:04, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I saw from your votes on the "Featured Article Candidate" page that you have some knowledge concerning the appropriate use of images. I am thinking of nominating SS Andrea Doria for FA, yet I am trying to get an honest opinion concerning the images used. Could you look at the article and post your opinion on my talk page? Thanks. Pentawing 16:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking me. This is difficult article to get free-use images on: the ship was launched in 1951, and in the United States, no copyrighted image published after 1950 will have gone into the public domain.

At a minimum, images used under "fair use" need to indicate the source of the image, credit the image's creator, and indicate why the use of the image in the article constitutes fair use. For selection of which images to use under fair use, images that are intended to be distributed widely such as publicity photos are better than other images. If you can find such an image, it would make a good lead image. If fair use images must be used in an article, their use should be kept to a minimum. You've managed that fairly well in the article: the only image that isn't really essential is Image:RuthRomanwithsonRichard.jpg.

The US Navy or Coast Guard should have some public-domain images of the sinking of the ship, or of the wreck. I've replaced Image:Andrea Doria at Dawn.jpg with such an image; there may be more.

--Carnildo 04:32, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The lead image in the article happened to appear on several websites (e.g. greatoceanliners.net and lostliners.com). Though I don't believe that the image is in public domain, it is likely a publicity shot of some sort.

The wreck image is my greatest concern, since the image tag says the copyright is unknown. I spoke to the person who uploaded it, and I was told that it was "fair use." However, the image looks like a painting done by Ken Marshall (who also did paintings of the RMS Titanic and its sinking), so it might be copyrighted as well (though the image is on greatoceanliners.net however). Of course, the matter is made more difficult since I didn't upload the images myself. Pentawing 19:11, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SimonP (the creator of the 100 or so gospel verse articles) has tried to claim that the votes for the "only notable verses" section would include most of the 30,000 verses of the bible because he sees them as notable. To avoid such a POV twisting of the votes, I have added a new section - [1] - for voting on whether the number of notable verses is more like 30,000, or more like 30. Would you care to vote there as well? ~~~~ 00:28, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

have responded to your comments regarding Sail training...thanks for your input. Seasee 00:45, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since your objections have been dealt with, would you consider supporting the nomination? I'd really appreciate it! --Mb1000 00:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question for you. I want to nominate an article for Featured status, but I was wondering if photos under the Canada Crown Coypright status is acceptable? Thanks. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Canadian Crown Copyright is borderline: it appears to prohibit commercial use, and it may or may not permit modification. It's still freer than "fair use", so if it's a choice between the two, the Crown Copyright image is better. Such images should still be used sparingly. The Canadian Heraldic Authority article is a good example of where Crown Copyright images can be used (although since it's the text description of a coat of arms that's definitive, not the visual representation, anyone could draw up a depiction of one of those coats of arms and release it under GFDL). --Carnildo 00:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phatcat68's user page reveals him to be a born-again Christian, so I suspect he will readily agree that the Popes you mentioned--along with all other Roman Catholics--aren't Christian under his definition at all. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 05:55, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I suspected. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 11:51, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Authentic Matthew VFD has closed. The results were

• Delete - 21 (58%)
• Keep - 11 (31%)
• Merge - 4 (11%)

This was declared to have been no consensus, and therefore a new VFD has been opened at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Authentic Matthew (consensus).

Would you be prepared to re-add your vote there? ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 09:41, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carnilo. I see that you have spoken against Tony Sidaway and his "pro-school" cohorts. Would you agree that they have taken to bullying against school deletion voters too far? Look at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Gwinett_County_Public_Schools. I've been called a liar in no uncertain terms who deliberately misquotes, when I obviously did not, and been painted in the worst possible light there. My only crime? Voting against schools. Oh, they thought it fair to remove what I say when I stated very firmly that Tony is elitist, rude and blatantly misrepresenting me. This is getting unbearable and too political. Do you have any solutions against this? Please advise. Mandel 21:41, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

(spamming you, since you also participated in the discussion:) The deleted-per-VfD Polish Wikipedians' Black Book, which was resurrected at User:Halibutt/Black Book has, since Jimbo Wales commented on the first resurrection's talk page, been resurrected as User:Halibutt/Black book. Despite my request for clarification on the talk page there, I have received nothing but accusations of vandalism from a troll who has since been banned for a week for repeated personal attacks (against me and others). Any ideas for how to proceed would be greatly appreciated. Tomer ^TALK 04:05, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Could you also remove the main object vote? It is still not crossed out... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 10:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. --Carnildo 18:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your comments on this FAC, I've acted upon your recommendations and sorted the tags out, and deleted two unsuitable images. --PopUpPirate 11:56, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Why do you think that the citation needs to go into the text in this case? Aside from the general deprecation of embedded external links, the pop-music articles are full of references to records going gold, platinum, etc., but this is the only one to be given a citation; is there some special rason? If so, couldn't it go at the end 9as usual for external links)? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mainly because the removal has been cited by User:Ultimate Star Wars Freak as the reason for a number of reverts. --Carnildo 21:43, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A user went ahead and cropped the screenshots to remove the copyrighted symbols and logos. I think some people told me to use Firefox for Screenshots: I can see now why. Also, I put them under GFDL because I cannot really make a screenshot PD, so I chose the next best thing. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:02, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You can't do that. The GNAA press release pictured in Image:GNAA press release.jpg is copyrighted by the GNAA, so any screenshot of a legible section of the press release can only be under "fair use". --Carnildo 20:37, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the image to claim fair use and included the original copyright. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:44, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

May I strongly suggest that you adde a bold delete to your nomination of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/FactBites (2nd nomination)? Since the previous vote was kept despite a 75% vote to delete you don't want this one to fail because of any technicality or oversight. - Tεxτurε 23:52, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are *this* close to being blocked for disruption. Quit now. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 06:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could you kindly point out the personal attacks you are referring to when you blocked me? And could you also review the block policy, particularly the part where it says not to block someone when you are involved in the situation, but rather to ask another admin for help? --Carnildo 07:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support in the Carlos Lozada vote for deletion case. He is one of four Puerto Ricans to be awarded the Medal of Honor. Tony the Marine 07:19, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Glad I could help. I've been keeping an eye on as much of the Medal of Honor stuff as I can. --Carnildo 07:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carnildo. A little while ago you objected to my nomination for the Sharon Tate article as a featured article, and I reacted very defensively. Since then I've read a lot of what is on Wikipedia about copyrights, what constitutes fair use etc so I can now understand the aim of what you're saying, and I apologise if my earlier comments came across as rude.

I notice that you've objected to some articles like Henry Fonda on the basis of the images, so do you mind if I ask you a couple of questions because the more I read on the subject the more confused I become. Do you know any likely places that free use or public domain images of celebrities might be found. I have searched everywhere and have found very little. Sites like this one Henry Fonda alleged PD images make me suspicious - I don't believe they necessarily are.

Also in the absence of free use images, are promotional photos, DVD covers, screenshots etc acceptable as "fair use" if correctly tagged and justified? I've read Wikipedia:Fair use (Justification for fair use) among other things, so I understand what's required but I haven't been able to find an example of a fair use image that is correctly tagged, and with a rationale included. Can you point me to what you consider to be a good example of such an image that has a complete rationale on the image description page. The templates "this is a screenshot", "this is a DVD cover" etc are obviously too generic on their own, so I'd like to see exactly how it should be done. Also, adding to my confusion just when I think I'm getting a grip on things, you withdrew your objections to the images in Iron Maiden article, and I'm trying to work out the reason, as the images used seem to me to be similar to other images that you've objected to. I'm obviously missing something.

Thanks. I'd like to be sure before I put anything up for nomination in the future, that I've done my best beforehand to get it right. Any advice appreciated. Rossrs 08:59, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For very well-known celebrities, the US government archives may have something: a Google image search on "site:.gov" may bring something up. Also, the search engine on the Archives website (http://www.archives.gov/) may find things that Google doesn't. For people with military service, the military might have something (Google search on "site:.mil").

For celebrities that were well-known before 1950, there may be newspaper photographs that have fallen out of copyright. These will be hard to find, but the Library of Congress (http://www.loc.gov/) may have something.

A further option is to contact the celebrity's agent or estate and ask for an image to be released under GFDL, Creative Commons attribution, or Creative Commons sharealike-attribution licenses.

In my opinion, if free-use images can't be found, the second-best choice is a promotional photo: it's an image that is intended to be distributed widely. Of course, there are exceptions: for albums, singles, and DVDs, a low-resolution scan of the cover is always appropriate. For movies, a still from a well-known scene or a low-resolution scan of a promotional poster is good. Failing all else, other fair-use images can be used, but they need to be tagged, justified, have the source/copyright owner credited, and used very sparingly.

As for the images at Iron Maiden, I'm still trying to figure out how strict I should be about fair-use images: all the images there are directly related to the subject of the article (except Image:PrisonerNovel.jpg, which I've just removed), all of them have some semblance of a source indicated, all of them have some semblance of a fair-use justification, and none of them seem to be surplus to the needs of the article. I should probably push to have the justifications be made more explicit. --Carnildo 09:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Image:PrisonerNovel.jpg really had me thinking "what the....?". So now it's gone, I will scratch my head no more. Thanks for the info - very helpful and greatly appreciated. Especially the search suggestions - areas I hadn't tried. Rossrs 10:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Given the slightly weary tone of your edit summary when objecting to the Ted Radcliffe FAC on the entirely valid grounds that a fair use rationale was not stated clearly, I suggest that you turn some of your attention to Wikipedia:Peer review so that more articles are improved in this way. —Theo (Talk) 00:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for suggesting it; I'll add that to my watchlist. It would help if people actually read the FAC requirements before listing -- I've seen articles go by with dubious fair use claims, with clearly incorrect license tags, with no copyright information at all, and even a few outright copyvios. --Carnildo 04:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully Peer Review might nip some problems in the bud. I've just listed Wikipedia:Peer review/Sunset Boulevard (film). I've been unable to find anything free use, and I've been searching for weeks. I don't think I'm going to find anything, so I have cut down the number of images that were previously in the article, to include only what I think is truly necessary. I have also added a rationale to each image description page. I wonder if you would mind having a look at it/them when you have the time. I'd value your opinion, particularly with the rationales. Thanks Rossrs 14:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed the points you raised on Peer Review - this is quite an interesting learning exercise. Also, thank you for your generous comments on the Autism FAC which, quite frankly, made my day. Rossrs 13:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for supporting the Ted Radcliffe FAC. I appreciate it all the more for your initial opposition. —Theo (Talk) 18:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The POV that was in Authentic Matthew, an article you voted to delete, before it was NPOVed has been re-created at a new article - see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The Original Gospel of Matthew. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 20:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have a response there. We can discuss it here if you'd like - I've searched several places and have been unable to find any viable images on the subject that are not copyrighted. --Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for supporting my recent RfA. I was surprised and humbled by the number of positives votes. I'll be monitoring RfA regularly from now on and will look for a chance to "pay it forward". Cheers, --MarkSweep 01:30, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I answered your objection. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:15, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the impersonal message, but you are one of a number of people who figure in recent events surrounding the deletion of VfD, a story about which will be in the upcoming The Wikipedia Signpost. A draft of the story is at User:Michael Snow/Deletion deletion. Please feel free to review it and point out any inaccuracies or misrepresentations you find. I would ask that rather than editing the story directly, if you could please direct any comments to the talk page. Thank you. --Michael Snow 23:33, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed all of the images at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates#List of Test cricket records as a number of people had the same concern as yourself. Would you reconsider your vote? -- Ian ≡ talk 01:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "preferences don't take effect" bugs are fixed now. I've also included some hacks to work around the chinese characters in opera, by setting simplePopups to true by default in that browser. Thanks for taking the time to report these problems! Lupin 13:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

oh, didn't even notice thanks for telling me, it should be fixed now. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 06:07, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

— Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 02:07, 20 August 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Sorry it's taken so long, I wanted to find a new picture, but I figured I should just borrow a barn before I forget. My tradition is to award everybody I vote adminship to an entire barn, since due to their new struggles they'll have to deal with with all us lowly users, they deserve something much bigger than a barnstar. So, please enjoy your new barn!

Karmafist 00:12, 25 August 2005 (UTC) [reply]