User talk:Custodiet ipsos custodes

Welcome!

Hello, Custodiet ipsos custodes, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  --HailFire 20:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Tsvangirai-beaten.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Abu badali ^(talk) 21:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Francke.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali ^(talk) 21:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded [1] There is no public domain photo of Rend al-Rahim Francke. She is normally on TV programs which are of course copyright. She has been to press conferences which are also attended by the media and are again copyright. I cannot take a picture of her myself. There is no freely available picture of her. I spent considerable time looking for one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Custodiet ipsos custodes (talk • contribs) 22:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I'm sure this person has an existence outside of tv sets and press conferences. Anyway, even in press conferences someone could take a picture and release under a free licensing. We have free images for a lot of celebrities. It's hard, but not impossible. Building a free encyclopedia is not an easy task. --Abu badali ^(talk) 23:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where should I go to get a free image of Rend al-Rahim Francke? I have looked all over th internet. I looked in the library. All photos were copyrighted. Dick Morris and Bill O'Reilly also use fair use copyrighted images. What is the difference? It is quite legal under fair use to use the photo I used. It conforms to the 1976 copyright act.Custodiet ipsos custodes 23:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No all legally usable images are allowed by our policy on unfree content. As we're building a free encyclopedia, we simply reject unfree images when there's some chance someone would produce a free alternative (as is the case with images of living people).

Don't feel frustrated for being unable to produce/find such free alternative. There's no policy saying every article needs an image. While no usable image is uploaded, the article may go without one. --Abu badali ^(talk) 23:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In all seriousness why is it ok to have a copyrighted image of Dick Morris and Bill O'Reilly but not Rend al-Rahim Francke? In both cases there are not public domain photos available.

It's not ok. --Abu badali ^(talk) 23:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

restart

It is legal under fair use to use a copyrighted photo of someone for scholarly use if no free image is available. According to you it should not be. However the US courts have clearly allowed it. Even wikipedia allows it. Wikinews:Image_copyright_tags

I quote:

"If this image is of a living person, it should not be used without first making an effort to find a free alternative (at the very least, search mayflower and yotophoto). Should you find and upload a free alternative, please label this image as depreciated."

You are in effect outright banning any fair use of a photo of a living person because maybe some time in the future, someone somewhere may obtain one. That is extreme. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Custodiet ipsos custodes (talk • contribs) 23:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You said "According to you it should not be" - That's inaccurate. I never proposed any chance to U.S. law.

You said "That is extreme" - This doesn't comes from me. Wikimedia Foundation has set this as a rule for all it's projects. See foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy (specially the passage on item #3 talking about "portraits of living notable individuals").

Also, Wikinews:Image copyright tags doesn't apply to the English Language Wikipedia. Wikinews is a different project and I, for one, don't take part on it.

--Abu badali ^(talk) 00:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you think that all regular photos of living people don't qualify under fair use please note the following about: Image:Tsvangirai-beaten.jpg

a) no public domain photo is available. b) This picture is of the injury of Tsvangirai. He got badly beaten up by the Zimbabwean government. He has since healed after he was in the hospital. The point of the photo was to illustrate the barbaric and illegal nature of the beatings. It also was trying to demonstrate that the demarcation between his head and face was blurred as a result of the beatings. The article talks about it. He also was hurt very badly in one eye. The photo shows that. A photo of him in the future like this will not be possible, because hopefully he will heal. Additionally people in Zimbabwe are very very poor. Its almost certain that no-one has a non copyrighted pic of him in this bad state. I know the Zimbabwean government tried to suppress all photos of him in this state for political purposes. To understand more please read the end of history of Zimbabwe.

Custodiet ipsos custodes 00:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may well be that this image is useful to the article, but it doesn't free us from the obligation to respect BBC's copyright. BBC has a business based on producing news. When we copy their work, we are replacing the original market value of the copyrighted work the paid to produce. This is a violation of item #2 of our policy on unfree content usage. Also, consider reading another policy called Wikipedia:Neutral point of view before adding bits about "barbaric and illegal" things to articles.

Best regards, --Abu badali ^(talk) 00:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You said "The BBC is not going to lose revenue over this.". This image, according to the logo at it's bottom right, is from Agence France-Presse, a news agency whose whole business model is based on licensing images like this one for a fee. Everytime one used one of it's images freely, it's lost revenue for them. --Abu badali ^(talk) 01:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong - major falacy. Most if not all people viewing the wikipedia article if they would not see the pic concerned would not choose to pay for it. Indeed media organizations buy the rights not individuals. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Its inclusion in wikipedia does not degrade its commercial value because it doesn't compete with its commercial value. Its commercial value is as news not as history. Many historians use images from the past under fair use. (Of course if this was a current affairs wiki that would be different entirely.)

Websites like Wikipedia are among AFP clients. The image commercial value to it's copyright holder, AFP, is of licensing this image to anyone iterested in a good illustration for a text about the event the image depicts.

I suggest you take your views and arguments to the deletion nomination discussion, where other could read it and judge the points. --Abu badali ^(talk) 02:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 23:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to drop a note that, yes, Abu badali has a point about some of the fair use issues. In my opinion, the beating picture may be okay since that at least depicts an event that won't happen again, but copyright images of living people are generally not permitted if the only use is to show what they look like, especially if that use competes with the copyright holder's ability to profit from their ownerhips of the image. Mangojuice 16:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding my two penn'orth to this. I've looked at the picture of Rend al-Rahim Francke, and your argument on the talk page of the image. It's just not arguable that she is impossible to photograph in my opinion. She seems to be an exceptionally public person. One thing that occurs to me is that, since the article mentions that Francke shared the First Lady's box with Laura Bush during the 2004 State of the Union address, there may well be public domain (US government) pictures of her. There could also be public domain pictures from her brief time as Iraqi ambassador to the United States. Finally if she's in and out of TV studios all the time it's impossible to argue that she's inaccessible. It should be easy enough to hang around outside Fox News or CBS or somewhere and get photographs. --Tony Sidaway 16:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that the images at Bill O'Reilly (commentator) are not actually comparable. They are copyrighted, yes. They depict him, yes. But they also depict him in a context that (1) is clearly more than merely decorative, (2) cannot be replaced with a free image, and (3) their use does not diminish the value of the original work, all three of which may be a concern for the Francke image.

If there was a good reason why it would be impossible or extremely hard for anyone to obtain a free image of Ms. Francke, that could be used as a good argument for not deleting this one. See, for instance, Image:JD Salinger.jpg for a case where this argument is appropriate. However, Ms. Francke, as far as any of us can tell, is not nearly the extreme hermit J. D. Salinger is, so I don't think it's at all correct to say that it's extremely hard for someone to obtain a free photo of her. I do concede, I'm sure it would be difficult for you if you don't live somewhere she frequently and openly visits. Have you tried writing to her and requesting a freely license photo? See Wikipedia:Boilerplate requests for permission for some boilerplate letters you might use in such a request.

I concede that I am not as familiar with fair use law as I am with Wikipedia's fair use policy, which is a different thing. Maybe your arguments would help Wikipedia win a copyright lawsuit over the use of this image, but that isn't the threshold on Wikipedia for whether we are willing to use fair use images or not. The threshold here is significantly more conservative. (Keep in mind, for instance, that Wikipedia is free for anyone to use, including for profit, for instance, see Answers.com. So just because Wikipedia isn't making money doesn't mean that no one else could be making money from the content.)

The policy here, in terms of images of living people, is that we don't use them unless it would be impossible or effectively impossible for Wikipedia to obtain a free image that serves the same purpose. I can't point you to anywhere in the law it says this is the only way we could do things legally, but I can point you to WP:NFCC which describes Wikipedia policies, and this post from Jimbo Wales who gets to make the rules when he wants to. Mangojuice^talk 21:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute 2 and 3:

(2) cannot be replaced with a fair image, and (3) their use does not diminish the value of the original work, all three of which may be a concern for the Francke image.

2. Why is bill oreilly so difficult by Rand Frank so easy?

3. The shot of Rand Frank is a screenshot from PBS. It is exactly the same as the one of O'reilly. Here it is. [2] The fact that a screen shot of a PBS program is available does not make the PBS program worth less. Also the shot of O'reilly is also a screenshot.

I also would like clarification on how hard it is for anyone to obtain a free image impinges on the subject. Does this mean that if a writer of an article cannot get a free image and someone else can, but chooses not to, then no copyrighted image can be used for fair use? Then whats the point of the criteria? Its pointless. I understood the criteria to refer to the general and realistic availability of a free image, not some hypothetical construct. Also how long has to pass before no free image is put up before we realize that getting one is too hard? The article started in June 2004. No-one has found a free image yet. How long do we wait? 5 years? 10 years? 50 years? Doesn't the fact that 3 years since the article was created and at least one editor has spent 3 months looking for an image have passed imply that perhaps its very hard to find one? I don't see a point of a policy that says you can't use fair use if hypothetically there might be a free image where all the real life evidence suggests there isn't. I am reminded about evidence of weapons in Iraq on this. I remember people saying ' just because we haven't found weapons 4 years later doesn't mean we wont in the future. Maybe in 25 years we will finally find them. This line of reasoning is bizarre.Custodiet ipsos custodes 22:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said, the burden here is the Wikipedia policy, not the bare minimum for legality (no one's accusing you of breaking a law here, just Wikipedia policy). And once again, the question isn't whether a replacement merely exists, it's whether one could be created. Mangojuice^talk 23:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's whether one could be created then fair use should never be allowed even for the dead, because someone might donate a photo of the deceased to the public domain. Remember for a free image to be created someone has to also release it to the public domain. Secondly whats the point of having a policy that says because something might be able to happen some time in the future, all fair use should be restricted with respect to the subject. Especially given that its highly unlikely that someone will release a pic and even if they do it might not be for decades. I understood the policy to mean that one 'could and would be likely' to be created. I do this because I understand the policy in a light that makes it make sense. Otherwise its a restriction without making much sense.Custodiet ipsos custodes 23:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, if the person is still alive, and worth having an image of, we should try to get one, because we can probably do so if we (as a whole project) try. No one will bother trying to get one if we can use a copyrighted one, though. So, we don't allow copyrighted ones in such circumstances. Mangojuice^talk 13:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
		Congrats on the new image. Great work! Mangojuicetalk 00:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! I'm sure this is just the first in a long series! --Abu badali ^(talk) 01:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a courtesy to other editors, it is a Wikipedia guideline to sign your posts on talk pages, user talk pages, and WikiProject pages. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments and your user name or IP address and the date will be automatically added along with a timestamp. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). For further info, read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 22:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thanks for obtaining permission to use Image:Francke 300.jpg. However, we really need an official record of the permission, and a statement that the image is released under the CC-BY-SA-2.5 or another suitable license. Could you please e-mail Ian Larsen again and ask him to e-mail a statement to permissions-en@wikimedia.org? Something like "I authorize the redistribution of http://www.usip.org/specialists/bios/current/images/francke_300.jpg under the terms of the CC-BY-SA-2.5" would be nice. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 20:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I will email him again. (I Included his email on the image page.) But I think the image is public domain anyway because USIP is founded and funded by the US congress.Custodiet ipsos custodes 16:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about all the legal aspects, but I think it's still possible for the image to be copyrighted. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 18:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I finally got permission a second time and he emailed permissions-en@wikimedia.org. See here for details [3] Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 19:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work. Thanks. --Tony Sidaway 19:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful, thank you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 20:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was used in an article and it was subsequently removed. I added it back.Custodiet ipsos custodes 04:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's not much point in replying to a bot... —Remember the dot ^(talk) 04:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hehe. Remember the dot, how did you know that I replied to it then?Custodiet ipsos custodes 04:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because your talk page is on my watchlist at the moment. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 04:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found a replacement photo from the MDC with Attribution 2.5 permission. So you can go ahead and delete Image:Morgan_Tsvangirai.jpg The new pic is Image:MorganTsvangirai new.jpg Custodiet ipsos custodes 05:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. BTW, nice job, again, finding free images. Have you considered uploading these two to commons? Commons houses images that can be accessed from all Wikipedias (and, I think, some other wiki projects too), but can only contain free images. If you want help, with it, I can help. Mangojuice^talk 11:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide more details about Image:MorganTsvangirai new.jpg? Did you get the permission to use under the CC-BY-2.5 by e-mail or is there a statement on the source web site? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 18:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have permission from both the website and by email. The only thing they insisted on was that they be attributed as the source which I took care of. I also emailed the permission to Wikipedia and posted it on the image page. Additionally what they did post on their website I put on the image page. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 17:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving Abu badali has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abu badali. You have expressed an interest in this before, so please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abu badali/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abu badali/Workshop.

Thanks, - Jord 16:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your (as usual) excellent edits to the History of Zimbabwe. Perspicacite 01:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your kind words. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 05:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Image:MorganTsvangirai new.jpg, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on [[Talk:Image:MorganTsvangirai new.jpg|the article's talk page]] explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. ShadowHalo 02:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simple: there was nothing wrong with how the debate went, so I see no reason the issue needs to be "appealed." I made the argument, it was clear, it was considered, but in the judgement of an independent, neutral admin, the argument wasn't convincing. Oh, and by the way, you should probably change your signature: right now the "talk" links to User talk:Example instead of here. Mangojuice^talk 03:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here, try this for your sig: [[User:Custodiet ipsos custodes|'''Custodiet ipsos custodes''']] <small>[[User talk:Custodiet ipsos custodes|''talk'']]</small>, which looks like Custodiet ipsos custodes talk, but links to your talk page. Mangojuice^talk 18:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Ruinssite_365.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me the 4 new sources which you had added?--Ksyrie 19:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sudan's Enablers "This funding came through our investments in companies such as Fidelity, which has major holdings in PetroChina and Sinopec -- two Chinese oil companies that have poured billions into Khartoum's coffers. At least 70% of Sudan's oil revenues have been used by Khartoum to purchase attack helicopters, Antonov bombers and small arms used to kill and inflict immeasurable suffering upon the population of Darfur."

I cann't see the link with the Khartoum buying weapons and the China and Russia undermining the sacntion.--Ksyrie 20:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See first link: China’s rise: Hope or doom for Africa? (III) "Amnesty International last month accused China of continuing to supply the Khartoum regime with arms in violation of an international embargo. Earlier this year the Chinese government even offered to increase military cooperation with Khartoum."

Again,what is the meaning of continuing,Do military cooperation and China and Russia undermining the sacntion state the same thing?--Ksyrie 20:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can LeBron save Darfur? " For more than a year, Sudan has resisted U.N. attempts to post a peacekeeping force in Darfur, where more than 200,000 ethnic Africans have died since a 2003 uprising. The government has shrugged off diplomatic gestures, foreign divestment campaigns, economic sanctions and entreaties from celebrity activists including Mia Farrow and George Clooney. Sudan has reason to listen to China, which has invested billions in Sudan's oil industry, buys two-thirds of its oil and sells the Sudanese army the weapons that end up in the hands of the murderous militias. But China is reluctant to pressure Sudan, so the strategy now is to pressure China."

Again,Do you want to extrepolate Sudan has reason to listen to China, which has invested billions in Sudan's oil industry, buys two-thirds of its oil and sells the Sudanese army the weapons that end up in the hands of the murderous militias to China and Russia undermining the sacntion?--Ksyrie 20:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why China Blocks Sanctions on Iran, Sudan, Burma "The People's Republic of China, a veto-wielding permanent member of the U.N. Security Council and one of the world's prolific arms producers, continues to remain a major stumbling block to U.S. efforts to impose economic and military sanctions on three countries: Sudan, Burma (Myanmar) and Iran.

"The reasons are obvious," says a Southeast Asian diplomat who closely monitors the politics in the region. "Just as much as the United States and other Western powers protect their own political and military interests worldwide, so does China." With the threat of its veto power, China has expressed strong reservations over recent U.S. and Western attempts to either penalise or impose sanctions against Sudan, Burma and Iran for various political reasons. But the 15-member Security Council has been unable to take any action against any of the three countries because of opposition from China or Russia -- or both. "

"According to the AI study, more than 200 Chinese military trucks -- normally fitted with U.S. Cummins diesel engines -- were shipped to Sudan last August, despite a U.S. arms embargo on both countries, and the involvement of similar vehicles in the killing and abduction of civilians in the politically-troubled Darfur. The study, titled "China: Sustaining Conflict and Human Rights Abuses", also cites regular Chinese military shipments to Myanmar, including the supply in August 2005 of 400 military trucks to the Burmese army despite its involvement in the torture, killing and forced eviction of hundreds of thousands of civilians."

It's not reliabe sources,something like a political blog.--Ksyrie 20:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is most certainly not some blog. It is part of the Global Policy Forum. It even has its own Wikipedia page. Note as well that the author is from the Inter American Press Association. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 20:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

China urges patience on Sudan, opposes sanctions " "New sanctions against Sudan would only complicate the issue," Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu told a regular news briefing. "China appeals to all parties to maintain restraint and patience." Beijing, which has veto power on the U.N. Security Council, is a major investor in Sudan's oil industry, sells Khartoum weapons and has invested heavily in its infrastructure. It also opposes sending U.N. peacekeepers to Darfur, where the United Nations estimates that fighting by government-linked militias and rebel groups has killed 200,000 people and forced 2 million more to flee their homes, without Khartoum's consent."

here,we talked about another things,it is not the arms embargo,but an economical sanction.Do not mess them up.--Ksyrie 20:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

China, Russia bar Sudan sanctions "Russia and China say they will oppose UN sanctions against four Sudanese officials accused of involvement in continuing violence in Darfur. Russia's UN envoy said the Security Council should delay sanctions until Sudan's talks with Darfur rebels reach an African Union deadline of 30 April. The Chinese UN envoy also said the time was not right for the measures proposed by the UK and the US." "Russia and China have long opposed sanctions against Sudan. Both have strong trade links with Khartoum."

Again and again,it is not the same sanction.Russia and China didn't oppose the arm embargo,but your wording mislead the readers to believe in it.--Ksyrie 20:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bush Announces New Economic Sanctions on Sudan to Halt Darfur Crisis "The U.S. Mission to the United Nations has already drafted a resolution and plans to start discussing it with allies on Tuesday, a Security Council diplomat said, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly on the issue. But a U.S.-backed sanctions resolution is expected to face a tough time in the council, not only because of longstanding opposition from China which has strong commercial ties with Sudan but because of the timing."

I am tired of wrangling,you took everything into one simple concept.--Ksyrie 20:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The R and C underming saction didnot relate to the arms used by Sudanese militia,so why bother remove it？--Ksyrie 21:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But you know,wikipedia is an encyclopedia，we try to make every clear,by your wording,it seems that China and Russia break the UN saction on the arms,which it's not the case.--User:Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 21:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors.

You have already broken this rule, but since you haven't (apparently) been given such a warning of the existance of this rule. Here it is :-)

We all have to abide by it - or be blocked for a period of time.

Please leave this message (you can cut away my personal comments) - so that other editors can see that you are aware of the policy. --Kim D. Petersen 20:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2 points:

1. Partial reversions were made but not in 24 hours. Rather they were made over a few days. Indeed each one compromised more.
2. The 'edit war' was with you kim. Isn't a bit self serving to point this out? Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 12:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. [4] [5] [6] [7] are all reverts or partial reverts within a 24 hour period.

The first one [8] was not a revert of a partial revert or anything relating to a revert. I added a dispute tag and a fact tag. Indeed I did this in effect saying "I am not going to change what is on the page for the time being but I am going to point out that what is there is factually false." This was done out of courtesy so as not to revert anything. I did not do place any tags on the page prior to that time. There is something else here too. If someone says that there is a preliminary study about X on a relevant Wikipedia page, there is no valid argument in censoring it. I found the whole debate very distasteful. I have not seen such virulent refusal to accept a reliable source in Wikipedia before. I saddens me. This is the type of thing that climate skeptics do. It should not be the type of thing that those looking for credible scientific evidence do. I was not born yesterday and it was quote obvious that games were played for ideological reasons in trying to supress information. That is the complete opposite of the reason d'etre of Wikipedia. Yes there is a 3 revert rule in play, there are also other important ideas like not censoring the truth. Indeed a while ago I even put a comment on the page looking for more generally up to date data [9]. That was my intention. That was why I added the stuff about China. I added this because I genuinely wanted and still want to educate the world about carbon dioxide emissions. (In fact I am not a skeptic, quite the contrary - in my humble opinion there is a huge weight of evidence pointing towards global warming from emissions. The more accurate data we get out the more possible it might be to get people to take appropriate action.) And all I got was unreasonable resistance. Well I don't plan on editing that page soon, I am done with it. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 20:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. Yes it was with me, and since i've already been warned about 3RR - i am aware, and can be blocked according to the 3RR rule. The difference here is that you (apparently) weren't aware, and therefore had no responsibility (according to the rules). Its just a warning to make you aware of the rules that we all have to play by.

As said before - just delete everything except the notice of the 3RR warning - so that other editors do not need to warn again :-) --Kim D. Petersen 17:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't copy text from other web sites without permission. Minor changes to text does not avoid copyright infringement. Your contribution is still an obvious copy of [10]: for example, the sentence that begins "The Boys' Welfare Association widened its focus". Please contribute only material you wrote yourself or that has been explicitly contributed by its author. Thanks! Crimethinker 00:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed the example you gave and made some further changes. Given how many changes I have now made I would hardly call them minor. Please note that as of my last edit none of the sentences in the history start with same words of those of the original source. Also note that I have used four separate sources and combined their information. Indeed the history as it is currently constructed is now quite distinct.

I assume that you do not suppose that a restating of the facts from the original sources using different words is not copyright infringement. Correct? Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 16:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I just added the "permission" tag to three images you uploaded for the Darfur conflict article. "Permission" images (i.e. "you have my permission to use this image on Wikipedia") are not allowed on Wikipedia.

If the image is indeed a CC-by-sa image then please remove my permission tags and remove the permission information from the page, as well as the caption information in the Darfur conflict article.

Thanks - Tempshill —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 21:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Sorry this has been distressing. When Amnesty wrote, "only be used by you in the way you have outlined it in the mail below - the permission on Wikipedia should reflect these conditions", it's clear to me they were not going so far as to release the photos under the GFDL or a Creative Commons license. This was a permission letter.

What I would do in your situation is when asking for people to release photos, just ask them to release the photo under the GFDL or under one of the appropriate Creative Commons licenses. I would bury the mention of Wikipedia, and I would especially not copy and paste the big paragraph, because people are busy, they won't read it, and they will jump to the conclusion (as this guy did) that you're merely asking for permission to post it on Wikipedia, rather than asking him to give up nearly all his property rights in the photographs permanently, which is what you are actually doing.

I would probably ask by writing something like: I'd like you to release this photo under the CC-by-SA license (with a link) so that it can be legally posted on websites worldwide, including places like Wikipedia, and this will help your cause by publicizing the Darfur situation, etc. If you don't release the photo under a license like this or like the GFDL then it's technically illegal for me or other activists to spread the word by utilizing your photo. Then when they say OK then it will be clear what their intention was, and we'll be clear to host it here. Tempshill 17:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Attrocity1.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 13:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three reasons:

• Inconsistent spelling style
• Unnecessary addition of section titles
• There is a separate article for Zimbabwe's economic history
• Keep in mind I only reverted your very last edit. Jose João (talk) 00:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I re-added the photos - I agree with that. I actually dont mind if you change to American spelling - but other editors may complain per - WP:ENGVAR. The section titles are fine when there is a sizable amount of content for them, but... there just isnt that much info so the sectioning is... pointless. Jose João (talk) 01:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the economic history - it's fine to include it, but adding separate sections for the economy for every decade is excessive - especially considering how little info there is at the moment. Jose João (talk) 01:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 17:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I vociferously dispute your implication of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. I have no POV on Migrationwatch. If you look back at the edits over the last year you will notice that I carefully balanced the article. Indeed I was the primary editor involved in lengthening it from a stub. A few examples:

1. I showed how MigrationWatch had documented abuse of the asylum system.

2. I stated both sides of the issue of deporting criminals liable to future torture.

3. I wrote "Its defenders claim its warnings have been vindicated and that MigrationWatch's research has opened up the debate on immigration for the first time since the late 1960s.[34] They also claim that MigrationWatch is merely advocating a legitimate position that net immigration to the UK is to the country's detriment."

If you look earlier in the discussion section you will see I also wrote:

IMHO one of the reasons this subject is so difficult is that merely admitting that one has a political agenda effects how the issue is seen. If it was health care no-one is too ashamed of admitting where on the political spectrum they are and how it informs their viewpoint. Here however if one admits one's viewpoint one loses respectability and politcal support. So many want to play games and pretend they are only looking at objective data. Additionally this question effects questions of self and group identity which are quite primal and not susceptible to rational logic.

On the flip side quite often there is evidence that the immigration numbers are much higher than predicted. Thus it is legitimate to ask a government to explain that they said only x people would come when 10 times x did come.

But even this is complicated by the fact that the UK's economy is booming partly as a result of migration. Opponents might sometimes ask about the permanent consequence on the culture of the UK. But this too muddy water. Aren't people entitled to adopt a culture of their choosing so long as it is lawful? Do those who oppose immigration think they can mandate what the culture of the country should be? Yet here still the situation is complex in that cultural cohesion provides people with a sense of well being, low crime and social cohesion. Some people may say that they will be miserable if the culture quickly changes due to an influx of newcomers. Perhaps their happiness should be weighed in the equation? This contradicts somewhat with the liberty of the individual even if they obey the law. Well perhaps we can, as objectively as possible, explore these issues, and try to document this cultural and political conflict.

It has been my sincere effort to write an article that is neutral. Recently the article was rewritten so that it was grossly biased in favor of MigrationWatch. Furthermore I have addressed the issues of Wikipedia:No original research. Indeed a number of other editors validated the paragraphs. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 18:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are some people now working on Talk who probably agree with many of your thoughts. At present I think that the article is too long and expounds MW's viewpoint in too much detail. For a while the article seemed to be suffering from promotional editing by people who were sympathetic to MW. That's why the case came to WP:COIN originally. I agree with Gordon that the two sections you wanted to restore appear to be WP:SYN, however. Material that doesn't talk about MW specifically shouldn't be in the article. I don't see that the balance has been reached yet. EdJohnston (talk) 18:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simply put in the following analogy:

x is a type of A. Expert Bob claims all type A have characteristic p. To then say that according to Bob, x has characteristic p is not novel or an original synthesis. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 19:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current text of WP:NOR doesn't support your view. At present, Expert Bob's opinion of the As can't be applied to x unless Bob himself mentions x. If you think this is too limiting, you could join in on the policy's Talk page to try to get the policy changed. EdJohnston (talk) 20:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please show me where in WP:NOR the case as discussed above would not be acceptable. As of right now I see no problem with the case above. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 20:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 00:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Polly (Parrot) 00:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I stated that Ng Swan Ti from Oxfam created the content. Your bot is in error. Image:Yvo de Boer.jpg is from flickr. See here[11]

It has a CC Attribution 2.0 Generic license.

I don't understand why you are trying to delete it. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 18:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See my response to the message you left on my talk page (diff) and also the message I'd previously left, just below. Ha! (talk) 20:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a source [12]. Please consider uploading images to Wikimedia Commons instead if they have an appropriate cc license, as they can then be used on more projects. If you need a hand or any advice on how to do that, feel free to ask. Ha! (talk) 04:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've corrected [13] the format of the rationale in this image. The <PRE> tags are only used on Wikipedia:Non-free_use_rationale_guideline so that you can copy and paste the premade template, not to be used on the image page as well. I've a couple of questions about the image

• Do you think it's possible there may be a free image somewhere that depicts that conflict?
• What's the source (where did you get it from, web site, book etc?) as that info should be added, as well as sources for the descriptions "Three women murdered by guerrillas during the Bush War" and "Two children and a raped women, part of a large group, murdered by ZAPU terrorists during the Bush War" (the descriptions are slightly different though so they should be corrected or consistent)
• In what way is it representative of the History of Rhodesia and useful in that article?
• Why is it a massacre?
• Do you think the name of the image could be more NPOV?

Thanks. Ha! (talk) 05:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re this edit. As this is a contentious topic, bring it to the Talk page before you add it. There is no rule at all saying "sections that have secondary sources should not be delted" - whatever that is - "without consensus". If those sources are used to construct WP:SYNTH, as appears to be the case here, there's no reason why that synthesis can't be binned. Bring it to Talk:MigrationWatch UK and we can work on it. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I have tried to emphasize several times the paragraphs I added do not conflict with WP:SYNTH. I already stated my reasons. These paragraphs were accepted as such by a consensus of the editors.

WP:SYNTH states

"Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position."

I am not trying here to build a case using various sources. I am indeed laying out Legrain's position. I can sum this up as follows:

1. The LeGrain article explicitly mentions MigrationWatch and thus when it refers to "intelligent advocates" it is referring to Migrationwatch and other such organizations.

2. x is a type of A. Expert Bob claims all type A have characteristic p. To then say that according to Bob, x has characteristic p is not novel or an original synthesis. The reason for the ban on the synthesis of published material serving to advance a position is because it reflects an opinion that is new. The opinion I quote is that of Legroin. It is not new.

Given that it is not a violation of WP:SYNTH, given that the paragraphs are based directly on secondary sources and given that they are based on the consensus you should not delete them before obtaining a consensus from the other editors. As I stated earlier in Talk:MigrationWatch UK I have sought to create a balanced article that puts both sides of view. The immigration debate is very contentious. The best NPOV path I can think of is to let both sides speak for themselves. That is what I have tried and continue to endeavor to do.Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 04:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:British South Africa Company 1889.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sdrtirs (talk) 08:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've uploaded File:MigrationWatch UK logo.gif, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article after an editor placed a reassessment tag on the article talk page. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. I have found a number of concerns which you can see at Talk:War in Darfur/GA1. I have delisted the article as it is not in a good state. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tess Holliday, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Infowars. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nexus 6P, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fps. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]