User:Feydey/Talk archive 13

File source problem with File:Rammersand.jpg

I have done some changes to the licensing please have a look. Its been shot my cell phone :) Vertical.limit (talk) 15:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Wighnomy2.jpg

Hey there,

I am pending on permission from the "Speaking In Code" filmmaker, Amy Grill, to use this image on the Wighnomy Brothers entry. Until I have confirmation, I will delete the image from the wiki and re-upload with the proper license.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwearshoess (talk • contribs) 17:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Permission granted

I have just forwarded you a personal mail sent to me by administrator of "daivajna.org" granting me the permission to upload pictures from their website.Please do check!

Thanks!

Gautamgoa1984 (talk) 05:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Template talk:F1 team

Hi,

Why was this deleted? When a page is moved, isn't it sensible to leave the previous page as a redirect to the new one? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Per CSD#G8 talk pages are deleted when the main page is deleted. Best, feydey (talk) 19:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Right, yes. The thing is, it was really merged and not deleted. I've re-added the redirect. Cheers. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Permission granted

I have just forwarded you a personal mail sent to me by administrator of kalikadevikasarpal.com granting me the permission to upload pictures from their website.Please do check!

Thanks!

Gautamgoa1984 (talk) 04:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Note

Thanks for your message on uploading the highest resolution images. As an aside, could you please delete these 4 wiki images which have been moved to Commons under slightly different names:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Scolanova_synagogue.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:San_Fernando.JPG

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IMG_0250.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ierapetra.JPG

Thank You very much, Regards from Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Kudaldeshkar Adya Gaud Brahmins(Ajgaonkar,Thakur,Khanolkar,Samant, Bawkar, Desai,dabholkar....etc.)

Hi Gautam,

I see you had removed Kudaldeshkar as one of the sub sects of Goud Saraswats. Can you please mention the reason.

Thanks, Suresh Prabhu

Note

I could not know about the duplicate image on the Bective Abbey. There was no link to it on Wikipedia, I don't think. I tried to transfer the image and it said another different looking image file with the same exists on Commons. That was why I chose 2006. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• I checked and can confirm that this image: [1] is not the same as the one I transferred: [2] The image resolution is completely different and so is the angle of the photograph. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

New Harvest logo

How should I upload this so that it is not deleted? The head of the organization gave me permission to upload the logo as I mentioned in the summary. There should be no reason to delete it, and my apologies for not uploading it under the correct criteria if I did indeed do so. [3] --Gloriamarie (talk) 03:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Pictures deleted

Hello,

Can you please tell me the reasons why you deleted the pictures uploaded to illustrate the Vionnet section?

Best,

AugustaAugustaboulanger (talk) 11:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Suspicious uploads

Can you take a look at this users uploads, they all seem rather suspicious, relatively small size lack of meta data etc. Thank you. Polly (Parrot) 17:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Dancedancerevolutioncover.jpg

Okay, I've always been able to get rid of duplicates that way before.  ^{æronphonehome}  05:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Anna Ryder

Can you expand on why you declined speedy deletion of Anna Ryder. I'm not seeing how this musician can meet WP:BAND or WP:BIO. There are no references in the article and the article characterizes her as someone who "sporadically works", not things that indicate notability. I've found some mentions of her in the press but they are generally about other bands and not ones where she is the subject.--RadioFan (talk) 13:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Speedy is for clearly nn people articles, in this case it's claimed that the artist has released at least 2 albums and toured with a notable group. So in this case the speedy wasn't so clear cut. Use PROD or Afd if needed. feydey (talk) 15:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Images

Hi can you please explain why you deleted the following images:

File:Ísbjörn.jpg
File:Umbuster.jpg
File:Sruli recht 09.jpg
File:Buckleless Belt.jpg

What information do I need to provide you with to be allowed to post these. The author has granted me the permission to use the images and I can provide you with this should you require it.

Avimonster (talk) 13:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is the copy of the email that I have received from Sruli Recht. If you provide me with your email address I can forward you the original copy.

Hi Avimonster,

thanks for the mail. You have permission to use any image on the site for wikipedia - Let me know if you need a different resolution.

Attached is a portrait from January 16 this year by Samantha West.

best

sruli

SRULI RECHT

~

Reykjavik ::

srulirecht.com

avimonster wrote:

Hi Sruli,

Can you please provide me with the permission to use images from your website on Wikipedia. Can you also please provide me with a more recent portrait ::that I can use.

Regards,

avimonster

Please respond so that I can re-upload these photos. Avimonster (talk) 19:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

AirFrance F-BVGG Cn019

Hi Feydey. I would just too have clarity on why the AirFrance F-BVGG Cn019 image was deleted. I did get permission from the author, and I did send it to the OTRS team. I am not looking for trouble, would just like to know what I did wrong. Kind regards, LouriePieterse 20:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The Waiting Four

Are you going to delete The Waiting Four again? You are unkind, unfair, and a power hungry bastard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.26.49.208 (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Pershing Map?

Wow - it's interesting that wikipedia's desire for images to remain free makes it so limited. I suppose there's a price to freedom...

So, what do I need to do to make this free? Should I contact the person whose site it came from - and what do they need to do to explicate that it is indeed free?

Also - how does this stuff work with maps? Couldn't I just create one on my own, and maybe alter it a little, because the map would be literally exactly the same. This is something I've always wondered, and will be applicable to work I do in the future with GIS.

thanks

NittyG (talk) 04:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Feyday - because you never responded, I uploaded it again. I do not know why it doesn't fit the criteria, and that needs to be discussed. Please furthermore tell me what I need to do to make it fit criteria. I will keep uploading it until someone responds to me. Thanks

The image [4]

NittyG (talk) 23:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Use a copyright license when uploading.feydey (talk) 23:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I responded on my talk page. As I said there:

You know, it would in general be a lot more beneficial to wikipedia if people were helped in these circumstances. Wikipedia is about collaboratively working together on articles. Are there message boards to discuss these things? Do you have a link to the policy page for how images are to be deleted? I appreciate your input, but would appreciate it in general if people worked with others rather than simply deleting what was put up. For the sake of wikipedians and wikipedia, when deleting an image, it would be helpful to give clear and specific reasons why the image was deleted, along with specific links to the specific policies that address each reason, and if helpful, what needs to be done to make it fit the criteria..

NittyG (talk) 00:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Since you deleted some recent copyvio images uploaded by Princeofdark07 (talk · contribs), can you also take a look at this related ANI report ? Abecedare (talk) 10:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Heads up

One to keep an eye on, I think: [5]. Don't know if he was temporarily upset about your declining this speedy or if he perhaps has a match somewhere that has a grudge against you. Of course, I reverted his refactoring of your comments (and left him a level 3 vandalism warning), as well as undoing a change here that contradicts the cited source. But I didn't remove the CSD from the redirect, since I am (in a strange way) its creator. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea of what you speak. I am 76 years old. This haphazard message as it appears here is a trimuph of chance. The pictures I uploaded to "William Lee Stoddart" are authentic, of long dead people, and I may be the only grandchild of WLS. We have said that these photos date from 1921, but that is an estimate.

If you find that there are living relatives of WLS (a very famous man) it would be interesting to hear about it.

You need not threaten again. If you want to remove the picture of a public man ?????

plumalley —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plumalley (talk • contribs) 22:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Copyright

Excuse me for the images without copyrights; I read about the rules but, there are thousand of those images with no info about the copyrights, so they must not be uploaded at all? However, about the Kawase image I specified "(Xinhua/Reuters Photo)", the rights belong to the Reuters company. In that case, is it enough to write "(Xinhua/Reuters Photo) copyright 2007"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan8700 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Copyright

Alright, I'll try to understand better the rules for general images. However, for instance, take this page: [[6]]. Most of all "This image is subject to copyright by Warner Bros. Records, but it is covered by U.S. fair use laws because:". Also my two cover images respect those points, so if I write those sentences the images will be "legal"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan8700 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Please use Wikipedia:Media copyright questions for specific copyright and image related questions. Thank You. feydey (talk) 20:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Ciao

for full comment click show

After nine months of dedicated work on writing a several articles within my area of expertise (geomorphology, hydrogeology, hydrology, hydrography, environmental geography; and narrower: rivers, rivers ecology, rivers flora & fauna, Dinaric karst rivers, fields, mountains, and ecology - and related theme) , I finally decided its quite enough for me, as I never expected nor ask for anything not even for word of encouragement, instead I end up harassed, insulted and humiliated at such extent that I ask my self is this place (en.wikipedia) really what it say it is or place of sadistic manifestation of egomanias of sociopaths who can't cope with their Admin prerogatives. This situation was last drop for me, all that I wrote in my explanation about my images is significantly less important, meaningful and worty then "proves" provided by Admins Nja247 and Martin H. So, I am considered fraud by few "almighty" virtual persons (with invisible credentials I must add), that enjoy their Adminship and use it to separate their caste of almighty from us, common contributors which walk tin line anyway, line between contributors easely becoming frauds and vandals. Especially interesting is last post of Martin H. who harassed me deep into night for several hours, only to conclude that if I am certain person he will revert his decision and we should forget harassment and huge humiliation That I have to sufer. Well It happend to be that I am that person and my humiliation was unecessary, so his sugestion came too late, instead helping me to lable my images properly and finding a way to designate pics properly as my own work, he blatantly exercised his "powers" and successfully send me off. In four decades of my scientific workings I encountered all kind of hardship and obstacles, but never an inconvenient discomfort and distress of this nature. What is enough is enough! --Santasa99 (talk) 20:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Eric Raymond, the open-source pioneer whose work inspired Wales, argues that “ ‘disaster’ is not too strong a word” for Wikipedia. In his view, the site is “infested with moonbats.” (Think hobgoblins of little minds, varsity division.) He has found his corrections to entries on science fiction dismantled by users who evidently felt that he was trespassing on their terrain. “The more you look at what some of the Wikipedia contributors have done, the better Britannica looks,” Raymond said. He believes that the open-source model is simply inapplicable to an encyclopedia.

---

For all its protocol, Wikipedia’s bureaucracy doesn’t necessarily favor truth. In March, 2005, William Connolley, a climate modeller at the British Antarctic Survey, in Cambridge, was briefly a victim of an edit war over the entry on global warming, to which he had contributed. After a particularly nasty confrontation with a skeptic, who had repeatedly watered down language pertaining to the greenhouse effect, the case went into arbitration. “User William M. Connolley strongly pushes his POV with systematic removal of any POV which does not match his own,” his accuser charged in a written deposition. “His views on climate science are singular and narrow.” A decision from the arbitration committee was three months in coming, after which Connolley was placed on a humiliating one-revert-a-day parole. The punishment was later revoked, and Connolley is now an admin, with two thousand pages on his watchlist—a feature that enables users to compile a list of entries and to be notified when changes are made to them. He says that Wikipedia’s entry on global warming may be the best page on the subject anywhere on the Web. Nevertheless, Wales admits that in this case the system failed. It can still seem as though the user who spends the most time on the site—or who yells the loudest—wins...excerpt by Stacy Schiff

---

When you put it all together, the story become clear: an outsider makes one edit to add a chunk of information, then insiders make several edits tweaking and reformatting it. In addition, insiders rack up thousands of edits doing things like changing the name of a category across the entire site — the kind of thing only insiders deeply care about. As a result, insiders account for the vast majority of the edits. But it’s the outsiders who provide nearly all of the content. And when you think about it, this makes perfect sense. Writing an encyclopedia is hard. To do anywhere near a decent job, you have to know a great deal of information about an incredibly wide variety of subjects. Writing so much text is difficult, but doing all the background research seems impossible. On the other hand, everyone has a bunch of obscure things that, for one reason or another, they’ve come to know well. So they share them, clicking the edit link and adding a paragraph or two to Wikipedia. At the same time, a small number of people have become particularly involved in Wikipedia itself, learning its policies and special syntax, and spending their time tweaking the contributions of everybody else. Other encyclopedias work similarly, just on a much smaller scale: a large group of people write articles on topics they know well, while a small staff formats them into a single work. This second group is clearly very important — it’s thanks to them encyclopedias have a consistent look and tone — but it’s a severe exaggeration to say that they wrote the encyclopedia. One imagines the people running Britannica worry more about their contributors than their formatters. And Wikipedia should too. Even if all the formatters quit the project tomorrow, Wikipedia would still be immensely valuable. For the most part, people read Wikipedia because it has the information they need, not because it has a consistent look. It certainly wouldn’t be as nice without one, but the people who (like me) care about such things would probably step up to take the place of those who had left. The formatters aid the contributors, not the other way around!

---

Letters Special Smart mobs? Wise crowds? An open access internet encyclopedia that heals itself? File it all under 'flying saucers', say Register readers.
But something is changing since we last wrote about Wikipedia a year ago. Even project founder Jimmy Wales has been obliged to admit its entries are "a horrific embarrassment". Readability, which wasn't great to begin with, has plummeted. Formerly coherent and reasonably accurate articles in the technical section have gotten worse as they've gotten longer. And most interesting of all, the public is beginning to notice. While a year ago, misgivings in our postbag were swamped by 'pediaphiles rushing to defend the project, the ratio has flipped. While Wikipedia still has its defenders, there's a palpable relief that its shortcomings are finally being given the criticial eye. Mainstream media coverage of Wikipedia until now has rarely portrayed it as anything other than a miracle, and either ignores or rapidly glosses over quality issues. Nicholas Carr, who drew attention to the deep problems with and religious enthusiasm for Wikipedia with his essay The Amorality of Web 2.0, has noticed the same thing in his mailbag. It's been unexpectedly positive, he says. "Most of my correspondents have that sense of relief that it's being criticized," he told us last week. "People are naturally skeptical, but have come to fear their skepticism. Now people are being emboldened to be skeptical. It's a nagging voice they've been trying to ignore." Britannica spokesman Tom Panelas also finds that the "taboo of criticizing" Wikipedia in the press - by "reporters who have suspended disbelief and become embedded", isn't widely shared by the public. More from the Britannica shortly, but first, your letters. One reason for the change over twelve months soon becomes apparent from your missives. While we focused on the bad writing last week, the reliability of the entries is more serious. We increasingly hear of experts who attempt to contribute to the project being repelled. If you're an expert, and you want to help Wikipedia, be prepared for months of fighting - usually with people who don't know what they're talking about. As Jason Scott put it - "This is what the inherent failure of Wikipedia is. It's that there's a small set of content generators, a massive amount of wonks and twiddlers, and then a heaping amount of procedural whackjobs. And the mass of triddlers and procedural whackjobs means that the content generators stop being so and have to become content defenders. Woe be that your take on things is off from the majority. Even if you can prove something, you're now in the situation that anybody can change it." "And while that's all great in a happy-go-lucky flower shower sort of way, it's when you realize that the people who are going to change it could have absolutely no experience with the subject whatsoever, then you see where we are." [see 'The Great Failure of Wikipedia' Pt.1 and Pt.2. Illuminata analyst Gordon Haff has watched one entry deteriorate over time, and it's a perfect example. As he writes here, the entry for Data General's AViiON servers was rife with howling errors, and the Data General article still is. Although he pitched in to help - he was a product manager on the AViiON - it was hard work. "It's also interesting to observe in the main Data General article how many "futzing around" edits there are. A link polished here, a comma there, etc. Yet this article as a whole is incredibly poorly organized with no real narrative flow. And what storyline exists is wrong in significant ways; it's not even internally consistent," he writes. "The whole lock-in or no lock-in paragraph is 75% nonsense (it seems to imply that DG went to Unix because it couldn't afford to develop a SQL database? Yet, further down the article correctly notes that DG HAD a SQL database already.) The AViiON section mixes timeframes and contains multiple out-and-out errors, etc. (I suspect that the first couple of sections source their information largely from Soul of A New Machine and seem fairly accurate and cogent, but then it falls apart.) But that would all take work and expertise to fix." "Easier to twiddle than create," he concludes. "There's a special skepticism and habits of mind that good editors have, and it takes a long time to learn, and you can sense it when it's absent," suggests Britannica's Tom Panelas. "A hundred amateurs will miss important errors that one trained professional will find." This doesn't come as a surprise to anyone except the project's fans, for whom it is a religious endeavor. But the ex-Pedians proliferate.

- By Andrew Orlowski -

I am glad you are writing about this subject. At first I thought Wikipedia was a great idea and started writing about the subjects I know with an academic take on them. As I have been close to some political movements and am pursuing an academic career in political history, I figured I would have something to contribute. In the end I couldn't recognise my articles after about a week, and a few months later there was nothing left of them, having sufferd zillions of re-edits, irrelevant sentence adding and re-writes due to NPOV actually meaning MPOVNSE -my point of view, not someone elses. So as you can imagine, as I didn't really feel like wasting my time, I just gave up and let the idiots who THOUGHT they knew something about the subject or those with a vested interest in making things look good take the helm.

- By Misha Dellinger -

Collective intelligence? Er, Don't you mean collective stupidity? None of us is as dumb as all of us or "Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups" - Despair.com

- By Henry Schlarb -

Your Baby Washington example highlights the problem I've always wondered about with the "you can fix it yourself" attitude - if you don't know about a subject then you won't know that it's incorrect. And if you already know enough about a subject to be able to recognise and correct an incorrect wiki entry, then you probably won't need to be looking it up in the first place. Which means that since anyone needing accurate information cannot rely on it, the only real use for wiki as it is now is for "experts" to show off their knowledge and/or pour derision on others for their lack thereof. Although the people who are actually expert in anything useful will of course not be participating as they'll be too busy getting paid for their expertise to write entries for real encyclopedias - the success of wiki relies on people willingly putting themselves out of a job out of the kindness of their own hearts! That said, if I ever need to know anything about Klingon, wiki will be the first place I look... right after I hurl myself in front of a moving train.

- By Matt Javes -

calculated by taking its average and then dividing by the number comprising it. As far as he was concerned, any sizable group had less intelligence than a flatworm....

- By JB Kelley -

I once heard that the way to calculate the collective intelligence of a group was to take the intelligence of the least intelligent member of the group and divide by the number of members in the group... That could explain alot about the quality issues with wikipedia :-)

- By Stacey Millions -

I tend to regard Wikipedia as the ultimate monkeys generating Shakespeare experiment, so I'm largely in agreement with you. As for Britannica, though, one thinks of Christopher Tietjens in Ford Maddox Ford's Some Do Not - with a hobby of logging all the errors in it.

- By George Jansen -

Glad to see the rubbish that is Wikipedia is finally being highlighted. With an encyclopedia you are talking about *absolute* quality. If your encyclopedia is meant to be a serious reference work then nothing should come higher than quality and the accuracy of entries. Wikipedia is fatally flawed because of its "come hither" approach - there is no system of peer review, no system to rate and appraise the quality of entries and no system to determine the fitness someone has for editing or creating entries.

- As Carr said "...an encyclopedia is best judged by its weakest entries rather than its best." -

The fact that Wikipedia lets people write rubbish and then legitimises the propagation of said rubbish makes us all poorer. Wikipedia is letting itself stand for insularity, trivia and subjectivity. It seems pretty unlikely to me any serious an encyclopedia needs entries on something as pitiful as "Klingon" - another cultural cul-de-sac which also, quite frankly, demonstrates the hold suburban America has on these reference works. Unfortunately by its nature, Wikipedia under-estimates the effort actually involved in creating an authoratative encyclopedia - a true encyclopedia is an enormous undertaking by any measurement. Single entries may take months to write before they are even sent for review by people with legitimate expertise, either through their experience or qualifications. Just having a keyboard and Internet connection shouldn't grant that kind authority. Perhaps Wikipedia should look to the world of peer-reviewed journals to get an appreciation of how knowledge needs to be filtered and distilled and even argued over before what your writing is fit for consumption.

- By Kevin Hall -

I believe that the tone of the article is quite demeaning and misses out on the one indisputable quality that Wikipedia has brought into being. Now, thanks to the convergence of a million monkeys typing on a million keyboards, and after more than two millennia of breathless waiting, we finally have a modern, technologically advanced and incredibly complex version of the stables of Augias. One can only wonder, amazed by this Babel tower of Klingonesque beauty, if and where from will our modern Heracles will emerge, to transform this gem of astounding impurity into something worthy of the name "encyclopaedia". As for me, I won't hold my breath for it.

- By Pascal Monnett -

Few excerpts with several letters from: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/24/wikipedia_letters/page3.html http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/07/31/060731fa_fact http://www.aaronsw.com

---

Horst Prillinger - "...Wikipedia generates noise, not knowledge. Previous encyclopedias were well-researched and contained precise information that could be trusted to be correct. Wikipedia, on the other hand, contains a large amount of errors, omissi.."
This coming from someone I have learned to know as a fierce defender of open access to knoledge, the state of Wikipedia must be really bad indeed. In general, I fancy the idea of a public space where you can share your knowledge, and what is more, find interesting information. However, if Wikipedia works this way, it is really a place of opininion and not of knowledge. The basic principles of scientific work *must* apply for a publication which calls itself "encyclopedia". Wikipedia, the free "online encyclopedia" has been hailed as the greatest thing since sliced bread. Anybody can access it free of charge, anyone can add to it, and there's any entry for everything. Right? It turns out that the great advantage of the Wikipedia, the wiki format, which allows everybody to add/edit everything, is also its greatest disadvantage. There are a few topics that I care about, a few of which I actually contributed to the German version of Wikipedia. Watching these entries change over the past few months, I noticed the following tendencies: Most contributions are poorly researched, or not researched at all. Accuracy depends mostly on the one website from which the contributor copied the information. A substantial amount of Wikipedia entries contains information that I know to be incorrect. There is no editorial selection. Some entries just grow and grow because some enthusiast who has no sense for what's important and what's not keeps adding pointless stuff to some entries. Due to extensive linkage within Wikipedia itself, a growing number of badly researched, incorrect Wikipedia articles is pushing down well-researched specialist websites in Google rankings. Text and concepts for Wikipedia entries are often blatantly copied from other websites. To avoid instant recognition, the text is sometimes rewritten, adding inaccuracies, inconsistencies or even errors. Due to the nature of the content and the open format of Wikipedia, no copyright holder can do anything about this. Wikipedia generates noise, not knowledge. Previous encyclopedias were well-researched and contained precise information that could be trusted to be correct. Wikipedia, on the other hand, contains a large amount of errors, omissions and superfluous trivia. Basically, what is happening here is the building of a parallel World Wide Web inside the wikipedia.org domain and calling it an "encyclopedia", which is a total perversity. Just making it searchable and giving it an encyclopedia-like structure doesn't make its content any less fluffy, error-ridden and amateurish than any other website. I hope that in a few years it will be so bloated that it will simply disintegrate, because I can't stand the thought that this thing might someday actually be used as a serious reference source. Because in its current form, it's not to be taken serious at all.

---

Robert McHenry on the Encyclopedia entry
Reading the entry on "encyclopedia" leaves one with the impression that it was written by someone who had no previous knowledge of the subject and who, once he got into it, found it did not interest him very much. He browsed here and there in one or more reference works and noted what seemed important, but had no understanding of the cultural and historical contexts involved. In other words, it is a school essay, sketchy and poorly balanced. The article is of modest length at 2,000 words (compare Britannica's corresponding article at about 26,000 words). The longest discussion of a particular work is of Thomas Browne's Pseudodoxia Epidemica, hardly an encyclopedia at all. The 120-odd words on Browne contrast oddly with the treatment given what was arguably the most influential encyclopedia in European history: "The French translation of [Chambers] was the inspiration of the Encyclopédie, perhaps the most famous early encyclopedia, edited by Jean le Rond d'Alembert and Denis Diderot and published from 175 [sic] to 1772 in 28 volumes, 71,818 articles, 2,885 illustrations." Was it famous for the number of its illustrations, one is left to wonder? (And by the way, the full first edition had 35 volumes.) A cynic might conclude that the whole article exists chiefly as a context for this paragraph: "Traditional encyclopedias are written by a number of employed text writers, usually people with an academic degree. This is not the case with Wikipedia, a project started in 2001 with the goal to create a free encyclopedia. Anyone can add or improve text, images, and sounds ... By 2004 the project has managed to produce over a million articles in over 80 languages."
Overall mark: 5/10

· Robert McHenry was editor-in-chief of the Encyclopedia Britannica from 1992 to 1997

As I said, I am no longer in the role of content generator, after my works are exposed to the wonks and twiddlers and procedural whackjobs. I am became a content defender and that means that time I could be spending finding new and interesting facts or finding original sources or otherwise making the world a better place (;-)} (or at least an entry or two) is being spent explaining for the hundredth time that no, this really happened and yes, I got clearance for that photograph as the matter a fact it's my pic, and yes, I believe this shows a neutral point of view, and so on. Every time I get to make input and then spend 20 minutes or 20 days defending it. To anybody who walked in. Like you for example. Unfortunately, content creators are relatively rare in this world, not just on Wikipedia. Content commentators less so. Content critics are a dime a hundred, and content vandals lurk in every corner. Wikipedia lets the vandals and Admins run lose on the creators equally, while the commentators fill the void with chatter. It is, a failure; as Jason Scott nicely explained in his "The Great Failure of Wikipedia" at ASCII.textfiles.com. You just made my point with an outpouring of creativity offering help all in spirit of cooperative of the open source. Take care.--Santasa99 (talk) 23:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

---

I have PhD in Natural science not Information tech. nor WWW! So if you don't mind to spending hour or more researching around internet to see if my images are or are not my own work, and in the process you find out that maybe aren't after all, but can be freely used on wikipedia, why the hell you didn' do it your self ??? Do you, maybe, considering yourself more important, meritorious or deserving in some way so you don't want to do these "dirty" works yourself; or you don't care about articles depending on pictures you removed - I mean, what you are doing on the open source encyclopedia if you have specific interest and agenda, and you are Admin, nothing less. In other words, I am, really, not in the mood anymore for much anything regarding my articles here, and if you care not to ruin quite good articles, then do it yourself. Especially cause I don't know what you talking about, anyway - as you can see I had problems with images earlier too, even with my own work as well as with those free for using. Not to mentioned that last time this happened, and all my pics have been removed, I spend days explaining to then Admins that everything I uploaded is my own or free, that I maybe didn't label images properly etc. Now, 6 month later or so, it is same story (nightmare) all over again, you happened and of course Nja247 and Martin H. Should I go through same idiotic situation again, and explain all this again and again to everyone of you Admins individually, selfrighteous and all-knowing every time new Admin come by. How many times I should do this explaining, for heaven sake??? You 3 Admins sucesfully ruined articles removing pic's, so I don't have any patient nor willingness anymore, if you care you can check all my pic's and label it properly or remove it, and in the process contributed to few really good, quality articles. (Really, most interesting thing to me is that you and other Admins are so reluctant to apply changes to image incorrectly writen or placed info, if you find out that image is, nevertheless free for useage on wikipedia !?) Ciao & take care!--Santasa99 (talk) 02:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Counterculture of the 1960s

Hello. I realize that some of the recent edits by some editors may be problematic, and I encourage you to use the talk page to discuss them and any other ideas you might have, but the current article is broad and global in scope. I would be happy to continue discussing this with you on the talk page, but your page move was not accurate and I reverted it. It has come to my attention that recent edits by User:Learner001 may have inadvertently changed the scope of this global article, and I will discuss this with him as well. Viriditas (talk) 21:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

You are also correct, in that recent changes have made the article more US-centric. In other words, the article needs to return to its previous global focus and if Learner001 wants to write just about the US, he needs to do so within the confines of the topic or split out his content into a new article. So, you are not entirely in the wrong here. There are new scope problems to deal with. Viriditas (talk) 21:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

why you remove Wang Deqing article

Dear Sir,

May i know why you remove Wang Deqing article? Thank —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cindylim123 (talk • contribs) 05:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Why you deleted my page without any inform?

redirecting family guy episode pages

please discuss before just redirecting. All family guy main pages and episodes pages are attempting to becoming GA and are undergoing construction. There is no specific deadline set for when an episode needs to be merged.

According to the Wikipedia:Television episodes

Stubs are allowed on Wikipedia and many articles are stubs. It may be inappropriate to merge or redirect an article about a television episode just because it is a stub. Before executing a merge, ask yourself:

   * Will the merge reduce the quality or coherence of the target article?
   * Are more sources available? (Do some basic looking for additional source material that could be used to improve the article.)

If the answer to either of these questions is "yes", it is probably better to avoid merging or redirecting. Instead, consider improving it, or offer suggestions for its improvement on the talk page.

to answer that yes more sources are available. There are numerous official episode guide books that have been put out by the creators, and there are commentary tracks as well on the episode that provide more insight and notability. Also, nothing was discussed to see if anything could be worked out prior to you just decided to redirect it because you felt like it. in the future please discuss before doing major changes, thanks Grande13 (talk) 16:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

???

why did you deleat me  ??? hugh ... thought so —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taymay16 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Can I upload a Franco Di Santo image

I got permission from Diarrouna, and I sent you the email--what happened.

How do I get permission, because they website gave me the chance to use the image in an email they sent me only for Wikipedia.

http://www.diariouno.com.ar/contenidos/2008/01/25/noticia_0052.html

I Sent you the email or to someone of Franco DI Santo, I got permission

SO what happened, and the licenses is fine Sonyds13 (talk) 16:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Franco Di

So Do you want me to get an image for use all over Wiki..i'll trySonyds13 (talk) 21:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Check it again FeydeySonyds13 (talk) 01:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

LeeKemp.jpg

This image was provided to me by Lee Kemp. It is of him and he owns the image. He is a personal friend who asked me to create a Wikipedia page for him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Odanuki (talk • contribs) 10:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

araldicacivica

In fact this is Wikipedia. What do you mean? --'''Attilios''' (talk) 10:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Which is the license to use? Thanks and good work...! --'''Attilios''' (talk) 10:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

803_AB (talk · contribs)

This user is probably a sock puppet of someone who you've warned or taken action against. If you know who please file a WP:SPI report. In the meantime I've reported them as a vandalism only account. Verbal chat 09:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Done, thanks. feydey (talk) 13:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

King Edward VII

You can see from the photo that he is a Grand Master Freemason, you could at least leave the information on there as that is correct. As to permission for the photo, the national museum have it on their website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chelmsford261 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Wotcher. I just added a picture of Falknis and had to add in a copyright notice after getting a warning. I have a few more shots of Swiss mountains and will add them when I am sure this one is okay - I don't want to cause excessive disruption. The procedure seems to have become more demanding since I last contributed. I'd appreciate a quick confirmation that the file (my own photo) is now valid. Evolvon (talk) 10:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)Evolvon (Elliott Bignell)

Help!

HI! Been trying to upload images from my company's website www.rwsentosa.com

Please help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubergurl (talk • contribs) 09:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

My Photos

Dude! I did man! They're my photos! On the bottom of the photo it says I am the copyright holder, so I dont really understand what you mean! Podruznik (talk) 15:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

You mean that big box that says description! I never filled that out, and they never said anything before!

Podruznik (talk) 15:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC

Ah dude! I'm not uploading those again! That takes to long! I'll know for next time!

23:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)~

Re> images

Hello, Feydey. You have new messages at Fngosa's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Removal of PROD from Hannah Alazhar

Hello Feydey, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Hannah Alazhar has been removed. It was removed by Daythatnevercomes with the following edit summary '(Edited down the content - this is an upcoming director who has a buzz generating in Hollywood currently. This information is accurate (proven by IMDB) and I request this entry remain in Wikipedia.)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Daythatnevercomes before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Re: File permission problem with File:Tetamashimba.JPG and others

Quoting from what you wrote

Thanks for uploading File:Tetamashimba.JPG. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

I replied to all A Rationale has been provided for the images you mentioned. I have not done so for all, but will do ASAP. I hope this is ok with you my friend. stay happy and smile when writing. thank you for bringing it to my attention my friend. 15:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)~

since you have not responded, I have gone one more step, i have finally got permission to use most files on the website AfDevInfo. Please see an email of correspondence with the owner of the website on

Permission to use images on the website AfDevInfo email, permission granted

File:IChill supp.jpg

This is obviously a scan of part of a copyrighted product label, so why is not a copyvio? Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 14:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Greetings

I'm not a new user, but am fairly idiotic with computers. Perhaps a year ago, I got tired of biography articles that don't have photos. (I specialise in musicians' bios). For a good while, I used the "Bryan upload tool" from Flickr to en.wikipedia, but I understand it's failed. After doing it manually, I'm told there's a newer policy, and now have been asked for the emailed permission from a photographer! How can that be accomplished if it's Flickr email?!! Would you be willing to give me advice re: Commons, or do you know of someone who can? It appears that policy there changes with the wind, and although I've uploaded a couple hundred photos, I'm nearly DONE with it-- been trying a year now for someone there to give me some basic information! I know I could be a big asset there-- don't mind doing the janitorial kinds of work, but without knowing how, it's more than a frustration.. Can you help me? --Leahtwosaints (talk) 16:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio

Thanks for dropping in on that - it's turned out to be a bit of a mess which I don't have the wiki-skills to sort out, and it is being discussed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 September 29 which I hope will lead to a resolution. It does look like the user has a bit of a history, and perhaps does not yet fully grasp the copyvio problem. Cheers, DBaK (talk) 17:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Roxie mitchell.jpg

Hi, can I ask why you reverted back to an old version of the file before deleting all revisions? The last version uploaded should have been kept and the first one deleted. I've fixed it now, but please don't do it again. Thanks. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the source is the actual show, probably BBC iPlayer, rather than saved from a webpage, as that's how user:Gungadin always got her screenshots (the majority of the previous versions were uploaded by Gungadin captured from iPlayer or some other software). AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Love&rockets01_music_for_mechanics.jpeg

can't you just be patient???????????????????????? there are 25 files and i have to check a lot of stuff!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! kernitou talk 23:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure. feydey (talk) 23:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

thanks + please delete "File:Love&rockets18 whoa nellie.jpg" (i just uploaded the correct one : "File:Love&rockets16 whoa nellie.jpg") kernitou talk 23:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

thanks for the deletion.......................................

my sandbox

do you understand how wiki works, don't you??????????? or your point is just to annoy?????????

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AKernitou%2FSandBox&diff=316979560&oldid=316979070

do not touch MY sandbox!!!!!!!

it's better to test on a private page than making sh!t on the article, isn't it????????

kernitou talk 23:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Categories

As you have no doubt seen from the deletion of my photo I am having dificulty categorising photos on Wiki Commons. Does this depend on language? I am trying to upload photos concerning France and have looked at previously uploaded photos to find the path but each time I am told the category does not exist and would I like to create it. I have managed to upload to certain categories without problem. What do I do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamgeorgefraser (talk • contribs) 12:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Bad speedy

Why did you consider this edit and this bad speedy nominations? Clearly the images are copyright violations per the URLs I provided and surely that overrules any unsourced or no copyright nomination. Please leave me a talkback as I am not watching this page. Thanks. ww2censor (talk) 17:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Feydey, just wondering how to correctly upload 3 photos that have been deleted. -actor Stan Kane from Storm, a film i produced -actor David Palffy, from Storm, " " -a photo of myself and George Lucas from 1990 thanks for your help (Groundstar83 (talk) 20:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)).Groundstar83

thanks, i've forwarded an email regarding the 3 images. (Groundstar83 (talk) 20:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC))groundstar83

Uh no...

The authors actually released the images for CC-BY-2.5. See [7], I'm asking you to restore these images I uploaded immediately. You should be more careful and stopping the delete button based solely on where the source is. The field on the authors section links to the Canada Line blog and it clearly states the images are CC-BY-2.5.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 21:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 21:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. :)  єmarsee  • Speak up! 21:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

hi there, got no response on the email to permissions re the STORM and KILLER IMAGE photos/posters. i'm the producer and director of both films. so i guess i submitted them incorrectly. thanks for any info. dw —Preceding unsigned comment added by Groundstar83 (talk • contribs) 03:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the catch

On the Kansas State logo... — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

sandra good pic

what is your problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwid hellion (talk • contribs) 22:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

get a life nerds that was gold —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.3.41 (talk) 12:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Right back at it

Apparently this guy didn't learn anything when you blocked him, because he's back to the exact same behavior, having uploaded 8 new images missing copyright status just today (all are non-free album covers, btw, and several are just multiple copies of the same cover uploaded with more cryptic filenames). He might need another block, and clearly needs a lesson in NFCC & our fair use policies. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I am the author

Hi you wrote me folloving things, but I am the author!

Thanks for uploading File:Mirali_Peak.JPG. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. 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 provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. feydey (talk) 14:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Family Guy

What is with all your merge suggestions for episodes? CTJF83 chat 22:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk:List_of_Family_Guy_episodes#Episode notability. feydey (talk) 22:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

So after a month and a half you just merge the pages? Not very constructive in my opinion. I never even noticed that post, and it appears that no one at WP:FG did either. What caused you to pick only certain episode pages. CTJF83 chat 22:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is trying to be a respected and authoritative encyclopedia. Having articles that only contain merely plot summaries has been established not to be acceptable. A full wikiproject has instructions on this subject, and several of these episode articles have gone to AFD to gain consensus on this subject. After no objections in the main episode list talk page the action is to merge the articles not meeting the criteria. I hope that improving the quality of Wikipedia is also Your aim. Regards, feydey (talk) 22:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Established by who? Where is this specific policy, that isn't an opinion essay? WP:Doh has plenty of GA episodes, and several FA episodes, along with WP:FG and I'm sure many other projects. You just merging it without discussion isn't constructive though. CTJF83 chat 23:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

If You want to discuss notability issues then please go to Wikipedia:EPISODE or Wikipedia:NOTABILITY otherwise this discussion is moot. Improving the FG episode articles with third party sources to establish their notability is always an option. At this moment several articles are simple plot summaries and subject to redirecting. feydey (talk) 23:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me give you an example, the simpsons have had 21 years many of those episodes are not cited and wrongly refrenced but your not going to go and merge avery damn episode that is not refrenced without disscusion the Doh esitors will be so mad at you and will be reverting those edits many times.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 00:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Politics, Religion, and Her (song)

You might want to talk to Wikibones about this. I redirected the page ages ago, and he and I have been ultra-slowly edit-warring over it because he refuses to believe that the song is not individually notable, and refuses to believe that a redirect is an acceptable compromise. I'm not going to go around the block again with him, so what should we do? Protect the redirect now that he wishes to have it gone? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

File:USS New York in the Hudson River 200911.jpg

Hi, Thanks for the clarification. I am not the author but the author has given me permission to use it. Do I need this documented under an OTRS ticket? If so, how do I do this? Wikipedia brown (talk) 14:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with this. I've sent an email to permission-en with the author's permission and I'm still waiting on a response. I hope my email is sufficient. Let me know if there's anything else I can do. Wikipedia brown (talk) 15:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

PJBeef's photos

Hey - sorted out those photos with apprpriate copyright info. Thanks. Pjbeef contribs) 16:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: File:Arthur Lipsett.jpg

Not sure what happened there: the license didn't come along for the upload ride, so I added it in a separate edit. --Rrburke^(talk) 17:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

RE: File copyright problem with File:InfernalCity.jpg

I fixed the problem with File:InfernalCity.jpg. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Re:File source problem with File:Johnoshea.jpg

eh? the fuck was that? BanRay 21:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Chose the wrong option

I'm the user who uploaded the Bricklin Image. I chose the wrong option from the dropdown list. Any Idea why Wikipedia would include an option on the list that isn't allowed to be used on Wikipedia? --Clausewitz01 (talk) 21:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Images

Aykst V.I. Music

Ttdy El Cartel Records

Dytm Doesn't Have One It Says

Pope132 (talk) 17:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

OTRS query

Hi. I replied on Commons. --Blacklake (talk) 18:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

P.S. For the next three days I won't have access to Internet. If you need to clarify anything more about that permission, ask ru:Участник:LEMeZza, she has been active in OTRS recently. Regards, --Blacklake (talk) 19:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Annie Lennox - Diva.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Annie Lennox - Diva.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 "file" 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 "File" 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. Skier Dude (talk) 06:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Novels December 2009 Newsletter

The December 2009 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Alan16 (talk) 15:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey. Thanks for the link to the delivery bots, may come in handy in the future. Today it was only for around 40 people, so I could do that easily enough by myself, rather than bothering anybody. Thanks anyway. Merry Christmas & Happy New Year, Alan16 (talk) 22:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC).

Orphaned non-free image File:Bluevidcov.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Bluevidcov.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 "file" 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 "File" 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. Skier Dude (talk) 04:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC)