User talk:Bkell/June 2007 through February 2008

Hmmm

I have a question: I want to upload a picture one of my parents took. Should I use {{PD-self}} for the copyright? —  $PЯINGrαgђ  00:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

If you're sure your parent agrees to release the image into the public domain (this isn't your choice to make, after all), then I would recommend using the {{PD-release}} tag, along with an explanation of the circumstances. —Bkell (talk) 05:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

FAA Photo

Hi, It wasnt my intention to be rude. I was there and I know the people, what do you need ? a signed telegram ? Jor70 19:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the image is not allowed under Wikipedia policies (in particular, the non-free content policy). This is why I have listed it for deletion. If you would like to add your comments to the discussion, please add them to Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 June 24#Image:Argentina FAA peacekeepers.jpg, but do not remove the {{ifd}} tag from the image description page. —Bkell (talk) 19:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Your idiotic speedy deletion high

It's almost become a game around this office seeing how many images you can find and request for deletion. Surely there are much more important things in life to worry about than wikipedia article images that 1) have no obscenities and 2) were already sourced. What a tool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.234.198.27 (talk • contribs)

There are requirements for images on Wikipedia beyond simply being inoffensive (which itself isn't a requirement) and being sourced. I cannot delete images myself, so if any images are deleted it is because at least one administrator agreed that the image does not meet the requirements. If there is a particular image that you feel was unfairly removed, I will be glad to discuss the issue with you. —Bkell (talk) 08:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:April 21 - Greek Junta.jpg

Hi, This image is the only available anywhere that depicts Papadopoulos with Ioannides and Gizikis both of whom overthrew him in a later coup. It shows them before the coup when they were in friendly terms. It establishes the warm relationship between Papadopoulos and the other two and provides an understanding of the measure of betrayal Papadopoulos must have felt when toppled by the other two. As such its is a historically significant picture. It was widely published in Greek newspapers such as Vradini during the dictatorship. The rationale and caption of the picture will be modified to reflect this. Thank you. Dr.K. 23:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

To address concerns raised I added the proper context to the picture captions to all articles they appear in. I made sure to add that: Ioannides and Gizikis overthrew Papadopoulos in a later coup. Picture, published in major Greek newspapers such as Vradini, shows them before the coup when they were in friendly terms. It establishes the warm relationship between Papadopoulos and the other two and provides an understanding of the measure of betrayal Papadopoulos felt when toppled by the other two. The image is therefore commented upon in the articles. I will consequently remove the tag since it complies with the concerns raised. Please let me know if you have any additional concerns. Thanks again. Dr.K. 23:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Zhang Liao image

Perhaps not low-res, but it's the only available image of its type. It's also got all the appropriate copyright information, a fair use rationale and the article it's attached to is using only a thumbnail version of the image. So what's the problem? Gamer Junkie 00:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that it's not a low-resolution image. Resize it to a smaller version and upload that. Wikipedia is not a repository of high-resolution unfree images. —Bkell (talk) 08:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, why not simply resize the image yourself? Seems somewhat illogical placing tags when you can fix the problem. Even more so when considering you're the one who doesn't like the image. Gamer Junkie 12:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've resized it. I don't usually like to do this myself, though, as I don't want to be the uploader of non-free content and thus appear that I support the use of copyrighted material without permission on Wikipedia. —Bkell (talk) 18:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I take full responsibility for uploading the image. Considering all copyright information and rationales are present and accounted for, I doubt Koei would be fussed to any extent over the use of the image. If anything, I'm certain it would have only positive ramifications for the company. Gamer Junkie 20:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about Koei. I'm concerned that Wikipedia uses far too much non-free content, in direct contradiction with its goal to be a free encyclopedia. —Bkell (talk) 20:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

In absence of desired material, what else are we to use? Gamer Junkie 20:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Nothing. I think Wikipedia would do just fine without the vast majority of non-free images uploaded here. For example, in this case, I don't think that it is necessary to use Image:Zhang Liao.jpg in the article Zhang Liao; I don't see anything that's added by the image that cannot be adequately explained by free text. There is a very common (and incorrect) attitude among many Wikipedia editors: "It would be nice to have a picture in this article, and I can't find a free one, so I'll take this one I found on the Internet and call it fair use." —Bkell (talk) 20:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I've never uploaded an image I've found on the Internet, apart from a single video game cover to serve as the one and only image for the related article. Not only that, I would argue that the image is important for providing readers with an example of how a historical Chinese individual is depicted in popular/modern culture. This directly relates to how the individual is perceived and depicted through movie spin-offs, fan fiction and magazine reviews based on said example. I believe that removing such images is detrimental to the quality of Wikipedia as an educational resource, and therefore find the use of non-free images acceptable should there be no free alternative available and provided the creators of such images have no objections. This is the catch-22: Remove the images in question to keep Wikipedia free of them as an inflexible rule, or utilise them when necessary. You can't have one without the other and I suppose that's the decision each editor must make for themselves. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one, eh? Gamer Junkie 20:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there's no way I could win a debate over this instance. Until the non-free content policy is made stricter, images such as this will remain on Wikipedia. —Bkell (talk) 23:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The Barnstar of Diligence

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I'm awarding you this barnstar of diligence for your combination of extraordinary scrutiny, precision and community service to wikipedia. Wikidudeman (talk) 08:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Happy 4^th of July!

Dear friend, I wish you the best 4th of July you have ever had, and that you enjoy living in this great country as much as I do.   —  $PЯINGrαgђ

Thanks. I really want that hot dog… —Bkell (talk) 20:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Fredthompsonwatergate2.jpg

Hello, I noticed you left a tag on the image I just recently uploaded for Fred Thompson's article. The image seen on the image page doesn't by any means reflect the size of what actually appears on the article page. Regardless, if I still need to reduce the size of it on the image page, tell me and I'll try to fix it. Stills64 03:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you should resize the image itself. Wikipedia is not a repository of images, especially not copyrighted, non-free images such as Image:Fredthompsonwatergate2.jpg. There is no justification for having a high-resolution version of this non-free image on Wikimedia servers. —Bkell (talk) 04:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Image: Camppals3.jpg

It seems you have removed an image from the wikipedia page for Camp PALS. I took the photo with my camera and it shows campers with Down syndrome having fun at Camp PALS. I posted it there to show parents of kids with DS some of our past campers. I don't understand why it was removed...

I will be replacing it with more up to date images that I have taken. I have full rights to these images and have waivers from the campers and their parents certifying that the rights to the images are mine. Please contact me at [address removed] before removing any more images.

Thanks, Jasontoff 18:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Jason,

I posted a message on your talk page about it; this is standard procedure. Also, I myself did not remove the image. I do not have the ability to delete images; only administrators can do that. I simply listed the image as a candidate for deletion. It was Quadell who actually deleted the image, once it had been listed for deletion for five days with no objections.

Anyway, the reason I listed the image for deletion is that it was not used in any articles on Wikipedia, and it was not clear to me why it should stay around. If you believe it should not have been deleted, you are welcome to talk to Quadell, and if he agrees with you then he can "undelete" it. But Wikipedia is not simply a collection of images, so the image should be used in some article. Please let me know if you have questions. —Bkell (talk) 02:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. While I'm a frequent Wikipedia reader, I'm not often a contributor-- so I'm still figuring out how things work. I didn't notice that the image was called for deletion until it was too late.

Anyway, I revamped the wikipedia page with more information and more specifically related images, so no need to un-delete the old image. Thanks for the prompt reply.

Jasontoff 13:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Rendezvouses

At Lunar orbit rendezvous, I restored the text, "In lunar orbit the lunar module rendezvous with the command module...." I know this looks strange, but in the context of spaceflight it is the way aerospace engineers wrote the (French-derived) term in English text, even in this gramatical situation. There's no rule for this -- it's just a matter of how the term has traditionally been used in the context of spaceflight. The singular noun, the plural noun, the verb -- all the same spelling. If you really dislike it, it would be perfectly fine to finesse the point and find some other phrase, e.g. "the lunar module conducts a rendezvous with the command module". Would that be much preferable for you? (sdsds - talk) 05:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

This sentence grammatically needs a singular verb, to match the singular subject "lunar module". The singular form of the verb rendezvous is spelled rendezvouses—check any English dictionary. The "traditional" mistakes of aerospace engineers are no justification for a grammatical error in Wikipedia. However, the word rendezvouses does look very strange, so "conducts a rendezvous" is a very good way to fix the problem and avoid this bizarre spelling. —Bkell (talk) 21:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

An incompetitive user

This User User:Mr. Neutron , does things with pictures I create. He changes the copyright protection on his own head. Please warn him, He is Bulgarian and they are not clearminded regarding the macedonians. thanks Vlatko 14:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I have left a note on his talk page requesting him to follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images if he believes that images are incorrectly tagged. —Bkell (talk) 18:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:2005 College World Series logo.png

Thanks for uploading Image:2005 College World Series logo.png. 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, then 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, then 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:Fair use, 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 21:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. OsamaKBOT 21:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This image was originally uploaded by Yardcock; I just converted it to a PNG or something. I've left a message on Yardcock's talk page. —Bkell (talk) 22:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Brunet.jpg

Image Copyright problem

This is an automated message from a robot. You have recently uploaded Image:Brunet.jpg. 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 19:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If you believe you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner. OsamaKBOT 19:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I only reverted this image to a previous version. See User talk:Dtobias#Image source problem with Image:Brunet.jpg for the note left on the talk page of the original uploader. —Bkell (talk) 20:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Adminship?

Hi. I found your name mostly at random and thought you would be a good admin candidate. Are you interested? —Wknight94 (talk) 16:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

My unstated position for quite a while has been that I will not nominate myself for adminship, but if someone else wishes to nominate me I will accept the nomination. Thanks for your "vote of confidence." —Bkell (talk) 18:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me know if there's anything you'd like me to add to the nomination. After you answer the questions and accept and we're both ready, I'll go ahead and add it to the main WP:RFA page to get things going. I'm off to bed pretty soon so I'll be ready tomorrow morning EDT at the earliest. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

In response to your question on Wknight's talkpage, you just need to transclude it on the main RFA page. Happy Thanksgiving! _(Sasha) 07:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I've started the RFA. Watch for new questions as well as any issues brought up which you think you can clarify. Good luck!  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 09:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Happy Halloween

—  $PЯINGεrαgђ  03:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

RfA result

I am pleased to let you know that, consensus reached, you are now an Administrator. You should find the following forums useful:

• Administrators' reading list
• Administrators' how-to guide
• Administrators' Noticeboard

• Administrators' Noticeboard for Incidents
• Administrators' Noticeboard for Three-revert rule violations

Congratulations on your promotion and the best of luck with your new charge! Redux (talk) 11:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Congrats! Don't hesitate to let me know if you have any questions/concerns. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Congratulations on becoming a new admin! To learn a little about how to work your new tools, check out the New admin school. To display on your user page how long you have been an admin, just post the userbox string: {{User:EVula/Userboxes/admin since|year=2007|month=11|day=26}} Also, please consider adding your username to Classification of admins. Best! -- Jreferee t/c 19:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks...

... for correcting 'Chełmo' on the Chelmno extermination camp article. (I was just going to correct it myself now and found that you had beaten me to it.) If you don't know a great deal about it, the Łódź Ghetto article is also well worth a read as a quite fascinating story.

		The Minor Barnstar
		I, Major Bonkers, award you this Barnstar in recognition of the tedious work correcting spelling. Major Bonkers (talk) 10:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

--Major Bonkers (talk) 10:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Zhang Liao.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Zhang Liao.jpg. 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. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Notified original uploader: see User talk:Gamer Junkie. —Bkell (talk) 21:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. As you could probably tell by my talk page, somebody has decided to upload 52 new images and replace the ones I had loaded. This doesn't bother me too much, since I was going to have to add the proper copyright info to every single image at a later point. Instead, I just told the new uploader how to add copyright info and reduce the size of all of his images. For that load off, I'm willing to put up with the "orphaned image" barrage. :) Gamer Junkie 03:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

LeKay photos

Basically so I have them on my watchlist. I rarely go to Commons and it is not possible to watchlist image changes in articles: if it were, then the problem would not exist. There is precedent for this, but I don't know now where the relevant conversation(s) occurred. There is of course nothing under GFDL to stop the images being copied additionally to Commons. Tyrenius (talk) 17:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Conversation continues at User talk:Tyrenius#LeKay photos. —Bkell (talk) 17:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I've added a more detailed rationale. Tyrenius (talk) 18:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas, my friend. May this find you in good health, good spirits, good company, and good finances. If any of these be missing, may God see fit to restore you in good time. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  04:57 25 December, 2007 (UTC)

File:Julkrubba.jpg

A request for your consideration regarding CAT:AOTR

Hello fellow Wikipedia administrators open to recall category member!

I am leaving you this message because recent events have given me concern. When Aaron Brenneman and I, and others, first developed this category well over a year ago, we visualized it as a simple idea. A low hassle, low bureaucracy process. We also visualized it as a process that people would come to trust, in fact as a way of increasing trust in those admins who chose to subscribe to the notion of recall. The very informal approach to who is qualified to recall, what happens during it, and the process in general were all part of that approach. But recent events have suggested that this low structure approach may not be entirely effective. More than one of the recent recalls we have seen have been marred by controversy around what was going to happen, and when. Worse, they were marred by some folk having the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the admin being recalled was trying to change the rules, avoid the process, or in other ways somehow go back on their word. This is bad. It's bad for you the admin, bad for the trust in the process, and bad for the community as a whole. I think a way to address this issue is to increase the predictability of the process in advance. I have tried to do that for myself. In my User:Lar/Accountability page, I have given pretty concrete definitions of the criteria for recall, and of the choices I can make, and of the process for the petition, and of the process for other choices I might make (the modified RfC or the RfAr). I think it would be very helpful if other admins who have voluntarily made themselves subject to recall went to similar detail. It is not necessary to adopt the exact same conditions, steps, criteria, etc. It's just helpful to have SOME. Those are mine, fashion yours as you see fit, I would not be so presumptuous as to say mine are right for you. In fact I urge you not to just adopt mine, as I do change them from time to time without notice, but instead develop your own. You are very welcome to start with mine if you so wish, though. But do something. If you have not already, I urge you to make your process more concrete, now, while there is no pressure and you can think clearly about what you want. Do it now rather than later, during a recall when folk may not react well to perceived changes in process or commitment. Further, I suggest that after you document your process, that you give a reference to it for the benefit of other admins who may want to see what others have done. List it in this table as a resource for the benefit of all. If you use someone else's by reference rather than copy, I suggest you might want to do as Cacharoth did, and give a link to a specific version. Do you have to do these things? Not at all. These are suggestions from me, and me alone, and are entirely up to you to embrace or ignore. I just think that doing this now, thinking now, documenting now, will save you trouble later, if you should for whatever reason happen to be recalled. I apologise if this message seems impersonal, but with over 130 members in the category, leaving a personal message for each of you might not have been feasible, and I feel this is important enough to violate social norms a bit. I hope that's OK. Thanks for your time and consideration, and best wishes. Larry Pieniazek NOTE: You are receiving this message because you are listed in the Wikipedia administrators open to recall category. This is a voluntary category, and you should not be in it if you do not want to be. If you did not list yourself, you may want to review the change records to determine who added you, and ask them why they added you.

...My guinea pigs and the "A"s having felt this message was OK to go forward with, today it's the turn of the "B"s and "C"s! I'm hoping at least one of you chaps will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but scary! :) ++Lar: t/c 17:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Bot relisting properly IFD'd images

Thanks for telling me. I've taken it off auto run and I'm going to run some tests to see if I can find the problem. BJ^Talk 21:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

So...

...do you have any other requests about that image you filed on the graphics lab? If not, you may want to mark it as being done, or make your other requests. Currently, the page is huge. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 07:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I kinda forgot about that. It looks good; feel free to upload the improved image over the top of the original. —Bkell (talk) 08:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Selassie I

Thanks for your message. I hope I have fixed the problem, see [1]. Perhaps you woukld be kind enopugh to check that what I have done is indeed the right thing (I removed the template). Thanks, SqueakBox 22:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

List of corrections?

Is there a publicly viewable list of the corrections that CmdrObot makes? I've run across some indefinite article mix-ups that irritate me ("an ewe"—though be careful of the Ewe, "an unique", "an unicorn", "an European", and so on), but I don't know whether to suggest them here as I've just done or whether this bot is already taking care of it and will get around to them sooner or later. —Bkell (talk) 06:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, ha, if I would just take the time to look in the archives I see there's a link to User:CmdrObot/SpellList.py. This seems to have only spelling corrections, though, unless I just don't understand how it works. —Bkell (talk) 06:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Brian, thanks for your interest. The bot uses several different strategies for attempting to correct articles. The first one is to perform a word-by-word search and replace on the article using the misspellings in SpellList.py. Another one is to use a list of regular expressions to handle some of the trickier cases that span multiple words or may be correct depending on the surrounding context. Finally, the bot uses a number of ad-hoc routines to deal with things such as 'broken' links (eg ones like http://http://foo.com, or http:////foo.com); external links being used instead of wikilinks; some specific uses of greengrocers' apostrophes and so on. The bot's handling of a/an mismatches is one of these ad-hoc routines.

The routine assumes that 'a' followed by a word beginning with a vowel is incorrect, as is 'an' followed by a word beginning with a consonant. Obviously there are numerous exceptions to this--in English 'eu' words and 'h' words are common examples, as are acronyms such as 'MRI' and 'XML'. Just to make life a little more exciting, 'a' and 'an' play a different role in French, Spanish and German. I get the bot to check against a list of a few hundred of these common exceptions before trying to make any changes, and this keeps the false-positives down to a tolerable level.

Thanks for making me explain this, BTW, because as a result of doing so, I've realised there's a mistake in the bot. It correctly ignores things like 'an XML', but I forgot to handle the converse: it doesn't try to correct 'a XML'. I guess that gives me something to work on this evening :). Cheers, CmdrObot (talk) 14:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yoost Order

you deleted a religous group page, and refered to us as a "club". That is a rude thing to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoostorder (talk • contribs) 21:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean to be rude; I chose the most appropriate item from the menu, which described the page as an article about a "club or group". I felt that "group" was an appropriate description of your organization. You yourself refer to the organization as a group. —Bkell (talk) 21:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

If you feel that the deletion of the article The Secret Society of Yoost (SSYoost) was inappropriate, you are welcome to bring it to a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review. —Bkell (talk) 21:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Non-free image at Wolfram pages

Continuing, here, the conversation from Pleasantville's talk: I think the use of the Mathematica (promotional) artwork on Wolfram pages would be similar to the use of Coke's logo, and an image of the bottle, at Coca Cola. Promotional material has an intrinsic fair-use quality, as the inherent purpose is advertising, so printing extra copies is not infringement but aid. Wolfram, the person, is identifiable (to a great many customers and users) with Mathematica, the software product. We're not advertising it, we're identifying the relevant connections. I would agree that the tone of Wolfram articles tends to be promotional, but I disagree that deleting the image is purposeful. Pete St.John (talk) 20:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the Mathematica logo can be meaningful, and the use of Image:Spikey v6-small.png in the Mathematica article is exactly that. But Image:MathematicaBox.gif was not being used in such a way that "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." It was being used in two sections: once at Stephen Wolfram#Mathematica, and once at Mathematica#Version history. I certainly don't think that these sections are worse off because they don't have a picture of the Mathematica box art. What, exactly, did the box art contribute to the readers' understanding of Stephen Wolfram's involvement with Mathematica or the release dates of the various versions of Mathematica? —Bkell (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I'm going to move this conversation again, this time to Image talk:MathematicaBox.gif, where it will be visible to more editors. —Bkell (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Source for Image:WalterBryanEmery.jpg

Regarding Image:WalterBryanEmery.jpg, I'm almost certain the image is scanned from the Pelican edition of Archaic Egypt, published by Penguin Books. If I got hold of a copy of that book and confirmed this, would that be enough information? Carcharoth (talk) 23:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be great if you could do that. If the book gives a photo credit for the image, mention that too. We just need to be sure that we properly identify the copyright holder. Right now all we give is one of several random pages on the Internet that happen to contain the picture. —Bkell (talk) 01:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The image provides a source, and, as such, the no source tag is inappropriate. If you have believe that this image is not correctly sourced, then the best place to list this would be at Wikipedia:Copyright problems where admins can discuss the merits of your argument. The no-source tag is for images that provide no source. Hope this clears it up. Woody (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Haile Selassie I pic

Hola. I use the search button this page http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/index.html, run Haile Selassie, make sure I get the gallery view and its the first pic that comes up here which leads me to this page. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Frostburg State University Police Department

Hello! Just FYI, I removed the notability tag on Frostburg State University Police Department article. A few other editors have done the same on some of the smaller PD articles that I have created. I have work very diligently on Wikiproject Law Enforcement (particularly those in Maryland. The FSUPD is part of List of law enforcement agencies in Maryland, Wikiproject Law Enforcement, and Wikiproject Maryland. I am not done with the article and it will have more info to come. If you have any questions feel free to contact me! Cheers! Sallicio (talk) 00:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Sallicio

I placed the notability tag there because the article makes no claim of notability. There are no third-party sources cited that have been written about this police department. Has this police department received any significant coverage in a third-party source? If so, that coverage should be referenced. —Bkell (talk) 00:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

xenoplexian

its a real number its brand new though and unknown to the public —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalhead723723 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Wikipedia does not accept original research. Unless you can show that "xenoplexian" is a number that has been used by a reliable source, this term is not verifiable and hence cannot be included in Wikipedia. —Bkell (talk) 01:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Promotional images

Thanks for the link, much appreciated. Purgatorio (talk) 21:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

exponentiation

Thank you for correcting my nonsense. Bo Jacoby (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC).

Sorry

Hey, I got mad that you deleted my band page. It took me quite awhile to write it, like 2-3 hours and alot of work was suddenly gone. I know we may not be known well in the US but, in Oklahoma people know who we are. Anyway, yeah I will leave your page alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Punkock (talk • contribs) 17:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

If your band meets the notability guidelines, and you can provide citations to reliable sources so that the information is verifiable, then you're welcome to rewrite the HotrodboB article. If you think you can meet these requirements, I can undelete the page so that you don't have to start over. Let me know if I can help. —Bkell (talk) 17:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[copied to User talk:Punkock] —Bkell (talk) 17:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Youth Times.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Youth Times.png. 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 (talk) 03:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Copied to User talk:T1chengM#Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Youth Times.png. —Bkell (talk) 03:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Digital Youth.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Digital Youth.png. 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 (talk) 20:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Copied to User talk:T1chengM#Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Digital Youth.png. —Bkell (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

hi

Can a cool admin help a guy out? I want to add one sentence to the world of Wikipedia. But I can't. The sentence is factual, provable, reliable (I chose the New York Times version.)

Circumcision may decrease a man's risk of getting HIV but it may also INCREASE a man's risk of getting herpes and chlamydia. (and some doctors even say other STD's too but I won't get into that and I wouldn't put caps on INCREASE.)

The article on circumcision mentions the term HIV probably 100 times (I'm not joking) and mentions "herpes" or "chlamydia" not Once. Click on the article. You tell me if it's an article on the procedure called circumcision or a pro-circumcision propaganda pamphlet.

Can a cool admin stop two guys named Avraham and Jakew (the site's dictators) from deleting my one sentence I want to add? Or possibly get new Admins to take over this article, which has fallen way below Wikipedia standards.

here's the New York Times piece... http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9C07E4D91F3AF931A35757C0A961958260&fta=y

I used to love Wikipedia until I went to add a sentence, you know? Well, thanks. 70.114.38.167 (talk) 06:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I really don't know anything about this area at all. I'm a mathematician, and know very little about medical topics. I don't know what studies have been done in this area, which journals things have been published in, or how reliable any given medical study is. There seems to be a discussion on the article's talk page about your claims, in which Jakew gives five apparently valid reasons for undoing your edits. Have you tried addressing his concerns (in particular, his assertion that your claim is based on a single study)? I hope you can find that you can work together to improve the article, but this may mean that you will have to address objections that he has (and vice versa). My immediate suggestion to you is that you find the original peer-reviewed study or studies that support the claim that circumcision may increase the risk of certain STDs. I think the peer-reviewed studies would be considered more reliable sources than a New York Times article in this case. Jakew's objection is that this claim comes from a single study out of 30; if that's true, then it may be pretty weak evidence, and having no other knowledge about the situation I would tend to agree that it shouldn't be stated as fact in the article.

Administrators are really no different than other editors. We just have a few extra tools to help us do maintenance tasks. When it comes to contributing to articles, though, we're the same as everybody else. Admins do not "take over" articles; what you are probably seeing is a few editors who are interested in this area and thus keep a close eye on the article, but any editor can do that.

If, after more time spent trying to work together with the other editors, you feel that you cannot reach a consensus, you can let me know and I'll try to help out if I can. Again, I have no knowledge in this area, so I'm not going to "pick sides" in this debate, but I might be able to find some other medically-minded editors who can help clear things up. —Bkell (talk) 07:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Beijing_Today.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Beijing_Today.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. 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 you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation 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. Project FMF (talk) 23:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Copied to User talk:T1chengM#Fair use rationale for Image:Beijing Today.png. —Bkell (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Sports_Youth_Weekly.png

I have tagged Image:Sports_Youth_Weekly.png as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Some examples can be found at Wikipedia:Use rationale examples. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free. Thank you. Project FMF (talk) 23:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Copied to User talk:T1chengM#Image:Sports Youth Weekly.png. —Bkell (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:Euro coins

I am aware of that, and indeed the NFCC criteria must be adhered to. The encapsulation of the enormously long table syntax in a template is no way meant to obviate the need for fair-use rationales for each use. As I said in the TfD, with the immediate issue of ImageBacklogBot removing the images every week resolved, the arguments from the recent past TfD stand, which were, in essence, that encapsulation here was a suitable way of hiding from casual editors the extremely complicated table code. If subpages were enabled in the mainspace, I would have moved the code to a subpage of Euro coins, but as this is not possible, the template will have to suffice. I hope this explains my justification for this action. Happy‑melon 13:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[See User talk:Happy-melon#Template:Euro coins.] —Bkell (talk) 14:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Title move conventions

I did it per WP:TITLE - the article content showed that the title of the area was the fuller name given, with capitalized letters. As a result, I felt it needed to be moved to an article with that title. As to the other article you point out, I woul think that needs moving as well. Please read WP:TITLE and let me know if you agree with my move. Best wishes - Fritzpoll (talk) 15:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

CLisco

Thanks for finding some sources for the Lisco title of the Garden County community. It was an easy choice to move it to Cisco, since there were no sources presented for the Lisco title, and the Census title is Cisco. Please look at the talk page; I disagree with your conclusion but I tend to agree that the article's at the wrong place now. Nyttend (talk) 00:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I just replied there. ;-) —Bkell (talk) 00:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for getting it all done. It looks really good with all those references in the intro! Nyttend (talk) 05:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

sure keep the image for yourself

then all photos and images soon will follow if this image is removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.10.219.39 (talk) 18:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, what? What are you talking about? —Bkell (talk) 04:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Some bloke is probably mad that you tagged his image for deletion. Honestly. I've had images I've uploaded tagged, and that sure wasn't my reaction. Some people just need a bigger pair of underpants. ;) —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  04:58 22 February, 2008 (UTC)

Image:RomToy.jpg

Hi Bkell. I don't understand why you tagged Image:RomToy.jpg as a replaceable image. Rom the Spaceknight is a copyrighted property; therefore, no free version of its likeness exists. An editor has stated on the image's talk page that this photograph of said toy came from his website. He points out that he does not own the rights to Rom and therefore cannot give them away. However, this does not seem to invalidate the claim of fair use. So, what am I missing? Why is it necessary for this photograph to be replaced? Cheers, GentlemanGhost (talk) 21:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right. When I tagged it I did so under the belief that someone could take a free photograph of the toy, but after some consideration maybe that can't be done. I'll remove the tag. Thanks for pointing this out. —Bkell (talk) 22:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for responding so quickly. I was worried that the rules had gotten so complex that I no longer understood them. ;) --GentlemanGhost (talk) 22:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for your answer to my question at the ref desk! It makes rather more sense now. I'm not a maths major but an aero engineering one... sadly! Psymun (talk) 22:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Glad to help. —Bkell (talk) 22:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Your message

Thank you for your kind message. If you find any of the images to be problematic, please feel free to write directly to the photographers, as I had earlier done, and ask them for a second time whether we may use their images. The first time, all said "yes," and approved when I sent the article URL to them to look at. Best of luck to you, Badagnani (talk) 18:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I can do that if you would rather have me do it. I don't have a Flickr account, though, so I'll have to make one first, unless there's another way to contact Flickr users. —Bkell (talk) 18:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The reason I used the license I did is that it's the only one that allows it to be stipulated in the license that the photographer MUST be credited if his/her photo is reused. I find this a serious deficiency of the GFDL and CC licenses, have pointed this out to the higher-ups, and was given a brush-off, although I was persistent and insisted that credit to the photographer when the photo is reused is at minimum a stipulation that should be of such high value that it actually appears in the license itself. I try not to overwhelm Flickr users with overly bureaucratic, Wiki-lawyerish, or technical talk for fear of alienating them such that they feel so intimidated as to not wish to even participate by allowing their photos to be used, and this endeavor seems to be heading in this direction, in light of the fact that I really was conscientious about stipulating that "anyone could use" their photo for "any purpose," although it would be stipulated that credit must be given to them by any reusers. Badagnani (talk) 18:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

All of the Creative Commons Attribution licenses require that the photographer be credited if the photo is reused. The corresponding licensing tags are {{cc-by}}, {{cc-by-2.0}}, {{cc-by-2.5}}, {{cc-by-3.0}}, {{cc-by-sa}}, {{cc-by-sa-2.0}}, {{cc-by-sa-2.5}}, and {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}. All of these tags contain a link to the corresponding Creative Commons license description (for example, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/), which is pretty clear about requiring attribution. Are you concerned that the requirements should be listed in the licensing tag itself? I might agree with you there, and that seems like something which could be done.

I also do not want Flickr users to feel overwhelmed, but it is very important that the copyright holder has explicitly agreed to the license that we claim the image has been released under. Only the copyright holder has the right to release an image under a license like this; we can't do it for them. This is not due to Wikipedia policy but United States and international copyright law. —Bkell (talk) 18:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

In my case I preferred to use the license I used, for the reason I outlined to you above. If you can address my concern, I will use the other licenses in the future. I was brushed off in what I felt was a rather rude manner when I made this concern known to the editor in charge of this a year or so ago, and the details of attribution are still not to be found in the license template itself. Badagnani (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I am not sure exactly what your concern is. Are you concerned that the Creative Commons licenses do not require that the photographer is credited? If that's your concern, you can rest assured that all Creative Commons "Attribution" licenses have this requirement. Are you concerned that the requirement of attribution is not explicitly spelled out in the copyright tag itself (for example, in the {{cc-by-2.0}} tag)? If that's your concern, I can try to address it. If your concern is something else, please forgive my misunderstanding and try to explain it to me again. —Bkell (talk) 18:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you don't understand my concern. Let me outline it for you again. The license I used stipulates quite clearly, in the template, that the photograph must always be attributed, as the photographer specified to me. The licenses you provided to me do not, although I asked that this be done and was given the brush-off, and no change was made. Other editors are experiencing this as well, as it is as if attribution is something editors such as yourself who are actively involved with image licensing don't care about enough to take the 10 minutes it would take to fix the license templates to make this absolutely clear. See this post, for example, which was never answered; you'll see some other posts on that page that were never answered, or answered in a fairly contemptuous way. It's an inexplicable way to behave when image tags are so rigidly scrutinized (even when the communication from the photographer clearly says the photo may be "used in any way by anyone"), yet they only seem halfway interested (or less) when the subject of photo credit is brought up. I hope you'll prove me wrong on this. It's really quite crucially important. Badagnani (talk) 18:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

In case you didn't examine it carefully, the tag at Image:Amarobottles2.jpg says:

“ This image is copyrighted. The copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that Flickr user: moreorless (the photographer) and http://www.flickr.com/photos/morethanless/ (Flickr user: moreorless's Flickr page) are credited. ”

The other tags have nothing like this, although I asked that this be added, and was actively ignored, as if my concern had no merit. I hope you can now understand why I used the tag I did--it is out of the utmost respect for our kind and generous image contributors--which I believe, from my experience, some editors working in images do not share.

Badagnani (talk) 18:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I understand now; please correct me if my understanding is wrong. I agree that attribution is crucially important. Tags such as {{cc-by-2.0}} are not sufficient by themselves, because they do not specify who the copyright holder is. These tags do, however, specify the requirement that the copyright holder be credited (in the form of a link to the license summary at the Creative Commons site). Images which are correctly tagged with a Creative Commons Attribution copyright tag give credit to the copyright holder outside of the copyright tag itself, generally by using an {{Information}} tag. This is the current "generally accepted practice" here.

Suppose the {{cc-by-2.0}} tag (and the other similar tags) were modified so that they accepted a parameter giving the copyright holder's name, and so that they displayed a summary of the requirements of the license, with the copyright holder's name included in the "attribution" requirement. Would this satisfy your concern? —Bkell (talk) 18:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you; this is what I asked for over a year ago--the code would simply have to be "borrowed" from the tag I've been using, to allow for the addition of the credit and link to the photographer's original website. This shouldn't have been any problem a year ago, or now. I appreciate your attention to this, and I'm glad I've finally, after so many months, found the one "image person" who seems to care about this issue. Badagnani (talk) 19:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

If this happens, in future emails to photographers I would make sure to specify the exact CC-attribution license to be used, as CC is already widely known to Flickr users. Badagnani (talk) 19:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I will try to get things moving in order to make this change. —Bkell (talk) 21:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Serbia boundaries CIA.jpg

I'm sorry, I totally missed your message until today. If the image description page here on en-WP is used for categorization, there's no need to delete the page. howcheng {chat} 03:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it worthwhile to categorize a Commons image here on the English Wikipedia? —Bkell (talk) 07:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

License tag

It didn't work when Howcheng told me about it, but s/he fixed the tag within minutes. I still don't think it's as good as it can be, however. Badagnani (talk) 07:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Howcheng . Badagnani (talk) 07:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)