User talk:Teb728/Archive

Ablaut

Thank you for your help in Talk:Ablaut. I'll follow this up. To begin with I merely wanted to know what "strong verb" meant but what's now really interested me is how these faint echos of an inflected system lead back to Indo-European. West Germanic strong verb does seem perticularly helpful. Thincat 10:15, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

PIE

In case anyone actually reads this, the following is Dbachmann's response to my post in User_talk:Nixer: "Nixer, you seem to think that Dbachmann is just a user like yourself. Not so; he is an admin. As such he has the moral right to enforce policy. Perhaps more significantly he has the power to do so (whether you agree with him or not). You can't win an edit war with him, and by trying you just fill up the history, spoiling things for everybody else. --teb728 06:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC)" --teb728 06:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

what are you talking about? Being an admin does not give me an advantage in editing disputes; being an admin gives me a few extra buttons I can apply in cases where I am uninvolved. I didn't touch any of these buttons in the PIE case. I am reverting Nixer's edits because I believe they violate policy, and are also poor otherwise. If he would care to communicate, there could be a solution. Since he stubbornly keeps reverting, there will be no debate, no consensus, and no change to the article. If you decide that I am wrong, and argue so on Talk, I may be forced to reconsider, or walk away. So far I have heard no objections to the points a made on the PIE talkpage. Until I do, the article will retain its status quo. See Wikipedia:Consensus on how decision making is supposed to work on Wikipedia. dab (ᛏ) 06:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

But I don't think you're wrong: Your changes to Schleicher's fable and Deivos Verunos are definitely improvements. And it's probably better to link to the Christian texts as you have done. I just want the edit war to end. It loads the history page with several meaningless entries per day. And it may well inhibit useful changes to the page (for fear they will be reverted away). If, being involved, you can't block Nixer's reversions, maybe some other sysop can?

I see -- I thought you were complaining that I was throwing around my weight as an admin; admins do actually not have any more rights than anyone else. Thanks for the external link; we cannot block Ilya just for being stubborn, not unless he violates WP:3RR, but I'll be of course careful that when reverting him I don't throw out good edits. Thanks for the telecore.net.ru page, it doesn't show up with google. Probably Ilya's own page? It's a pity there is no comment to the texts, the Neputne one looks quite appealing (but what is the meaning of "Aquan nepot"? "to the water, grandson"? :) dab (ᛏ) 07:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

PIE dentals

Hi; I've tried to clarify exactly what Sihler says and what Beekes says. It's really only Sihler who gives the standard view; Beekes is overfond of reconstructing pre-proto-IE (without saying he's doing so), and has bought in to the less-than-mainstream glottalic theory. Neither Sihler nor Beekes does a good job of citing their sources, though, which makes life extremely frustrating. --User:Angr/talk 17:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Glottalic theory

Yes, I know. I don't have the time, energy, or bibliographic resources to fight with him about it though. All I can do is keep him from POV-pushing in the articles on my watchlist, which glottalic theory isn't. --Angr (t·c) 09:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

wiktionary links

Hiya, thanks for your note about strong verbs. I'll work on making all those links live this week - cheers. --w:User:Widsith

Einstein

I've put a quick recap on my talk page.

Desdinova 20:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added some cites: Hartle, Penrose and K Thorne.

Desdinova 23:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Jeff Relf

Thank you for the comments you left on Jeff Relf's talk pages. You are quite correct, I was out of order with my interpretation of the rules and I will drop my protests on his page. However, I do think Jeff is removing a lot of the messages on his talk page to "clean his slate" more often - as very few people will bother to read through all the commentary. He has repeatedly tried to post "original research" onto the Einstein page and each time people give him the benefit of the doubt because his "warnings" (informal though they may be) are removed. Anyway - sorry for the mini rant. I will get over him now :-) --TWake 09:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

Thanks for restoring my inadvertant deletions on that page. I checked back in the history and I really did manage to delete those sections - I just don't understand how I did it though. Richard W.M. Jones 20:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Redirect bypassation

Hi, I noticed that you made an edit to bypass a redirect at English language. However, WP:REDIRECT specifically forbids editing solely to avoid redirects - it introduces needsless verbiage. Processing a redirect is not expensive either - every edit is far more expensive, so no performance can be gained by removing redirects. There is nothing inherently wrong with redirects, and can be beneficial because there's less unnecessary piping, making the wikimarkup easier to read — they're not broken, so don't need to be 'fixed'. Please bear this in mind when you are pondering circumventing redirects. --Sam Pointon 20:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:REDIRECT does not “forbid” bypassing redirects (nor could it, not being Wikipedia policy). Rather it presents two reasons and one unsupported assertion why doing so may not be advisable:

• Redirects to possible future articles should be maintained. This is absolutely correct, but inapplicable to my edit. For “Anglo-Saxon” is just an old-fashioned name for Old English.
• One should not bypass redirects merely to reduce server load because the server hit for an edit is hundreds of times greater than that of a redirect. Well yes, but the server load of both an edit and a redirect are miniscule. If you are concerned about server efficiency, you should note that posting to a talk page causes the same server hit as straightening a redirect. You may infer my lack of concern over the server load of an edit from the fact that I post this reply both on my talk page and on yours. I don't worry about performance.
• One should never replace [[redirect]] with [[direct|redirect]]. This is nonsense (except as the two reasons above may apply). It is also inapplicable to my edit.

In short: Thank you for your opinion, but I will continue to bypass redirects as I see fit. --teb728 22:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Einstein 2

Hi TEB728. For starters, I don’t mind being reverted, so no worries. But, maybe you can take away my confusion/lack of knowledge on the following:

• …due to large probable errors. – Does that mean:

- there are probably large errors, or

- large statistical confidence errors (as in probability)

• I was convinced, maybe wrongly, that Newtonian laws don’t predict star position change due to gravitation. I that’s true, gravitational lensing cant be twice Newtonian predictions?

Thanks. --Van helsing 12:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

With regard to your specific questions:

• In any physical measurement there are always errors associated with the accuracy and precision of the equipment. (As a simple example, if you use a meter stick calibrated in millimeters to measure a length, there is an error on the order of half a millimeter (or however closely you think you can eyeball fractional millimeters).) An experimenter then always combines the various sources of error to estimate an upper limit on the error in his measurement. I don’t have access to the reference cited it the article, but I presume that the Lick Observatory astronomers were not able to set an error limit that excluded Einstein’s prediction. Check the reference, if you want to know more. In any case I can’t imagine what “probability error” might mean.
• Newtonian mechanics predicts deflection of light because a photon has a mass of hν/c² and thus is attracted by the gravitational field of the sun. General relativity predicts extra deflection due to the distortion of space-time in the strong gravitational field near the sun. Check a book on general relativity for details.

More generally, Wikipedia encourages you to be bold in adding links, correcting grammar, etc. (Thank you for your helpful links.) But the content of featured articles like Albert Einstein is usually pretty clean; so I would suggest that before making substantive changes to a featured article you go to the talk page first unless you know whereof you speak. --teb728 19:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your elaborate response.

• As English is not my native language, I trust large probable errors is the way to describe the accuracy and precision errors than, I thought it was a typo (with probability (of) error I mean a large $Y$ in: the outcome of our measurement/experiment is $X$, with a confidence interval of $Y$, with $Z\%$ certainty).
• My bad, I thought photons where massless when using Newton's laws of motion.

--Van helsing 08:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Identifying Einstein as a Jew

I wanted to discuss your recent edit to the article on Einstein in which you removed from the beginning blurb the fact that Einstein was a jew. I would argue that though Einstein's personal religion is difficult to really characterize (he made many spiritual statements but one couldn't legitimately call him observant) the fact that he was jewish is relevant enough to merit the word in the opening sentence. Aside from the fact that his jewish background was a significant factor in his life and the way his work was accepted or rejected. Consider, also, his statement that "A Jew who sheds his faith along the way, or who even picks up a different one, is still a Jew." For those reasons it would seem to merit that one word in his opening description... and I think Einstein would agree himself.

However, I didn't want to simply revert what appears to be a sincere intellectual decision on your part without first hearing your opinion on the subject. Thanks in advance for your opinion. --Geeman 10:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

There are many labels that one could attach to Einstein, Jewish, German, Swiss, American, pacifist, vegetarian. People have tried to add most of those to the header at one time or another. If all of them were included, it would make for an unwieldy header. The inclusion of such labels has been extensively discussed on the article’s talk page in the sections Talk:Albert Einstein#Nationalities, Talk:Albert Einstein/Archive 9#Opening Line: Jewish-German-Swiss-American scientist?, and Talk:Albert Einstein/Archive 9#Jewishness. The consensus of the editors seems to be that the Jewish label was appropriate in the header only if a person’s Jewishness is the reason for his notability, which is not the case with Einstein. (You should note that I was not removing a label that had been there for a long time: It was reinserted only a couple of days ago.) --teb728 19:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt and thoughtful response. I've responded more fully in the Einstein article's talk page. --Geeman 04:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have called to your attention that only the first talk page section is in the active talk page. The others are in an archive, which is probably not on anyone’s watch list. I would never have seen your post in the archive if you hadn’t said here that you had written something. --teb728 04:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the head's up. I'll move (or just reproduce) those comments in a more appropriate (read: recent) talk section. --Geeman 09:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

TEB728 for redirecting my edits on the Einstien page to the quote page. I'm aware of the existence of the wikiquote but I somehow forgot about it. Thanks again for the edits and keep up the good work. Marwan123 07:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

thanks...

i should appolgize about my english again...this semester i probably joind to an english class at my university ,since my high school days i didnt study this language as well... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by --Gilisa 18:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

On ethnicity

This section was originally titled “to TEB728”; I changed the title to be more descriptive (all the posts here are to me). And I have standardized the English (not as any implied criticism but for my convenience in reading it). --teb728 19:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Before you go too far, blaming me for getting close to violating the policy of Wikipedia - I hope you read it:

To me, some of your statements looked not to the point, and against Wikipedia policy, like you are trying to provoke me-i.e., telling me that I am following the Nazis with my definition of ethnic group (and this definition is very, very common, by most of the non racist people). I am sure, now, that you didn’t have any intention to mean that. I was I just telling you how it seems to me.

I am sorry I seemed provocative. It was not my intent to provoke you, but I see now how it could have seemed that way. --teb728 00:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I already get several anti-Semitic comments from people of which I never talked (only because of changing the term "Palestine" to "Judea" (according to the period in History) or because I add the Jewishness of someone to an article (or sometimes users just delete it without even living a comment -even though I gave a reliable reference for the Jewishness of several great persons).

I am sorry if you got anti-Semitic comments: they would surely be a violation of Wikipedia:Civility. Please consider, however, the possibility that the comments were not really anti-Semitic: What I mean is: Perhaps the other guys were writing in good faith (like Schultz and me) but you misunderstood. Or perhaps they thought you were pushing some agenda and reacted to that. (If you still think they were anti-Semitic, don’t prove it to me—I take your word for it.) --teb728 00:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

So, and you can deny it or disagree with me if you like, but for me it wont change the facts, there is much effort put in by users just to limit the Jewishness of great persons (sometimes totally, and I didn’t see such a phenomenon against any other ethnic group; in the case of Einstein you my recall users which left links to Nazi and racist sites ("white power" "white superiority" and etc) claming that Einstein was a plagiarist) with out giving any good excuse - Einstein article is only one of many...I think, and it get to my knowledge that I’m not the only one who think that this is an output of anti Semitic feeling at least in part of the time - So, I’m very sensitive to this subject and it seems that you are not aware for it.

My comments have no intention to sound personal but I guess it may seem to you like that only because I can’t see how your comments fit with the facts-and it can sound to you, might be, like that when I'm trying, in any possible way, to explain it to you and to Schultz with my limited English.

Your English is really quite understandable; it just takes a little longer to read. You are difficult to understand, however, when you get upset, but that is a problem not with your English but rather that you express yourself poorly when you are upset. Your present post is expressed very clearly; I standardized its English only because I wanted to make it easy to read it several times as I reply. --teb728 00:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Now-for the Einstein article:

"...If the relativity theory will be proven true, the Germans will say I am a German, the Swiss I am a Swiss and the French that I am a great man. If not, the Germans will call me Swiss, the Swiss will call me German, and the French will say I am a Jew...."Albert Einstein , long before the nazis, long before Hitler rise to power.

German Jews are acctually from the very same origin as other Jewsih groups of Europe ,North Africa and most of the middle east (there are few Jewish groups which are from a different historical lineage). So , a Jew which born in Geramny is only from a different culture (not necessarily) and in any way the Jews of Germay are only an ethnic sub-group, at most , within the very same ethnic group.So there is no justification to mention Einstein as a "German Jew".--Gilisa 12:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Do you agree with me that two different ethnic groups, or more, can live in the very same country ? (Take Canada for example...French and British; or Israel -in which there are 600,000 non Jewish Russians, actually serving in the army, going to a Jewish schools and Universities, speaking Hebrew, eating the many kinds of Jewish ethnic food and etc- but belonged to a different ethnic group (i.e. Russian) and many of them also consider themselves as such)

2. How can you say that the people who were hunted by the Germans for their religion but also for their different ethnic origin for centuries are actually of the same ethnic origin??

3. Don’t you know that for the vast majority of humans ethnic origin means first of all the historical group from which someone came from and also his racial definition...why is it so bad? Does it mean that somebody who is not of one race is inferior??

Let’s sum it like this: Einstein was an ethnic Jew which born and have also educated, part of his life, in Germany.

Best, and nothing personal of course. --Gilisa 10:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

3. Let me answer your third question first because I want to define concepts in this answer that I will use in my other answers. I distinguish ethnic origin from ethnicity. Ethnic origin refers to the ethnicity of your ancestors particularly those of the last few generations. So if I understand you correctly, we agree on that. Ethnicity (including its use in defining “ethnic origin”) refers to the group that you identify with and/or are identified with on a basis of several factors including both descent and culture. So for example my ethnic origin is English, Irish, Scottish, Swedish, and French, but my ethnicity is American. Ethnic origin is a useful concept for a few things like genetic research or determining eligibility for immigration to Israel. But aside from those few uses (or a general interest in personal trivia) ethnic origin does not define who a person is. For one thing, most people don’t know who their ancestors were more than a few generations back; beyond that their ethnic origins are unknown. If you try to extend the concept of ethnic origin much further you get increasingly into the concept of “race,” which is a discredited concept (see the article on Race). What defines a person meaningfully is his ethnicity (based on multiple factors).

Perhaps you are thinking that culture goes with ethnic origin so that ethnic origin and ethnicity are practically the same thing; let me give you an example where they are radically different: When the Spanish colonized California, they captured Native American bands, put them into missions, and forced them to adopt the Spanish language, the Catholic religion, and the Californio culture. Now consider two closely related bands: One is captured and converted to Californios; the other escapes to the hills and is more able to retain its native culture. Their modern descendents are quite different from each other—different ethnic groups. But how do we describe the difference? It’s not their ethnic origin, for they are closely related. It’s not their citizenship, for they are all US citizens. The difference is their ethnicity (based in this case mostly on culture).

Shortly as i can (and not fully):I been on a travel to South America few month ago , and i saw the peopole of Peru (for example) which are mostly indians ,keeping the local ancient traditions -BUT also mix it with european (i.e spanish) chrisitanity ,spanish tallking (this is the only way,allmost, to communicate there) but consider themselvs to be purely local peruvians (as my peruvian guide to machu pichu said). only thus which very commonly mixed with spanish europeans ( espcially the peopole at Lima and in the well developed parts of this city and allmost never at the city of Cuzco) seems that they had ethnogensis process which made a new ethnic identity -but it took alot of time , and also have what seems to me as a different culture with in the very same country.--Gilisa 11:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Yes, different ethnic groups can live in the same country. And the best example of course are the Jews living as an ethnic minority in Eastern Europe for like 1000 years. They were a social/cultural group who identified and were identified with each other; so they were an ethnicity. (Of course we don’t know how much conversion or intermarriage there was; so we don’t know how “pure” the “ethnic origins” of either the majority or minority ethnic groups were.) As examples of what I mean: Sholom Aleichem was born and raised in Ukraine. His ethnicity was Jewish and not Ukrainian because he belonged to the Yiddish, Ashkenazi culture and did not become assimilated to Ukrainian culture. Your father, as you say, was of Jewish and not German ethnicity because he did not identify with the Germans. Einstein, on the other hand, was thoroughly assimilated to German culture. He married a gentile woman, and until the Nazis he tried to be as German as he could be. Until the Nazis he identified with and was identified with both the Jewish and German social/cultural groups. Only when the Nazis came to power did he say that maybe he was not a German any more. I agree that his ethnic origin was Jewish, but his ethnicity was both.

I wont answer you the full answer now-as it taking alot of time from me, which i barely have.Any way-about the intermarrige question-dozens of genetical studies that been done by leading research groups all over the world and were published in the most well known A journals (i.e Science,Nature,Human Genetics and etc) and check it from any possiable angle (i.e from maternial heritage (mtDNA) ,paternal heritage (Y chromosom) or both (otosoms , genetical dissorders perevalence and etc) state that "racialy" the Jews are very much "Pure" (i.e more realted to the non Jewish populations of the middle east then to the Europeans) .It fits very well with the historical records that suggest that since the 4 A.C Jews (preety close to the time in which the diaspora formed) were not allowd to convert peopole -acctually there are several groups of non Ashkenazi Jews which have non-Jewish genetical markers at different extants(Etiopians (which convert to judaism in unknown way 600 years ago) and Yamans (which are a mix of local convertion and Jews) and other few communities near the Caspian Sea).And i didnt understand again how does the ethnicity is affected by the culture...you mixed between 2 different aspects:ethnic origin refer to the historical group from which one came from and was born to and not to the culture which can be changed several times trough ones life span (any way when you get into it a clause it dont refer to the cultural element but to the heritage ).Best--Gilisa 10:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

1 question:there were alot of Jews with in the former USSR (manily Russia ) that didnt keep any part of the Jewish culture (i.e didnt know to speak hebrew,yeddish and other Jewish languages ,didnt know nothing about Judaism,didnt know nothing about Jewish history and etc) because of the ideology that forbiden it -what are they? More,many Jews at the diaspora didnt know much about their origins since it is very hard to preserve it when you have no sovernity -so what does it mean about them?--Gilisa 12:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

2. Jews were persecuted not for their “different ethnic origin” but for their ethnic separation, which is quite a different thing. In other words they were persecuted just for being different. In plain terms the difference is that until the Nazis, an individual could avoid persecution by converting to Christianity, which didn’t change his ethnic origin. Also it wasn’t only the Germans who persecuted them: Indeed until the rise of the Nazis, Germany was one of the better places to be a Jew. The Nazis were certainly horrible, but they were kicked out over 60 years ago. In modern Germany anti-Semitism is totally in disfavor. There are of course a few individuals left, but they are effectively opposed both by cultural leaders and the law—indeed Holocaust deniers are subject to jail. The attitude of modern Germans is shown by the fact that they chose Einstein as #10 in a list of the greatest Germans—ahead of #12 Beethoven and #20 Mozart. Marx, another German Jew, was #3. I think that’s a great development!

Well, this is really not a serious one...:-) (you acctually made me laugh-a little step for the man agreat one to the humanity)..every one will be happy to say that Einstein is more related to them (including me, i admit) acctually there are many peopole which try to denay the Jewishness of several great figurs for anti semic reasons and to claim, lets say, that they were German-it have nothing with tolernce, acctually -one of the most common explantions to the Jews hatred in Germany due the 30' of the 20 centurie (but i dont agree with it-it is too superficial explanation) was the great sucsess of the Jews after they get eqallity -so,to say that a great Jewish person was really great but lets dont remanid that he was a Jew -is not serious.More,even if one great person would convert to judaism , than i agree with you that culturly he became to be a fuly cultural Jewish (like one scandinavic who recive the Nobel Prizer for medicine at the 70' and which his name i forgot,did) but when i will tell peopole that he was an ethnic Jew i missleading them since they are really asking :what was the historical group for which he was born.and allow me to be sceptical about the anti semic views in Germany,the histoy shows countless times that anti semiti is very prefound with in the European culture at general and at the German society at part.This is another explenation for my claming that Einstein wanst cultural German in the same aspect in which non-Jewish German wa, because there must been something very wrong within the culture that made the holocaust, and its not like the Nazis came out of no where, like many German intellectuals claim . You can argue against it as much as you like , for me (and for many Jews ) this is a fact.Best--Gilisa 11:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I’m curious: What is your take on Hans Albert Einstein. His mother was not Jewish; so according to Halakhah, he would not be Jewish either. But I suspect you would say he was half-Jewish, which would be in disagreement with what a lot of Jews would say. (As far as I am concerned, he was Swiss.)

--teb728 00:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You are totaly wrong... I would say that he is not a Jewish (So im saying about Garry Kasparov which said that he is a Jew when he been at Israel ;but i also think that any one which is from amix origin is not easily to define-no matter from which side his mother was) -but i would understand if he would seen himself as one (since one cant allways ignore his ancestors history so easily;and it even will confuse me) and the Halahhah (הלכה) would said that he is not a Jew but as he is a son of a Jew the convertion process (Giur גיור), which is a long one (1-4 years or even more,depend on several varibales -the most important is how much you convinced the rabbies that you are willing and want to be a Jew and that it dont realated to any hiden interst of yours) should be considerbly easier for him (few month usually) and with out checking his intentions seriously as he calld "one who return to the tradition of his ancestors" (שב לדרכי אבותיו) .But can you explain me please why did you ask this?.Best--Gilisa 10:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

And im storngly dissagree with what you just have wrote "Jews were persecuted not for their “different ethnic origin” but for their ethnic separation, which is quite a different thing" this is not a strate forword answer ..if you are claiming the the culture is what define ethnicity than persecution of someone for his "ethnic separation" is similar to saying that they were persecuted for his culture i.e for what you define as ones ethnicity (and that what make a lot of Jews to run a way from their own ethnic identity) but any way , the Germans never saw the Jews which live aside them as beeing from the "same family".More , you might dont know it but Jews were described as having different physical appearence long before tha Nazis (acctually there are alot of paintings (very important ones) that describe the big nose ,dark hair and other Jewish stereotypic features at the 12 A.C or even earlier).Due the 19 A.C. jew which convert to christianity was considerd as christian -Jew in distinction from any other no Jewish chrisitan.Any way , i dont accept your claim that the persecution of Jews was only for their heavy unforgiven sin of beeing different in their culture as there is no other minority in Europe that have to handle with the same extant of persecutions, it seems that the different costums and belives was only the exuse many times (Jews were described as a femainen peopole or as having bad traits (with which they were born) as early as the first milenia).Even in a very secular countries (like the USSR) antisemti took amajor part and in the very secular Europe of now days -it is not hard to find anti semtic views which have nothing to do with different culture (or even with different race). it is only paritally answer , i will get into detalis in the next coming days.Best--Gilisa 10:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Last questions (and last for today i hope): you wrote that some one who keep the Jewish tradition and didnt assimalite is not an ethnic German (sorry for the bad English for all the comments , i just writing too fast) , what does it means? that he is not part of the local society? i.e-if i was born to an immegrate family in UK but im taking the British culture as arole model but im aloyal citizen-can i call to myself "British" ?(i would say :"hell , yes").but does it will change my ethnicity ? and how does Jewish with culturly is totaly a German (i.e dont even want to consider himself as a Jew- it can happend where ever the Jews are under heavy prushers from the hosting culture) but his ethnic origin , of course , is Jewish -how come that "practising" the gentile culture will make his ethnicity to be the gentile (i.e ethnicity referd to an ethnic member which keeping the tradition/culture of his ansectors otherwise is only an assimilate human) .

And more, i ask you to explain why you are saying :" did he say that maybe he was not a German any more" or "einstein was ageramn apart from the 15 years of the nazis regim". 1)Einstein said clearly that he is not longer a german (and as i told you he said about Jewishness that a Jew will allways stay a Jew even if married a gentile woman for example -something that he never said about his German-ness) 2)Even after the fall of the 3 reich Einstein never cited as saying that he is a German again, not after one third of his own peopole were killed by the Germans, it not only a poor mistake.--Gilisa 15:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

comment to your comments

I will discuss with you later-as the corresponds take alot of time from me and i prefer to explain it in one or two comments insted of writing many .More,might be that my long writing make you think that im hungry or so, but i realy have hard time with english (i have a love-hate realtions with this language ,and i also know hebrew,arabic and spanish-but in a native speaker level and not on a poor level like in english) and as i want my ideas to be clear-i need to use many words.but it seems that you didnt understand me at least in part of my arguments.i will discuss you later.--Gilisa 10:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

You’re fluent three languages? Wow! I have enough trouble with one. I don’t think you need many words to make your ideas clear: I find that many words make your ideas less clear. For example, I got the mistaken notion that you were talking about race from the quote on the ethnogenesis of the Germanic tribes in your first post. --teb728 02:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I made some very short , unfocusd ,comments on my tallk page-to you and to otterpops..--Gilisa 10:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

for the meanwhile you might used this definition of ethnicity as it appeard at Wikipedia "ethnic" article-basicly , thats what i consider as going well with my notion of ethnicity : "An ethnic group or ethnicity is a population of human beings whose members identify with each other, usually on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry (Smith 1987). Recognition by others as a distinct ethnic group is often a contributing factor to developing this bond of identification. [1] Ethnic groups are also often united by common cultural, behavioural, linguistic, ritualistic, or religious traits. [2] Processes that result in the emergence of such identification are summarized as ethnogenesis..." --Gilisa 15:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this definition supports your notion of ethnicity, but it also supports mine. And the same could be said of the Webster's dictionary definition on your talk page. --teb728 02:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok,we will continue our corresponding as we both have time.Any way , i think that this definition only support mine , cause it is widely accepted that Jews and Germans dont share the same genealogy or ancestry (and it is not the racial matter that important here even if you can find such a differnce as a result of a different history) and commonly peopole dont consider "German born Jew/converted Jew and etc" and achristian/non relligious German to be from the same ethnic group.More, common culture only make the ethnic realtions which are allready exist to be stronger , but it can make an ethnic group only trough along process of "ethnogensis" -something that never take place between Jews and Germans .acctually , apart from a very short period in history Jews were allways persecuted and discriminated and even today there is no consensus with in the german non-Jewish society about the notion of eqallity between Jews and Geramns (the last survey i saw 20% of the non-Jewish Germans defind themselves as anti-semic, 33% said that the Jews have to much world wide infulence , more then 50% claim that the memory of the holocaust is going too far end etc (i have more exampels if you are willing to hear).The German govrement ,which tried to rebuilt the Jewish community within Germany (so they have more Einstein,Marks and Heina as one minister said)consider,as far as i know, the Jews to be a sparte ethnic group-and for me this is very right thing to do :from the factual percpective as well as from the humaneness aspect.There are , however, peopole who see the Jews as sub-ethnic group with in any hosting country (i.e Iran for example consider the Jews live inside it to be from the very same ancestry of the other Iraninans many times and having only a different relligion (might be for a political reasons),this is ,of course-not true and the Jews of iran are highly dont accept such a claims) -this is happend sometimes when peopole fail to understand the Jewish history and think about Jewishness as merly a matter of relligion with no common genealogy . One paradox that i want to mention is the differnt ethnic idntity of Austrians and Germans (i.e -you may consider it as different) which acctually share very similare genealogy,culture and history and while many peopole of thus two nations consider themselves to be from one ethnic group (and claim that the separation between this nations is an historical error -they dont have to be Nazis for saying that)you will consider them , i assume, to be from a different ethnicity (i dont have a clear opinion for this dilemma)even though they are much similar in any aspect to the Germans and vise versa than the Jews.Will give you a better comment later on,Best wishes--Gilisa 08:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand that you get tired from our corresponding, so -if you have no objection ofcourse -can i delete all of my comments on this page,at least? (since i made them to long and with bad english - and i also guess that you would prefer it to be done (correct me if im worng)) Best--Gilisa 06:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I don’t get tired of corresponding with you, for I have enjoyed it (even though it is sometimes frustrating), and I want to continue it when I have the time. But I do get tired from it, for you make me think hard about what I think and how to express myself (but that’s a good kind of tired). [There is a little lesson in English idioms there.] Per your suggestion I have deleted the posts about resolved issues. And I have finally completed my reply to your March 16 post above. --teb728 02:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I am a German Jews, Yeddish to be Correct Like Albert, I discovered a very strong light source mid 1996 which I call lazer Canon !!! For the rest you can understand for yourself. The Project are savely locked up ! Two Yeddish created two destructive weapons in a short time ... what would be the next discovery ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmhrae (talk • contribs) 14:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi TEB :)

This is a great resource site for the history section of Assassins (which is looking pretty thin, to tell the truth) - did you put it into the article? I just logged on and I'm only on my second cup of coffee for the morning so I haven't looked at any articles at all yet. Regarding "book", there really is a literal book, available on Amazon.com. Amazon lets you read the first chapter and it looks like a script modified for easy reading while preserving the sense of reading a play.
Otterpops (coy) "Are you following me?"
Now I have to go back to Einstein to eat my hat, drat!
~ Otterpops 17:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The script sold on Amazon.com is not as modified as you seem to think. It looks pretty much like any script I have ever seen. The only things at Amazon.com that I would not expect in any script are the fancy hard covers, library indexing information on the copyright page, a preface, and maybe a more attractive typography. When you say “modified for easy reading” you might be referring to the stage directions, but stage directions are always included in a modern script. (If you wanted to do a production of Assassins and ordered a perusal script from Music Theatre International, it would include the same stage directions.) If on the other hand you are referring to the typography, yes, that is different from some scripts; some scripts (including probably the MTI script) are distributed as typewritten manuscripts. --teb728 22:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Einstein article

The article is not vandalized more than most other major articles, and it heavily watched and quickly reverted, as the history shows. I think with articles like this, which really do need a lot of work done to them, everything should be done to facilitate editing. The article's biggest problems have nothing to do with an excess of (vandalistic) editing, but are instead related to a lack of editing in general. In any case semi-protects should be reserved for small periods of sustained vandalism, not generally applied, at least in my understanding of the protection policy. --Fastfission 12:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

('snork!') 11 vandalisms in the last 5 hours! Gee, I'll have to put the other major articles on my watchlist.   ;-)   Shenme 01:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is where (and how) to comment on vandalism. --teb728 06:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll have to watch that for awhile and see what levels of vandalism they think warrants what levels of protection. Shenme 22:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The levels of protection are not generally for different levels of vandalism. Rather semi-protection, which block editing by anons, is for vandalism by anons. Full protection, which allows editing only by admins, is for edit wars (or for high visibility pages or templates). With regard to semi-protection: I would expect them to protect if there are like 15 attacks a day from several IPs. (If it’s mostly one or two IPs, they will prefer to block the IPs. That’s why I mentioned that there were 8 different attacking IPs.) --teb728 22:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks Teb for the holiday wishes, that wasn't directed personally at you, (though you did say you weren't going to bring the issue of the Jewish part up again,) rather, at the past disscusions and polls on this topic for this page. I am fine with German ethnicity being there, I can agree with both sides on the coin, it might be confusing to just have his Jewish ethnicity on the page. But I'm not particularly concerned based on the repeated mentions of his "Germanness" right in the first bit (3 actually even without the ethnicity one), though I wrote that all on the page. Epson291 23:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh and as for past disccussions, you would have to go back and read them, there have been several comments to limit and negate it. Claims for instance that come to mind, I cannot remember who but feel free to look, such as equating the Jewish nation with the religion of Judiasm, which of course is not the same. (And since Einstein only nominally if at all practiced Judaism, that he isn't really a Jew, that sort of rubbish.) Also commments that he is a German, and that is the only thing important, (again since he was not religious) or on the flip side of the coin, claiming that the Jewish is equilvent to something like "African American" and that Jews are simply an ethnic minoirty in a country, which of course if far from the truth, especially for Jews in that period of time. Anyways, that what my comments stem from. Epson291 00:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

thanks

Thnaks for your kind comments on my talk page.I might use some help later on , for now my user page is not of immediate importance.Best,--Gilisa 10:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Albert Einstein in popular culture

Hi TEB728. You are off to such a great start on the article Albert Einstein in popular culture that it may qualify to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page under the Did you know... section. The Main Page gets about 4,000,000 hits per day and appearing on the Main Page may help bring publicity and assistance to the article. However, there is a five day from article creation window for Did you know... nominations. Before five days pass from the date the article was created and if you haven't already done so, please consider nominating the article to appear on the Main Page by posting a nomination at Did you know suggestions. If you do nominate the article for DYK, please cross out the article name on the "Good" articles proposed by bot list. Also, don't forget to keep checking back at Did you know suggestions for comments regarding your nomination. Again, great job on the article. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 20:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Overlinking

Cheers for pointing that out. I seem to take spontaneous interest in articles with no relevance but I will be sure to stick to the guidelines in future (I hadn't read that section). Bamkin 12:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Vossstrasse

I find your argument interesting. If you can reach consensus on that ground, fine. I would phrase it differently: we should spell as English does. We should not use long ʃ, because English no longer does. We should not use ʃs, for the same reason; and we should use ß only where it is predominant usage in English. I'm not sure how much this is operational disagreement. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment; I will consider whether I am being too forcible. I should note that the closing admin expressly found that I had not violated 3RR; and that Komusou was irascible and abusive before I arrived at the article, and on cases, like this, which have nothing to do with me. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Albert Einstein

Thank you for your input Dustihowe 16:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

For your protection

of my (I just feel that way) article on the Home Building Association Company from the long arm of Michael Jackson and his cohorts, you have earned the seldom coveted Thumbs Up Award. Congratulations. Einar aka Carptrash 23:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for your help and contributions to my ISSCH page. Do you have any suggestions as far as other info that can go on this page. And FYI ISSCH is not the name of the school there. ISSCH's school is called Morton Memorial

Dustihowe 16:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC) (This message is copied from a page that someone mistakenly created; I found this when checking Special:Newpages. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC))

I apologize for the above mistake, thank you for your last comment on my page, and the "resolution", do you always treat community members like this? Dustihowe 17:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes and no. I treat you like anyone else in the sense that if I don’t like a change someone is trying to put in an article, I try to persuade them. But I noticed that you were a newcomer and that you could use some help. So I fixed an Image reference on your talk page and fixed up your ISSCH page into a decent stub. That, I guess, is not something I ordinarily do. You seem like someone who will become a really good Wikipedian. Welcome to Wikipedia. --teb728 02:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Cultural Zionism

It doesn't really have a whole lot to do with Judaism. Ahad Ha’am, like many of Israels founders were born into a religious family but abandoned it. There are really three types of Zionism, Socialist Zionism, Cultural Zionism and Religious Zionism. Cultural Zionism would be in the middle, but really what he was trying to do is create a sort of secular Judaism if you will, where as the Socialist Zionism had complete socialist, views, so much so most kibutzim had no synagogues for prayer. Religious Zionism came later, (especially after the Holocaust), and thats the Zionism which uses Judaism as a justification for Israel, (e.g. That the land was given to the Jewish people by G-d, that it will bring about the Messiah, etc...). So cultural Zionism is really focussed on the revival and speaking of Hebrew, Jewish culture, and the settling of Israel. I googled an article, and here's one from the Jewish Agency], but basically the Wikipieda article on it is poorly written. Epson291 21:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Ooo, I've never had the opportunity to use interwiki links before, and didn't know about them! Thanks very much. TriNotch 01:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Response

I'm sorry, I must have made a mistake when posting the template about an AIV report on your talk page. I skimmed over the text and missed the part of 'may be blocked'. The way that some users told me was that a {{uw-vandalism4}} or {{uw-vandalism4im}} is a final warning and that the {{uw-vandalism3}} is just the level before. In this case, since the user made continuous acts of vandalism after the warning, they were appropriately blocked. Sorry for any confusion, and happy editing! Icestorm815 22:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Usernames

Thanks for your note. Per WP:UN, prohibited usernames include "Promotional usernames: Usernames that match the name of a company or group, especially if the user promotes it." (It's about in the middle of the page.) -- But|seriously|folks  09:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC) Wmhrae 14:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. There's nothing ambiguous about "usernames that match the name of a company". -- But|seriously|folks  21:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

If the user requests that the name be unblocked on the basis that her given name is "Dianes" and her surname is "Jewelry", or that she was just talking about her private collection of necklaces, we can have that discussion. Until then, I think there are bigger things to worry about here at the ol' Wikipedia. -- But|seriously|folks  02:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Erudecorp

I've replied to your comment on my talk page. Go there if you feel like continuing the discussion. -- VegitaU 20:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

word

thanks for the help with my copyright infraction :) -joshuatrees- 19:25 GMT 16 November 2007

Regarding your reply to my Media Copyright Question

Firstly, thanks for your comment. The second image that you can't make out has a larger version here (my drawings is pretty much an exact copy of a TV screenshot of those seemingly throw-away props, if that helps). And I feel I need to check whether I got your comment right: "I’m not sure if your first image is new, but it does seem to have achieved inapplicability" means that you think my GDFL license seems alright, right? I just want to prevent that someone deletes these images as not properly tagged in a few months/years when I may no longer be an active wikipedian... – sgeureka ^t•c 23:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I get it now. Thanks. – sgeureka ^t•c 00:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

thanks

i just copied that into the image description... hope that works Iamandrewrice (talk) 21:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

World Record Club image

Thanks for your message. I have imported an appropriate template following your advice, but I can't pretend to understand how to enter the name of the article in it. The 'Article' line that appears in the template when it is shown on screen (as it finally appears) doesn't seem to exist inside the template when one is writing in it. I confess this has blown a gasket in my html skills! Can you advise? Cheers, Sedgefoot 00:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou very much, that seems extraordinarily simple by comparison! Sedgefoot 12:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Accidental deletion

Oops! Thanks for cleaning that up for me. east.718 at 21:33, December 23, 2007

Thanks for the help

In the alternative, could I simply create a similar chart with the same data and cite it back to the website? --Kallahan (talk) 23:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for help

Thanks for help on the image, I wasn't sure how to go about setting that up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M1rth (talk • contribs) 06:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Logos

Yes it is. Logos are fair use by itself and I have discussed that before with even the bot owner accepting that it commits that kind of errors. So please stop promoting copyright paranoia without fundamentals.

The tag was removed appropiately. The bot is blind and you seem equally so. --Sugaar (talk) 20:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Ut clearly reads: "This is a logo of an organization, item, or event, and is protected by copyright and/or trademark. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, of logos for certain uses involving identification and critical commentary may qualify as fair use under United States copyright law".

Fair use. You are not a bot: you can read!

Anyhow, the party is now illegal. No legal entity has any copyright anymore. But this is not the issue in any case. --Sugaar (talk) 20:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Look, if you think it requires a rationale, you may add it yourself (use your brain!). I am not going to cooperate with that corporation-promoted copyright idiocy. If you want to delete all images and leave Wikeipedia blank, it's your problem and that of those silly bots.

Why not dedicate your energies to improve the encyclopedia and not to sabotage the efforts of others on blatantly corporativist concepts that help nothing to Wikipedia? --Sugaar (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank You

Thanks for sorting out the Image: Green Wing (Series 1).ogg file, had no idea what I was doing! Cheers londonsista | ^Prod 00:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

On Einstein

Dear TEB, nothing what I said was meant to be personal and I apologise if my statements have been perceived differently. It is however an undeniable fact that you destroyed my contribution which was well-thought-of and to my best judgement amounted to a positive, even though modest, contribution to the biography. --BF 23:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me guess

An educated guess, you did not bother to read through the entire context of the whole page which are in question by "user:Mil" before applying those rules as they were, right? oh btw, you did bother to read the problem from the start and not just came in the middle of this issue, did you? Tell me something you did not miss then I might just keep the lid on. --Dave1185 (talk) 07:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that when you are emotionally upset that you should take time to cool off. That way you won't make a fool of yourself with an irrelevant rant. —teb728 t c 08:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback can only be used to revert vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback may be removed at any time.

If you do not want rollback, then contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some information on how to use rollback, you can view this page. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, just leave me a message on my talk page. Happy editing! Malinaccier (talk) 02:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. —teb728 t c 02:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Helpdesk

It appears that a help desk request you submitted has been answered. Please take a moment a view the reply over there - if this doesn't quite help you, please feel free to ask for more information or clarification.Tiggerjay (talk) 05:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:John C. Huang

Some additions have been posted over at the MfD that you may be interested in. Tiggerjay (talk) 15:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

On sharon johnston

On sharon johnston: A big thank you for your help. I am learning Wiki and many pages are unclear as to what they mean when they say they need something like a citation, reference or cleaning up. Appreciate your knowing what was needing and assisting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ImN2Fun2 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

John C Huang

Hi TEB I have recently become aware of John's original research posting on wikipedia. I have made contact with him in hopes I can get to become a more contributing member of the site. I saw your posting on his site and since it seems you have also talked to him if you had any insights. If you could message me on my talk page with advice I would be most appreciative.

                                                                               Thanks Skeletor 0 (talk) 02:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I’m not sure what aspect of Huang you want me to comment on; so let me answer generally: It seems he has his own take on the Lorentz transformation and the Michelson-Morley experiment. At first he tried posting it in articles. When that was reverted, he tried posting it in article talk pages and at least one user’s user page. When you offered to explain the rules to him, he misunderstood and took that as an offer to discuss his theory on your user talk page.

At that point I left him a message that there is no place for his theory on Wikipedia. As I wrote that, it occurred to me that the presence of his theory on his user page negated what I was saying. So I proposed his user page for deletion. (Ordinarily I would accept almost anything someone puts on their user page.) Although my MfD got no support, Huang posted there agreeing to post his theory only on his user page until he gets it published (presumably coincident with hell freezing over).

I suspect his only interest in Wikipedia is as forum for his theory. I hope I am wrong. I think it is a mistake for you to try to discuss the merits of his theory with him. —teb728 t c 19:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping to show him that his theory was in error and that when he realized this he would stop. However it seems that he takes no interest in anything disputing his theory or anything I have to say about what Wiki is about. I will continue to talk to him but you are right, there is no future in discussing his theories since I have already disproved them and he is unwilling to listen. Thanks for your reply.Skeletor 0 (talk) 21:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou.

Hello User:TEB728,

Many thanks for the very good advice [1], I absolutely agree. I have had moments when I was going to dump wiki after being constantly attacked by just 2 editors who obviously have it over me due to experience. I still support the wiki concept, but I have noticed the lack of admin direction. Why should the average user be subjected to a battlefield. I still cannot see how anyone can get anything done when just one aggressive user (ScienceApologist) See [2] with track record just run the page ragged with reverts and mass edits.

However, I agree with your assessment, I have been trying to be wiki, informative and pleasant... but I have had some dummy spits.

Again, many thanks for you warm and caring advice.

My very best regards to you. Vufors (talk) 16:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

If you have some time, there are a few questions at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions that need attention (including mine). Thanks. Bebestbe (talk) 02:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

TEB728, I appreciate your remarks and sentiments. You subscribe to the views upon which Wikipedia was founded, and made it great, i.e. mutual respect, assuming good faith, etc. Wikipedia's been invaded and overrun with trolls of every stripe, and I simply have just blown a microchip or two obviously about the whole thing. I'll try my best to take your advice, but in the real world, I don't take shit off anyone, nor do I in the virtual world either. We'll see what happens. Best regards, Googie man (talk) 04:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Persistence

Good on you TEB728 for helping me through this dizzying array of particulars. I'll finish tagging the remainder of the images. Newportm (talk) 23:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

OH FUCK

Well spotted. And no, that's not intentional. That's what you get when you use copypasta when you're not paying attention.... Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 08:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Help page

Good catch on that. I don't get involved in deletions, but that article really has to go. Mjpresson (talk) 02:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

If you mean Ray Liversidge, probably so. I hope my questions will help them understand that. —teb728 t c 02:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Magazine covers

I think I am perfectly well versed in the policies and I find it odd that just because I have a different view from you I must not get it. I always find that to be the most obnoxious way of making a comment (in case you are seeking ways to improve your communication skills). There is currently a debate about the appropriateness of these images and while you added your comment I would say there is no concensus one way or the other - there are plenty of folks who have taken my side on this.

I think Michael Milken's famous cover (and at least in my area it is well known) from the cover of Time is perfectly legitimate under fair use rules in articles about the collapse of the junk bond market in the early 1990s. There is a perfectly good picture of Michael Milken that I do use to show who he is -- the purpose of this cover is separate from that. Similarly Henry Kravis and George Roberts were put on the cover of Fortune right at the peak of the LBO boom in 1989.

This is all discussed in the text of the articles and the captions of the pictures. I think the OJ Simpson cover that you cited is a perfectly good example. How is that more relevant to an article about OJ Simpson than the Milken cover is to an article about the history of private equity. There are tons of magazine covers and I looked carefully at their usage and the usage of these covers is consistent with the vast majority of the covers used on wikipedia in compliance with the policies and precedent on the application of the policies. If you want additional article content about the cover that is fine but I think the rationale is well established in the content that already exists.

Finally, I am not sure why on an article that reviewed and was passed for good article status without any objections to the magazine covers which were all in place, that suddenly this has become a major issue. You are detracting from the content of the article by removing images that indicate the level of public awareness and public reaction to the private equity industry. It is situations like this that just frustrate me on Wikipedia. |► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 02:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I am truly sorry if you were offended by my guess that you were unfamiliar with WP:NFCC. (Is my change on your talk page better?) But now I am confused: If you were indeed familiar with WP:NFCC#10c, why did you add Image:BoonePickens.jpg (for example) to articles for which there is no attempt at a non-free use rationale on the image description page? Whether an image use qualifies under WP:NFCC#8 is to some extent a matter of opinion, but it is an undeniable fact that this image has no attempt at a non-free use rationale on the image description page for any article but T. Boone Pickens, Jr.

The O.J. Simpson cover is not relevant to an article on O.J. Simpson: It has a non-free use rationale only for Photo manipulation, and indeed it is used only there. Its use there significantly increases readers’ understanding of photo manipulation because it shows in a way that words alone could not how TIME manipulated the photo. In contrast, the caption of the Milken image on the history of private equity article says, “Milken's insider trading scandal, which brought on the collapse of Drexel Burnham Lambert [was] referenced on the cover of TIME Magazine.” This text is perfectly understandable without the image. (And there is no attempt at a non-free use rationale for any article except Michael Milken.)

The IfD discussions are not majority votes. The closing admin will not be swayed by the fact that some people agree with you. The images are certain to be deleted unless someone comes up with a better argument for keeping them than has been offered so far—one that shows that they significantly increases readers’ understanding of the articles. —teb728 t c 08:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Since I posted that, someone has added a use rationale for the Milken image on Private equity. —teb728 t c 08:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

POV, discussion, reference

I am sorry but you have failed to establish your reasoning in the apropriate manner. I am refering to your recent edits on English language. I suggest that if you wish to control the manner of this article, you do so correctly. Asserting yourself without reference will not be sufficient. I hope you can establish your ideas because I for one am most intrigued. ~ R.T.G 15:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually TEB728 acted entirely appropriately in the framework of the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. You were bold, he reverted, now the next step is discussion. But not here, with accusations of "failing to establish one's reasoning" and "asserting oneself without reference", but rather at Talk:English language while carefully remembering to be civil. —Angr 15:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Quote the guideline page you provided:

1. BE BOLD, and make what you currently believe to be the optimal change. (any change will do, but it is easier and wiser to proceed based on your best effort.)
2. Wait until someone reverts (or modifies) your edit.
3. You have now discovered a Most Interested Person. Discuss the changes you would like to make with this person, and reach a compromise.

this person has avoided discussion with me therefore should not be in the loop. If you wish to community me out (civil? what?), feel free as is your privelidge. I saw a discrepancy and fixed it. I doubt I appear in any way incorrect. Good luck ~ R.T.G 18:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

He hasn't even been on Wikipedia since he reverted you, you can't say he's "avoided discussion" with you. If you read his edit summary in the revert, you'll see the issue is not that the info you added is incorrect, or unsourced, but merely that it is too detailed and too historical for the lead section of the article about the English language. The information would fit better in a paragraph in the article History of the English language. —Angr 18:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I queried TEB728 already and he answered me in part but deleted the section from this page. ~ R.T.G 22:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn’t reply until now because I have been away from my computer for almost three days. As for deletion, I replied to your previous post because I felt I owed you an explanation of why I had reverted your original edit; I deleted the section because you replied argumentatively, and I had no interest in discussing it further with you. On second thought I probably should have replied instead that I agreed with your stated intent to discuss your change on the article talk page. You really should have gone there in the first place. As you can see on the article talk page, I am not the only one who dislikes your change. —teb728 t c 01:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

So return the full content of this page without any alterations. In fact it is unusual and quite incivil to delete. I still haven't made a check of the guidelines on deleting stuff but I am almost sure I have seen deleting stuff to be questionable before. I suggest, if you wish not to comment with me you should state that and leave a record of the full text for all to see right here where it belongs. Why not? ~ R.T.G 19:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

You are looking for the 8th bullet at WP:TPG#Others' comments. I normally keep and ultimately archive posts on this page; I only delete sections as a sign that I have no interest in discussing a topic further. —teb728 t c 19:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking more along the lines of the 8th bullet of Wikipedia:Etiquette#Principles_of_Wikipedia_etiquette but it seems you are prepared to discuss the matter on the article page now. ~ R.T.G 01:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

No thanks

Nah. I've already uploaded a pic. THX anyway.

--Blacky98 (talk) 15:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Puzl jdg.gif

Thanks for your message. Please see Image_talk:Puzl_jdg.gif. Cheers, --Edcolins (talk) 22:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Email

I sent you an email Deadstar (talk) 11:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Einstein (reply)

It wasn't vandalism actually, I removed 2 template inclusions. One of them was causing vandalism to be included (although I just looked at the previous revision now, and it no longer appears to be there, so it can be re-added), I was a bit confused why the vandalism was showing up, and found it must have been via the template. The other template (notable teachers/students) just didn't seem to make sense where it was, so I just pulled it out while trying to fix the vandalism. If you think it should be there, let me know, and I'll self-revert. -Freqsh0 (talk) 22:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

You even...

Placed the afd3 (which I discovered when I went to today's log to place). Thanks!--71.247.123.9 (talk) 06:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Help desk post clarification

You apparently didn't notice when your posted you clarification to my post on the "deleted" redirected articles, but I provided a full statement of the likely reason they were redirected and links to the specific section of the notability guidelines. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually I did notice; that's where I got my info from. I understood you, but I imagine the OP did not. The OP asked why his articles had been deleted. The reason why they were deleted (technically redirected) was that they were not notable. I restated your reply it a way that I imagined would be more understandable to the OP. —teb728 t c 10:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, with respect to the "Relentless" article, because of the page moves and deletion of the redirects, it is unlikely anyone but an experienced user would know the article wasn't simply deleted. Second, many, many users do not know what redirects are and when they try to access a redirected article and get taken to the redirected page, they are completely unaware of where the article is—how to access it; that it's available in the article history, etc. and actually think it is, in fact, deleted. The link to the redirect process page I provided informs them of what a redirect is; how to access it; reverse it, that the page is it's still available. That's why the link to WP:REDIRECT is such vital information and why explaining that the articles weren't actually deleted was perfectly on point. Yet, you are "sure that is not what [the user] wanted to know"? Your assumption could be correct, in this instance, but is false in general. As far as I can tell, all you did was disparage my post and then redundantly echo what I had already said at the end.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry you felt my post disparaged yours. My intent was not to disparage your post but to expand on it: First, I wanted to tell the OP that his text was still there and give an example link to the history. (You didn’t say that, and as nearly as I can tell WP:REDIRECT doesn’t say it either. And without knowing that the articles are effectively deleted.) And secondly, I wanted to say directly that the problem was notability. (You linked to WP:NSONG, which says that, but I think the Help desk reply needs to say it directly, for it is the answer to the OP’s actual question. So I disagree with your calling it redundant. Your reply was also in a very formal register.)

I am frankly surprised that you took offense at my post. You quote my sentence, “I’m sure that is not what you wanted to know.” Is that what you found offensive? I don’t understand how you could take that as disparaging your post: It doesn’t even refer to your post but to the first part of mine. It was simply a transition between the two things that I wanted to add to your post.

Could you suggest a way that I could have expressed the two things without giving offense? —teb728 t c 05:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep it classy

What nonsense are you talking about?

File:TikiTag Reader and Tags.jpg

Hi - Thanks for the help. I cropped the image down to a more manageable size and noted that in the usage info box. I currently don't have a TikiTag reader, but I am getting one, and I noticed that there wasn't a Wikipedia article on it so I wanted to go ahead and try to create my first article. Thanks. --Christopher Kraus (talk) 21:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

If I want to replace this image with my own, what do I do to this image?--Christopher Kraus (talk) 19:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Christopher, I'm sorry I didn't reply sooner. If I had, I would have said the easiest thing was to do nothing and let image be deleted as replaceable. I see that is what you did. —teb728 t c 23:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

United National Gridiron League

I found that information posted in the discussion section of that article, and I did not know that was on the web site, so I just removed it from the discussion page, and put it in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearsfan1234 (talk • contribs) 03:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, so I now see. So it came originally from an anonymous editor. I recognised it a probable copyright violation from the unencyclopedic style of the text. —teb728 t c 03:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

So... what do I (or someone else) do about the copyright infringement sign... Can I remove it since this issue has been resolved to my understanding...? Bearsfan1234 (talk) 22:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I don’t know how to reply. What certainly should have been done ultimately is for someone to remove the template and the offending text. I see that you have done that. But I couldn’t have advised it because the template said not to edit the page. —teb728 t c 23:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Banknote copyright

I have started a discussion on this issue at meta. Babakathy (talk) 08:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Use of Language

Concerning your recent edit to the Adoption article, the use of the AnneDVD photo is very much in keeping with the Adoption article. The book and movie about Anne of Green Gables has significantly shaped the public perception of adoption. Nevertheless, you wrote that the "non-fair use rationale" for the AnneDVD file is "completely bogus." Although this language is uncivil and not in keeping with Wikipedia policy, I thought that since you are very involved with Wikipedia copyright issues, perhaps you could help. The problem I encountered with the AnneDVD "non-fair use rationale" was that it is impossible to find a "non-fair use rationale" table that could be modified; I was forced to copy the original one for the main Anne of Green Gables page, almost verbatim. I had hoped someone would spot the problem and try to help fix it rather than simply making assumptions.Tobit2 (talk) 03:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The reason I wrote that the rational was "completely bogus" was that it said the image was used in the infobox, which was false; that there was critical commentary on it, which was false; and that it added to the understanding of the article, which was false. In principal you could have written your own Purpose by filling in the Purpose parameter of the {{film cover fur}}, but there is no valid purpose for using this image on the article. Notice that the {{Non-free video cover}} tag justifies use of a video cover only for an article on the video in question. The remote connection to Adoption is not sufficient for use on the article; a non-free image may be used only if significantly adds to readers’ understanding of the article. —teb728 t c 03:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I experimented a bit and found that the Purpose parameter does not do as much as I thought it did: It adds text to the middle of the Purpose section. But you can't avoid the text, "The image is used for identification in the context of critical commentary of the work for which it serves as cover art. It makes a significant contribution to the user's understanding of the article, which could not practically be conveyed by words alone." But that purpose is essential to any non-free use rationale, and it is something that the use of File:Anne dvd.jpg on Adoption inherently fails. —teb728 t c 04:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into this. I appreciate the help. I disagree, however, that the image fails the test for NFU. The image is used in the subsection called, "public perception of adoption" and it is in this section where the image adds value; the movie has been one of primary drivers of of public perception at least in the US and Canada.Tobit2 (talk) 04:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the movie is pertinent to adoption. But the relevance of the movie to adoption can be explained without using the image. A non-free image may be used only if its omission would be detrimental to understanding the article. —teb728 t c 07:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Editing advice

Thanks bud, you rock. I've been wondering that for years. Baiter (talk) 00:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Irish republic

Hi TEB, the statistic lower down the page is specifically related to the republic. As for official names, you don't know what you are talking about... The Irish government does not refer to themselves as the gorvenment of "the republic". "Ireland" is an island and the state refers to that. If you want to talk about the republic, it is the republic. Again, the official name of the country south and west of the border is "The Republic of Ireland". The government does business as "Ireland" and they do not mean "Republic only". ~ R.T.G 09:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

And, another edit you reverted was that "English originated in Anglo-Saxon Britain" (in the days when there was no "England".) That is correct. ~ R.T.G 09:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Please discuss article content on the article talk page. That way other editors are involved. —teb728 t c 09:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Where are you from, TEB728? ~ R.T.G 11:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I was born and raised in the US. In case you are interested in other background: My parents and grandparents were also born and raised in the US. One great-grandfather came from Ireland; four of my other great-grandparents are of English background. I have no agenda about Irish politics; I don’t identify with any side.

Most of what I know about recent Irish history comes from the lead and “Name” sections of the Republic of Ireland article and its sources. I first read from that article only in the last few days as a guide to how the English language article should refer to Ireland. (Beside that I am of course aware of the conflict in Northern Ireland; my position on that conflict is that I am pro-peace.)

Ah, this is interesting: I just now noticed and was unaware until today that there was an abortive historic entity called the “Irish Republic.” Any place I may have previously referred the “Irish republic” [note capitalization difference] it was a generic reference (with a common noun). Does that help clarify? —teb728 t c 23:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I see on your user page that you are Irish. What part are you from? —teb728 t c 06:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I am from Belfast but most of my life between north and south. I would identify with a lot, and think that Northern Ireland has a very desirable cultural identity all of its own regardless of Jesus (and regarding also!) or political governments and good stuff comes of the place often. I think that most people in the republic would support removing the border if people in Northern Ireland wanted to, and even if they didn't want that forced on anyone, thats nationalism in the most non-wingnut way. Anyway, being American I am sure you know that the Irish of any part can have national pride without being conquested by the British (or any stuff related to that). Theres been a lot of respected people from all over the island with their own merits, thankfully. You can hold an Irish passport and citizenship, recognised anywhere, no matter what part of the island you are from (or religion and politics so long as of Irish descent of some sort) and none of them say thats a bad thing. I think that goes some way to distinguish the different scope between the government and the republic. The republic is squared off but the government goes some way to be available beyond that but both are referred to as a State causing confusion. ~ R.T.G 01:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Swans at scotch Quay, Waterford.JPG

Scotch Quay, Waterford, complete with message in bottle ;D

I thought about this, and could have said, I live and have done most my living, in argueabley, the most beautiful and temperate part of the island, with the oldest city, some of the least troubles, and a large chunk of history (is there any part of this island which does not have a nearby ancient or prehistoric relic? Here there are many), including the most world renowned artisan(ism?) and one of the strongest Gealtachts (they speak Irish first closeby and thats rare enough). If I threw stones from where I live, I believe that some would hit the sea although it is the most human-deadly sea area of Ireland. We have a bog that is still wet and a summer fairground around the corner. We have a river flowing through rolling green hills and a budding international airport. We host large biker festivals and historic ship shows. Once the chosen relocation point for the nation of Geneva (although they never came because the were not permitted to live outside the law), and an occasional site of the famous Irish four seasons in one day (mild mediterranean sun punctuated with skin stripping hail and snow). The destination of choice for old American grannies but also for young Spanish students. All modern amenity and convenience yet change as rapid as a dirt road farming village where little lambs can be seen on the road if you know where they live. Theres no dual carriageways but it's not a long way from Tipperary. Apparently the cheese around here is world famous and we get the accent from France. We are less than 40 miles long and 20 miles wide but fortified by Vikings, Normans and English and producing some good sport, never winning out, but always the winners. Home of the Deise (dayshah) ancient tribe. The Hilly Shore, where I am equally from ~ R.T.G 13:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Millenniumshakespeare‎

That user was blocked some time ago as a spamusername, for obvious reasons. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of that. I'm not just sure what your point is, but the account owner seems to be monitoring the user talk page and the article as an anon. —teb728 t c 21:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Image:Colombianfestivaluk.jpg

Hi I noticed the messgae you left on my user talk page, to be honest I don't know anything about status of images on Wikipedia besides the ones I obviously made myself. The user on Flickr said to me:

• Hey, No that would be no problem at all. Use as many as you would like. Let me know when you're done, would love to see it. Phil.
  

Now I know this means I can use it, but I have no idea about the codes to input on Wikipedia, or wether it would be best to get him to email Wikipedia himself? Thanks Stevvvv4444 t talk 17:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Your edit to Albert Einstein

This edit was probably well intentioned, but both parts broke things. Since I don't know what you intended, I reverted it to the previous working version. —teb728 t c 04:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Sorry. I got up to help with the children, came back and somehow this got saved before I was done with it. I can't imagine how it happenned. It should be ok now. thanks for contacting me. -J JMesserly (talk) 04:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me, TEB728, but I do not know why saying "Jewish parents" does not imply Jewish ethnicity. I was born to Irish parents - this makes me "Irish" Bigweeboy (talk) 12:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I replied to your post on the article talk page. —teb728 t c 23:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Ireland naming question

You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB (talk) 18:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Changes to Gurney Noman page

There are different issues here. There is personal information the subject wishes removed. How you give a citation for removal of personal information? Also, I tried leaving a message on the conflicting editor's talk page and the format came out strangely, in a dotted box with the sentences running horizontally across the page in a straight line. Thanks for any assistance. Spudsparo (talk) 13:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned Image

Why is this showing as orphaned when I used a ;&ltref> tag in the beginning of the Fangface article to point to this item as a reference item to prove the information that I had commented on? Below is the content from the top of the article exactly as it is entered into an edit form.

In the episode Don't Abra When You Cadabra, it is revealed that Fangs has an uncle named Arnie and that he runs a video arcade called Arnie's Arcade.

Even though the links appear under the Notes area, the system is still flagging these two images as orphaned currently:

File:FangsUncleArnie.jpg << [1]

File:FangfaceArniesArcadeSign.jpg << [2]

I need to understand how to link to these two items as a reference without flagging the orphaned notice. Thanks.

Cringer (talk) 09:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

They will be orphaned unless they are shown in an article. On the other hand, in order to be shown in an article the use must conform with WP:NFCC, which is probably impossible. If the images have been published in reliable source on the Internet, the article might cite them there. But I think that what you are trying to do will not fly. Perhaps someone can help you with your Help desk querry, but other than finding a reliable external source, I have no ideas to help you. (Frankly, I doubt the text you are trying to add is useful.) —teb728 t c 09:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone did the same thing with the board game information I added. I had to convince them it was real and finally they left it alone. The board game is 30 years old and the only online source link that you can find on it besides my Fangface web site, is EBay. To me, EBay is not a reliable linking source due to how often they remove linked pages.

The problem is that there isn't always an external source for all information. The internet itself isn't that reliable with pages coming and going all the time. What is there today might not be there next month. So, how do I source that this guy, Arnie, is in the series, which he is. If someone watches the episode Don't Abra When You Cadabra, they would see that he is in that episode and that his arcade is also called Arnie's Arcade. If I let the images get erased, can the episode be listed as the source? From the other person, that seemed not to be a good source either. So basically, I can state this item, but according to what I am being told, I can't prove it due to all these restrictions. What's the point then I ask?

Cringer (talk) 10:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, I have no ideas to help you. But you may find a couple of recent replies to your Help desk post to be helpful. —teb728 t c 06:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Drood

True. This is indeed better. Thanks. (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 19:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Chevrolet Vega

Thank you. Please help. I uploaded several older photos of Vegas (previously owned by my family and myself) that I've had for many years, scanned them on my cannon scanner and used them in the Chevrolet Vega article to replace non-free images that were deleted. Please help me to get these tags removed. Also current photos taken last year with my digital camera were stored in my computer and used in article as well. I used these photos of cars I currently own. (proof-Cars Domain.com 71 vega panel/73Millionth vega are listed on that site under Vegavairbob They are my cars taken with my camera. All files list date photo was taken and date the older photos were scanned for article. Thanks (VegavairbobVegavairbob (talk) 03:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC))

Chevrolet Vega

Hello- Maybe you can clear something up for me. The John DeLorean article shows a non-free promo image of himself and the DeLorean DMC-12. It is not marked for deletion when other non-free images are probably available. there is an association of him and the DMC-12 as stated in text.

The Chevrolet Vega article in the DeLorean subsection shows a historical image of himself and the Chevrolet Vega. It is marked for deletion when no other non-free images are available showing him and the car. There is an association of him and the Vega as stated in text. Why is my image not allowed when it is non-replacable and the other image is allowed when it is replacable. You stated it isn't necessary to show a visual association of DeLorean and the Vega. There was a significant association, as I wrote a subsection about the association, and the image does make that association better understood and clear, in the flesh so to speak, and the image has historical significance for the subsection- so if It can't be replaced by ANY other images it should be allowed in the article.

The only way I can make this article complete is to keep a few non-free images in it. The ones I'd like kept are unique, significant, historical images that are 30+ years old and are non-replaceable. If my rationale on the image file is not complete, please help. Also the size of the image was reduced in half and is much smaller than previous version which was a group of several photos in one image. Thanks, (VegavairbobVegavairbob (talk) 01:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC))

As a more apt comparison I call your attention to the fact that the DMC-12 article has no non-free images. Like the Chevrolet Vega article it has no need for an image of John DeLorean (with or without a car); showing such an image would not significantly increase readers’ understanding as required by Wikipedia policy WP:NFCC#8.

Are you aware of a free image of DeLorean (with or without a car)? If so, it should replace any non-free image of him. Or if DeLorean were alive, any non-free image of him should be replaced by a free image which could be made if he were alive.

Just because an image exists that illustrates a subject mentioned in an article, its existence does not create a need to show the image. If the image is free, it can be used if a consensus of editors finds it improves the article. If it is non-free, any use must conform with Wikipedia’s highly restrictive Non-free content criteria. —teb728 t c 03:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I have many images on this vehicle from all media. There are only three images of DeLorean with this car. this one, originally in Look magazine from 1970..the same image in a group of photos copyrighted by the NY times (used here) and a couple of shots in Motor trend august 1970. I'm choosing the best images for the article. There aren't any free images available of DeLorean and the Vega. can I use a magazine photo-black and white? (VegavairbobVegavairbob (talk) 04:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC))

If and only if it is a free image. —teb728 t c 04:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I'm getting the hang of this, BUT, My article isn't just about the car itself. It has subsections that pertain to specific events involving the car-(the car and driver race with the Vega winner), and specific persons associated with the car.-(John DeLorean as Chevy manager) association was substancial enough.. He was in charge of Chevrolet in 1970 and was the spokesperson on the car when it was introduced and wrote a chapter on the Vega in his book (see subsection) The association is involved enough for a photo of him and HIS Vega to make this article subsection complete, and interesting. Look at the subsection and tell me if you as a reader would enjoy it more with or without the image...then please read my discussion comment in the deletion file. Thanks (VegavairbobVegavairbob (talk) 03:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC))

So far as my enjoyment is concerned, it doesn’t matter if the image is present or not. What is more to the point, it doesn’t matter to my understanding of the subject. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers’ understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. —teb728 t c 04:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

what do i have to do to keep a small 33 year old image (73 vega showroom stock) in this article that i spent a month and a half trying to get it just right. i,ve done everything i've been asked. its from a 35 year old magazine of a car long sent to the junk yard and probably is the only stock vega to win a race. i want it in the article. HELP please. (Vegavairbob71.167.64.213 (talk) 02:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC))

The only thing I can think of might be requesting copyright permission from the copyright owner, asking them to grant a free license on of the image. —teb728 t c 16:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I'll try that. Thanks. (VegavairbobVegavairbob (talk))

Chevrolet Vega

There was a discussion on my images (five of them) that were tagged by Stifle. You told him you thought they were probably mine in so many words. he has tagged more free images. I started using my old photos. The first one was deleted today. its a photo I took in 1974 of my grandfathers car and scanned it for this article.this was all listed in file. I have another one of the same car with me and him in the photo from 1974. like to see it?? is this going to stop? In deletion file it states I admitted its from a magazine...wrong file. the 1972 Vega Kammback is My Photo. the magazine photo is the 1973 Vega GT #0 black and white non-free that was also deleted Can you please tell me you to contact for assistance. There was a discussion on these free images already. I used all my photos and we still have a problem. I mentioned this already..i have a lot of stuff including photos I took from many years ago and today. these are my cars, and family...photos.

Please help. This image is a free image and I'd like it back in the article. Thanks.

Here is my proof...that these are my photos. the deleted photo is a 1972 Vega Kammback. file said taken in 1973. licence plate on car of deleted image is the same as the one i just uploaded taken in 1974..check out the two photos Chevrolet Vega of the green Vega Kammback. same car taken a year later as the one in the deleted image (without me in it) same licence plate... Can we please stop tagging my free images...this is a lot of extra work to prove they're mine. please talk to Stifle..he's tagged all my photos of I took. thanks (VegavairbobVegavairbob (talk) 00:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC))

File:72 Vega Kammback.jpg was deleted by User: Ben W Bell. You should take it up with him on his user talk page. I would suggest, however, that you do not use all CAPS; many people considered it as shouting. —teb728 t c 00:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

ok please go to Chevrolet Vega look at the two green vegas in 1970-1977. the licence plate is the same. the top one was deleted for non-free use. please stop Stifle from tagging my free images He tagged it and said i just scanned it. here is your proof its my photo..here are three different photos of the same car. Thanks (VegavairbobVegavairbob (talk))

Um, are you aware that you are posting at User talk:TEB728 not User talk: Ben W Bell? The latter is where you should be posting. —teb728 t c 02:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes I know. I'm appealing to you because you were in discussion on the images. I thought maybe you could discuss this with Stifle (he added tags) to remove the tags so another one doesn't get deleted. Thanks (VegavairbobVegavairbob (talk) 10:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC))

the A-DATA logo.

hi . thanks for doing a little work on the copyright template .. it is the frst one I have done ..I'll get back to it and have another look later, regards(Off2riorob (talk) 10:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC))

Happy Easter

Happy Easter to you and your family. Regards.

I replied to your message on my talk page. (VegavairbobVegavairbob (talk) 21:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC))

English grammar

As a frequent (>20 edits) contributor to English verbs, would you like to weigh in at Talk:English_grammar#Suggest_splitting? Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

helpdesk

Hello. Our help desk posts has been pushed [3] off the main page. 70.108.89.200 (talk) 12:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

In my last post to that thread I asked which user page you were asking about. You replied 1½ days later with a list of user talk pages, which did not answer my question. Considering the slowness and non-responsiveness of your reply, it is no wonder that nobody attempted to answer further. Nevertheless let me give an answer here:

You are mistaken in saying that WP:UP#OWN says you are allowed to blank these pages. On the contrary what it says is “As a tradition, Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit. However, pages in user space still do belong to the community.” Furthermore, these pages are not your pages; they belong to several internet IPs, each of which is used by several people in the Verizon Internet Services, Washington DC pool. The messages on these pages are addressed potentially to all the anonymous users who use those IPs. If you deleted the messages, they would not be available to the other users.

Some of the messages regard the fact the IP was used by an indefinitely blocked user named User:Lilkunta. This does not mean that you are Lilkunta; the IPs are used by several users. But Wikipedia knows for a fact that Lilkunta used the IPs because when he made each of his edits, the IP address he was using was recorded in a hidden part of the database.

If you are not Lilkunta, I recommend that you create an account and login. That way you will not be bothered by messages intended for someone else. —teb728 t c 20:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

wagmag

Thank you very much for sorting that out

I have permission from the publishers for its use.

It is VERY hard to do this when you are not used to it. Thank you so much for sorting it out.

I know it's very much a stub but in my experience people will start adding stuff once the Wikipedia hardships have been done. Thank you so much for your help.

I am not connected to them in any way. SimonTrew (talk) 03:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Electric car

So it seems you are just going round deleting all my edits? Did you noticed I fixed up all the 101 references on this article? Copy edited it? Wikilinked it? Put it into sections? Added tables? Worked very hard on it? Thanks for the destruction. I thought that was what article talk was for. SimonTrew (talk) 21:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually I have reverted your edits only twice—both times with good reason:

1. On this revert my edit summary was “rm non-free image - no rationale for use on this article - a non-free image cannot be used in a gallery” Let me explain what that means: You tagged the image with {{non-free logo}}. This means that the image must be treated as a non-free image; i.e. use must conform with Wikipedia’s non-free content policy—in particular #10c, which says the image description page must contain “a separate, specific fair-use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline.” Since the image description page contained no rationale for that article, the article is not allowed to use the image. Furthermore there is no way that this use could significantly increase readers’ understanding of the article as required by #8 of that policy.
2. On this revert I gave the image a valid tag and rationale, changing your entry, which set up the image for speedy deletion.

Notice that I did not revert even your bogus {{non-free logo}} tag on File:C1evie.jpg. —teb728 t c 07:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and with regard to your comment on article talk pages, an article talk page if for developing a consensus on article content. Policy violations, however, are not subject to that kind of consensus. —teb728 t c 07:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You may see that I have had a huge struggle trying to get this right and trying to ask for help to get this right. I've asked at Media Copyright, I've asked at Commons, I've asked at the article itself, I've looked up templates, I've asked everywhere. Nobody seems to want to help they just send you round the houses. One of my huge frustrations with WP is that unless you know exactly what you're lookking for you can't find it. I've just given up now. Sorry for trying to make WP better. SimonTrew (talk) 11:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I told you in my first reply at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions that what you need to do is at WP:COPYREQ. You said that you didn't like that answer, but that is the only way to handle third party permission. It explains what permission is required and how to have it sent to OTRS. I suspect that the real crux of the problem is that you don't believe it when we tell you that permission for use only on Wikipedia is not acceptable. —teb728 t c 17:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Well I have a problem with that in the sense why put the option on there then? But no. My problem is you get sent from pillar to post. Come on, in good faith, I have got email permission from the publishers, I've got written signed permission from the publishers, what more do I have to do? I just give up. I give up. SimonTrew (talk) 17:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

But what does their permission permit?! If I understand correctly, it permits use only on Wikipedia, right? Wikipedia does not accept permission unless it permits reuse by anyone for anything. Permission for use only on Wikipedia is itself grounds for speedy deletion; it is worse than no permission at all. —teb728 t c 18:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

teb I understand that it means free of restrictions. I am not a total idiot. The difficulty, if any, is that for all practical purpoes this is marketing material that a company is quite happy to give away. They didn't write "Dear Si please let Wikipedia use this image" but it is just bleeding obvious to anyone that it is meant for public distribution. That's why I give up. I understand WP has rules to protect itself legally etc but if a good faith editor having obtained both by email and in written print permission to use it c'mon can you see why that's frustrating? And actually this is very much a side article for me I was editing the main electric car article and it just happened to be announced it was coming on to the market.

I think you are underestimating my intelligence I perfectly understand what free use etc means. My difficulty is how to mark the image as such. Again, one more time, NOBODY has told me how to do that. They will tell me MOSthis MOSthat MOStheother. JUST TELL ME HOW TO DO THAT. LIKE HAYNES MANUAL STYLE. 1. Get template 2. mark as "free" whatever. SimonTrew (talk) 02:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you that the image was probably intended for public distribution, but that is not the same as free use. Unless the copyright owner has explicitly granted a free license, we do not know which restrictions there are. And every license has restrictions. Which restrictions are there on this image?: Not for use by competitors? Not for criticizing Citroën? Not for derivative works? A public distribution image might have that kind of restrictions, which are incompatible with free use.

And it has little if anything to with legal protection for Wikipedia; rather it is a matter of keeping Wikipedia content reusable. Wikipedia has a goal of creating reuseable content. Using non-free content restricts reusability.

You say you are intelligent, but you keep repeating that nobody has told you what to do. But I have told you repeatedly from the beginning that you have to follow WP:COPYREQ. When you have done that, you will know which specific free license (if any) the copyright owner has granted. When you know the specific license, you put the license tag corresponding to that specific license (each license has its own tag) on the image description page. When OTRS receives the license email from the copyright owner, they will add an OTRS tag to the image. Only then will the image be safe from deletion.

Please continue this discussion on the image talk page. That way Hammersoft and other interested people can participate in the discussion. (I am sorry I have carried it on so long here in private.) Well maybe continue it here; since the image has now been deleted, its talk page is apt to go too. —teb728 t c 07:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Notice that the image was not deleted because you hadn't put the right marks on it. (Even though your false {{non-free logo}} tag made it elegible for immediate deletion.) As the deleting admin told you on your user talk page, it was deleted because OTRS has not received a license email from the copywrite owner, as WP:COPYREQ tells is required. —teb728 t c 21:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

But I didn't ask to be sent to WP:COPYREQ. I asked for someone to tell me what to do. I think you are missing the point, which I have stated repeatedly. When one is editing an article, large or small, one doesn't want to be sent round the houses all the time looking all this stuff up. One wants someone for whom that is their forté to say "add this in the article, for further information see WP:COPYREQ". I am not the only editor here with this frustration. I think editors for whom MOS is their main focus (and good on them) sometimes forget that other editors are trying to edit articles, not MOS.

That is my frustration. It is distracting and it makes one lose one's focus from editing the article itself. Whether that image stays or goes (it's gone but I've emailed back with the permission I have) is somewhat secondary. The point is, it kinda distracts from actually trying to make an article better when half your life is spent going around MOS instead of actually editing the article itself.

You may see from the talk on WP:MOSNUM I am not immune from trying to help out making the guidelines better. But if it is going to become set in stone it is not Wikipedia any more, in my opinion. SimonTrew (talk) 22:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You asked what to do. What to do is do what it says at COPYREQ: Namely inform the copyright owner that Wikipedia requires a free license; have them select a specific free license; and have them send an email to OTRS, affirming that they are the copyright owner of the image, and granting a specific free license. COPYREQ tells you what you have to do and says it much better than I could have. Contrary to your expectation, there is no marking that you could have added to the image that would have got around the necessity of doing what it says in COPYREQ. What to do is exactly what you were told; you just didn’t like the answer. I wish you good luck with your forwarded email to OTRS, but based on what you have said (and not said) I bet it does not grant a specific free license, and so it will be found inadequate. —teb728 t c 00:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Bogus

May I say by the way personally I find the word "bogus" pejorative. You may not. I am just saying that to point it out to you. I notice in your talk to me you used it once, and later said "false". "False" (assuming that it is correct) is not pejorative but I think "bogus" implies bad faith. Just my opinion. SimonTrew (talk) 22:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I intended it to be pejorative. I am not accusing you of bad faith. But please explain how you could possibly claim the image is a “non-free logo”?! The image is clearly not a logo, and you claim it is free use. —teb728 t c 23:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyright Act of 1976

Your advice to Perkons was very helpful, but I have a nitpick. The Copyright Act of 1976 still required a work to have a © notice to be eligible for copyright protection. However, works first published in the U.S. between 1978 and March 1, 1989, without a copyright notice can still be copyrighted if the author subsequently register the copyright at the U.S. Copyright office; this can be determined by searching the U.S. Copyright Office Online Search. (Works first published in the U.S. before 1978 without a © notice are PD no matter what.) For details, see this. This probably doesn't affect the advice you gave Perkons, but I thought you'd want to know the details. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 13:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. So is it that the 1976 law took effect in 1978? Or? —teb728 t c 20:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. It was passed in 1976, but didn't take effect until January 1, 1978. And the U.S. signed the Berne Convention in 1988, which went into effect March 1, 1989, and that's why © notice was no longer required after that point. – Quadell ^(talk) 22:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Basset Hound Image

Thank you for the thorough explanation. I will not try to argue for it being kept. You can go ahead and delete it.--Stepusual (talk) 22:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Renegade Pictures

Hi TEB728,

I have been going round and round with various Wikipedia admins over these pictures for hours. I've changed the license multiple times thinking I was complying with the last instruction given to me, only to find out that it's still not to someone's liking. Yet, despite asking for help, all I ever get are these notices that are filled with links to unrelated issues and explanations of how to do things that have nothing whatsoever to do with the problem I'm having. I've asked for someone, anyone, to just tell me what to do. Tell me the license to select on creative commons. We own the pictures and have the right to do with them what we want. I've selected nearly every option that looks possible, as well as actually going through the license script thing with Creative Commons. I'm a my wits ends with this. Can you please help me to comply. It really does no good to only tell me what I can't do, if no one will help me do whatever it is you want me to do.

I've gone ahead and uploaded the picture again with yet another creative commons license that bears no restrictions and says its our own work. Can you let me know if it's acceptable now? Thanks, --Warriorboy85 (talk) 08:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Warriorboy, If you own the copyright, then the cc-by-3.0 license you have on it now is a good one. Down the line though, someone might doubt that you own the copyright because the obvious quality of the photo suggests a professional photographer, and professional photographers usually do not give up full rights to their work. If you control the website, one way to anticipate such a challenge is put a cc-by-3.0 license on the website page which shows the photo and link that page rather than the jpg itself as source. (In any case you should link to the page rather than the jpg.) If you personally own the copyright (as indicated by the self tag), another way to anticipate a challenge is to follow the procedure at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. But you say that “we own the pictures,” which is very different from “I own the pictures.” If the copyright is owned by (you and) someone else, take off the self tag, and (unless you can post a license on the source page) follow the procedure at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.

I changed your raw html (Wikipedia does not allow <a> and <img>) to wikicode and wrapped it in an {{information}} template. Please fill in the author parameter, and replace the raw html with {{information}} templates on your other uploads.

Let me now explain what was wrong before. Wikipedia requires all pictures of living people to be licensed under a free license (one that allows reuse by anyone for anything including modifications). Cc-by-3.0 is one free license; another is cc-by-sa-3.0. But you put a cc-by-nc-nd license on it. This is not a free license because it has a non-commercial restriction, which means it cannot be used by anyone, and a no derivative restriction, means that people cannot make modifications. —teb728 t c 00:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

CD34

Hepatocarcinoma

Hi, CD34 is also used in pathology to mark endothelium cells in hepatocarcinoma, because normal sinusoidal endothelium in the liver is not CD34+, so if + in hepatocarcinoma that makes diagnosis of trabecolar variant of hepatocarcinoma. I'm Italian, so I'm not sure to write it correctly, can you or someone add this in the "clinic" paragraph of CD34page? Thanks :)--87.20.83.182 (talk) 07:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be mistaking me as someone who has some knowledge or interest in that subject. I see you posted the same thing in the article talk page; maybe somebody there will know what to do. —teb728 t c 08:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Francis E Williams - "sock puppet investigation"

Hello, I have been watching the case unfold. Please look at my archive page here,[4] you will find all the historical information you require. This will allow you to see why the page 24.(l)77.120.24 was created, purely to stop user 24.177.120.24 from continually posting inappropriate messages on my talk page. Every time I posted a copy of the conversation on his talk page he would revert the edit. I knew he would revert it again, so I created the page to give him a little shock.

This user has been causing much disruption under this new identity. he has history with one particular user, (see archive 2). It`s about time he stopped chasing a few editors around and causing a lot oif un-neccesary hassle to them. If I had not wanted to be discovered as the creator of the page, I would have done what I am doing now, used my old Dialup networking account.

As a retired I.T. professional I know all about audit trails, and the many logs that are used on Wiki. I left enough evidence for anyone with half a brain to find me easily. I have not ,(nor doI intend to) use any "hacking" tools to make my point that confusion can be caused by a few users by using very simple techniques as I did. My intention is to allow the anonymous users know thaat they can be identified and be brought to account. Read my user page - section - vandalism.

I personally don`t worry about the block, as it serves my user page as an example. Francis E Williams (talk) 17:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.225.213.191 (talk)

User:24.177.120.74 had every right to delete your posts from his user talk page; see WP:BLANKING. And you had no right to restore them; in doing so you should have been blocked for edit warring and harassment; see WP:DRRC. (Frankly your puerile prank makes me doubt your claim of being of retirement age.) —teb728 t c 23:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The phrase "you had no right to restore them" also applies to user 24.177.120.74 as well, after all he restored them 3 times after my blanking them, and then restored them yet again in my archive page. Then he issued the same message again about my edits to my own talk page about using preview. Are you saying that my user rights differ from his?. The purile behaviour of 24.177.120.74 makes me beg the same question with regard to mental age. Perhaps you would like to consider that if it makes any difference as per your age or behaviour when being harrased. Francis E Williams (talk) 14:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Sir,

You are correct that you had a right, per Wikipedia:UP#CMT, to remove most things added to your talk page. So, when User:24.177.120.74 added this [5], you were within your rights to remove it [6]. Further, User:24.177.120.74 should not have kept reverting your removal, as it did repeatedly [7], [8], [9] - at this point, User:24.177.120.74 was in violation of both WP:3RR and WP:UP#CMT. Nor should it have removed it from your talk page [10] and then added it to your archive page - that editor's doing so was in violation of Wikipedia:UP#Editing_of_other_editors.27_user_and_user_talk_pages.

In the future, rather than making a WP:POINT by adding that text to the IP's talk page in response, or by creating an alternate account as you did, ask for help. There are several ways to do so. Perhaps the simplest is adding the helpme template.

Best wishes, and welome back to editing, JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the good advice Joe, I was prepared for the outcome of my actions, but I don`t think the other party was. I don`t like to bother admins, they have enough to do with the constant disruption that this project attracts from vandals. I think that good lessons were learnt (especially by me), about the tools that are available here to deal with a disruptive minority. If anything, the experience was a positive one for me. I note your words of encouragement and assure you that there is still a lot more I can do to (hopefully) help improve this project. Regards.Francis E Williams (talk) 17:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Signature

I'll try it, BRB ---Scarce |||| Talk -Contrib.--- 07:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

What's the difference? ---Scarce |||| Talk -Contrib.--- 07:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

What is it that you don't understand? The changes I made or why they were necessary? —teb728 t c 07:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Hm, those didn't work either, I don't know what's going wrong? ---Scarce |||| Talk -Contrib.--- 05:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Try again with my new versions. (It needed quotes around "gray"). —teb728 t c 06:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! • S • C • A • R • C • E • 01:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, my name is "Not Scott Adams"

In reference to your message, no, I am not Scott Adams. At the time, the licensing said something about "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide." The licensing goes on to say, "In case this is not legally possible, I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law." That, TEB728, means that particular image falls under being not legally possible and with conditions. While I realize that I am not the "copyright holder" of the image, I did make sure to mention that Scott Adams was the author of the work, and that the image was cropped, and therefore edited, from the original work. I would still like that image to be on the article, though: it is very descriptive of the character it portrays.--CornfieldMannequin (talk) 02:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Scott Adams is the copyright owner of that image. Only he can release the into the image into the public domain or grant anyone the right to use it or to modify it. Cropping the image was itself a copyright violation and does not give you a copyright on the cropped image. Since you are not Scott Adams, your claim of being the copyright owner was false. —teb728 t c 03:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Help Desk question

Hi TEB,

I'm writing in response to your comments here.

Yes, as of now I am only trying to accomplish this on my user page, not an article. However, I am attempting to create a proposal for a new home page for my language's Wikipedia. So ultimately the goal would be to apply it to a public page, but after administrative approval.

Anyway, can you help me do this? I'll reiterate that I'm trying to take a one-pixel wide image of a gradient and repeat it across the top of the page. I've seen something similar to this done, for example on the Italian Home Page, where it says Benvenuti su Wikipedia. I've looked at the source for this, which refers me to a template. In its source I found that it uses <div class="BGblue1"... to accomplish this gradient. But the div class refers to a common.css page, which links to the image with .BGblue1 { background-image: url("http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/BGblue1.jpg"); background-position:top; background-repeat:repeat-x;}

So, I somewhat understand how the code and the common.css page works, but I can't edit the common.css page for my language. So I'm confused as to how I can use CSS to modify my user page.

Is there some way to create my own .css page, like people do with monobooks, and then reference that page in the HTML, rather than the common.css page?

I hope my request makes sense. Unfortunately I'm a beginner, not only with CSS, but Wikipedia editing as well. But I would really like to create a nice design to propose to the administrators of my language's Wikipedia.

Thanks in advance,

--Michiluzzu Scalisi (talk) 06:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry for not replying sooner. One reason I put off replying is that you may know more than I do about js and css. But one thing I know that might help is that you can create a private override for monobook at User:Michiluzzu Scalisi/monobook.js and User:Michiluzzu Scalisi/monobook.css; I believe it also overrides common.css, etc. In case you are not aware, the jpg refers to Commons:File:BGblue1.jpg. —teb728 t c 22:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey TEB, thanks for your reply. I'm curious though, about this Monobook.css. All I can really find out about it, is that it can be used to change the skin, that is the style and layout of Wikipedia as you personally view it. So I'm not sure whether a Monobook.css can be used to actually reference CSS in a page that I create. I suppose I should just try it out, but I'd still like more information about it. Do you know, or do you know of someone who might?

Thanks again!

--Michiluzzu Scalisi (talk) 06:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) might be a good place. —teb728 t c 07:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Ismael Mathay Sr. High School article

Hi TEB, I saw your comment on Palengkero's Talk Page, as it's on my watch list!

As you will see from what I wrote, I've been doing a bit of work on the article - and like you, I think that he'd be the best person to rewrite the sections which were removed due to copyright violations. I hope that he will constructively work on the article when he is unblocked.

You asked about the different schools - the last version where they are mentioned is The 06:07, 22 July 2009 version].

Your question was: What is the connection between the palengke school, the Toro Hills school, the Pugad Lawin school, and the “sprawling campus” of the IMSHS? Did the first three all merge to form IMSHS? Or what? Also what does GSIS stand for?

In that version:

• GSIS isn't explained (the only ones I can find educationally are the German Swiss International School - but that is located in Hong Kong; Good Shepherd International School (see Indian International Schools) and Graduate School of International Studies - but that isn't at High School level and is in America) - I can't even work out what it could be from searches online! The Philippines Department of Education lists GSIS Village ES].
• The palengke school is the same as the GSIS school - palengke means 'public market', and the original location of the school was by the palengke.
• The Toro Hills school/Pugad Lawin school: Toro Hills is an area near Quezon village. 'Pugad Lawin is a historic site from the Philippine Revolution. The Toro Hills school became Pugad Lawin High School.

All the above information is from that version (and previous versions) of the article - but the information in turn came from the website, I think (I'll check on Monday or Tuesday, when I next have time to edit). I must point out that I know nothing about the school itself, I'm only going by what little information I could glean online! It's why we really need Palengkero to help out - unless we can find other Philippinos who know about the school... and I don't even know where to put a message about that!

We probably would be able to find some more information about the schools. For example, the Phillipine Dept of Education has details on [Toro Hills ES], [Pugad Lawin HS] and [Ismael Mathay, Sr. HS] - however these all show as being the school Year 2004-2005 - and no further years after that.

I believe that with Palengkero's help and guidance, this article can become a more complete article, without violating copyright!

Thank you for your kind message to him (I'm assuming Palengkero is a male, but I don't think I've actually got a reason for that!).

Regards, PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 21:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was basically aware of your answers: I posted my questions more to hook Palengkero's interest than for information. I think you are right that he is male: A couple of reasons for thinking so is that he is stubborn (like you and me) and that "Palengekero" is probably a Spanish derivative meaning person from the palengke with a masculine ending. —teb728 t c 22:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Next week, I'll probably do some work on the article - especially the history. I'll read the info from the source, and then summarise/rewrite it. I'll also try to find sources for the information away from the Tripod pages. PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 07:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Image of Mississippi license plage

TEB728 - I disagree with your decision to mark my license plate image File:Mississippi08plate.jpg for deletion because of "copyright" violation. I owned that license plate, and I scanned and uploaded the picture of that plate myself on my own PC. I have contributed several images of license plates in the past, and don't understand why you are singling out this one for deletion? Your reason for this deletion warrants further justification.Zul32 (talk) 23:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello Zul, My attention was drawn to this image by this archived question at Media Copyright Questions. On investigation I found that you had uploaded File:Mississippi08plate.jpg to Commons with a (mistakenly) false claim that you were the copyright owner. As an MCQ responder pointed out, the copyright on Mississippi plate design is owned by the state of Mississippi. As another responder pointed out, a photo of the plate might be used under non-free fair use. But since you had uploaded it to Commons, which does not allow non-free images, the licensing couldn’t be corrected; so the image had to be deleted.

By the way, since you have uploaded several other plates: Those which are just text should be tagged with Commons:Template:PD-text. Those which (like the Mississippi plate) include creative graphics should be moved to Wikipedia with a non-free tag. —teb728 t c 00:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Help desk assistance

I wasn't able to find it again, but thank you for answering my question so quickly. What did I remove? I still have to locate the issue, though I see your answer. Thanks for your assistance either way. Hstisgod (talk) 08:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

On this edit you removed the }} which closes the infobox template. —teb728 t c 08:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Ignore...

Ignore that crap. I was probably trying to prove how much of a drama queen I am. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 17:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

TEB, I just want to thank you for explaining so clearly what I was doing (or rather, what I wasn't doing), and for taking the trouble to post your explanation on the relevant user page. I suppose it's fairly easy to click copy, rather than cut, but I'll check more carefully in future. Haploidavey (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

thanks

hi, thanks for the nice reply regarding rajat tokas photo, yes i understood completly what are u want to reach, thanks for explain,

yes he is afriend, but no direct way, he is best friend for my best friend whose own the site, the official site, so it will be easy to take a picture for him and post it, but there is one problem, now im in egypt and he is in india, so what about i can ask that comment friend to take a picture and tell him to post it himself here not me, to do not any confuse later, can I do that??

thanks you soo much once again, really appreciate ur nice reply--Sarah.gkhia (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Any picture of him would have to be licensed under a free license like {{cc-by}} or {{cc-by-sa}}, and that license should be indicated on the upload along with information on the source. If the uploader is not the photographer, or if the photo looks like it might have been taken by a professional photographer, or if it is something that is posted on his web site, they should send an email as described at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. —teb728 t c 19:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikiwatcher and copyright issues

I'm confused about how you are guiding this user's uploads. First, rationales like those found in File:Salk Institute opens.jpg hardly pass muster, particularly since that photo isn't even used on the Salk Institute article. The rationales this editor is using would make almost every photo ever taken eligible for use on this site. Second, no sources are given for any of Wikiwatcher's uploads of work that they clearly did not take themselves. For instance, File:Schulberg-portrait.jpg is now being claimed in the public domain because it's copyright has supposedly expired. How do we know this, or is this just an assumption that is being made on the part of the editor since the photo is pre-1977? Where did they find the photo and how do we know it was published without a copyright notice? When artists create work, it is our responsibility to ensure that we don't simply decide they no longer own it so that we can have their photos on our articles, without some indication that we may do so. Without verifiability that the copyright on these images is not enforceable, we are essentially just taking the work of others and deciding to re-license it. No only could this cause legal issues, it is also an ethical problem. If I'm wrong, I'd appreciate you pointing out how that is so. --WatchingWhales (talk) 17:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I don’t understand what you mean about my guiding the user’s uploads. My interaction with him has been only to explain why his images are eligible for speedy deletion. On File:Salk Institute opens.jpg I left him a {{rfu}} tag and an explanation of why it was still replaceable despite his clarification of the reasons why it was being used. I expect that it will be deleted shortly—along with several other replaceable images (File:Mayerportrait.jpg, File:At Piano.jpg, and File:With Mayer and Garland.jpg).

As for File:Schulberg-portrait.jpg, the {{PD-US-not renewed}} tag is plausible: A work that was copyrighted in the US between 1923 and 1963, has to have its copyright renewed 28 years later. (And although he doesn’t understand Wikipedia image policy yet, I see no indication of his making false claims.) If you want to explore the matter further: If the photo was originally published in Dartmouth College, "Budd Schulberg Papers" in 1954, you can check the copyright renewals for 1982 and 1983 to see if the copyright was renewed. I think the renewal records are online, but I don’t know where.

As for File:Berlin-Jolson27.JPG, he has now provided sort of a non-free use rationale including a strange statement, “Investigating image source it appears most likely to be {{PD-Pre1964}}” The PD claim is plausible for the same reason as the Schulberg, and if you want to investigate its correctness, you would do it in the same way. If the PD claim is not correct, the image is replaceable.

I hope this helps. —teb728 t c 23:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the burden of proof that the images are ineligible for copyright falls on the uploader, not the person questioning its eligibility. Otherwise, we could have thousand of images uploaded while someone sits back and says, "Figure out which ones are PD". That it's "plausible" an image has lost its copyright isn't the standard we use - as long as the image fails to show the veracity of its claim that it's Public Domain, it should be deleted. --WatchingWhales (talk) 14:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should take the issue back to WP:MCQ. PD issues are too complicated for me. —teb728 t c 19:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Re:Uploader can verify?

It was based on the comments here. Do you have reason to believe otherwise? J Milburn (talk) 12:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on the issue, but I am happy to trust him. I consulted another editor I trust to know about the issue (MBisanz), and he seemed to agree with trusting Wikiwatcher1. J Milburn (talk) 22:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. He strikes me as honest, and in your linked discussion above he seems to understand PD. —teb728 t c 22:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Skeptical Dude

Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates, as you did to User talk:Skeptical Dude. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Please see WP:NOTVAND. Whatever the merits of your argument otherwise, incorrectly accusing others of vandalism, and missing out several levels of warning, severly weakens your credibility. Please strike your accusation and engage in discussion on the article talk page. Verbal chat 15:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

In the first place please read WP:DTTR. Although I think there are some circumstances where it is appropriate to template regulars, this is not one of them. (You did notice my comments in the section above the vandalism warning, didn’t you?) The fact that I initially agreed with you that the troll’s first edit might be taken in good faith shows that I understand WP:NOTVAND. And the comments I made simultaneously with my vandalism warning show that that I was by then convinced that his edits were in bad faith. Please strike the templated part of your post; no part of it is appropriate to the situation.

Turning now to the untemplated part of your post.

• Please see WP:NOTVAND yourself. None of the categories described there are applicable to this case. If perhaps you were thinking “Disruptive editing or stubbornness,” read the description: it is about mistaken disruption. Disruptive editing or stubbornness is vandalism if it is done in bad faith. You seem to be the only one still able to assume good faith for this troll’s edits: BilCat recognized his bad faith right away; it took me a little longer; now see garik’s posts here.
• I did not skip any level: The troll received a vandalism1 warning from ClueBot on 4 July and a vandalism2 warning from BilCat on 13 August. Inasmuch as the troll’s 16 August edit left me convinced that BilCat was correct, the next level was vandalism3.
• Attempting discussion with this troll on the article talk page is pointless. See the attempts here.
• Perhaps you misunderstood my post beginning, “Just in case you actually are as ignorant as you portray yourself here, let me explain.” I admit that was very badly expressed. Although it seems to imply that I thought there was an outside chance the troll was merely ignorant, what I meant was, “You should realize that your vandalism makes you seem so stupid that you don’t understand…” I was trying to shame him into stopping the vandalism. If you like I will make that change. —teb728 t c 22:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand perfectly, and here is my advice to you: Stop making incorrect accusations of vandalism. You also need to have a look at WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF regarding your "troll" accusations. Verbal chat 07:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory article

You have marked the PNNL article as sounding like an advertisement. However, the article is a factual statement of the Laboratory's capabilities, mission, purpose, and charter from the U.S. Department of Energy. Your edits to the article have significantly and negatively impacted this article. We are not advertising for business. We are, as stated in the article, part of the U.S. Department of Energy national laboratory system. It is our mission and capabilities that set us apart from the other laboratories, thus this information is crucial to the article. Shanilea (talk) 18:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

In the first place, it was another editor, not me, who marked the article as reading like an advertisement, but I agree with him. Still another editor said on the article talk page that the article struck him as “a bit propagandistic.” The fact that the article read like an advertisement does not mean that it is not factually accurate; ideally all advertising is factually accurate. But much of the text that you added reads more like a public relations release than a neutral encyclopedia article. For example, “PNNL delivers leadership and advancements…”

I notice that you speak of PNNL as “we,” and you speak of “our mission.” This suggests to me that you work for PNNL or Battelle (perhaps in the public relations department?). If so, you need to read Wikipedia’s guideline on conflict of interest. Many people think that people should not edit article where they have conflict of interest at all. I would not go that far: surely you are welcome to correct factual errors (like budget and staff). But you need to be very careful of editing to make PNNL look good (or avoid making it look bad). —teb728 t c 20:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much...

for helping me out with my question :)

It is much appreciated.

RyanGFilm (talk) 12:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

File:UCLA Bruins Logo.png

Thank you for your very competent help with this matter. I did not know exactly what to do but it looks as though I asked the question in the right place.  –Newportm (talk • contribs) 02:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Teddy Stauffer

Considering that edit was some months back and I never just guess when it comes to a subject's information, I imagine I got the info regarding his birth name via IMDb because the article has no references to go on. Pinkadelica^♣ 05:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the correction at Wikipedia:Help_desk#Ongoing_bias. I thought sure OP had said the page had been deleted multiple times, but looking back, I must have dreamed it.--SPhilbrickT 12:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

UCLA userbox

TEB: I've noticed you've reverted use of the UCLA logo in {{User ucla}}. I'm not sure how much you're aware of the ongoing wiki adminsitrator review of the userbox topic, but {{PD-textlogo}} images have been approved for use in userboxes as a result of discussions here and here. The basic rationale is that trademarked by uncopyrightable logos (text/font combinations without pictoral elements) are public domain and need no rights rationale for multiple-page use. I can explain more if you're interested. I've reverted back the UCLA userbox based on this. Let me know if you have a more specific objection. BillTunell (talk) 22:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am quite aware of this NFCR discussion and that there is a user who mistakenly insists there that the Bruins logo is a PD-textlogo. His basic mistake seems to be that he assumes dogmatically that artwork that involves letters is uncopyrightable—no matter how much originality it has. As the other editors have pointed out there, the Bruins logo contains several elements that cross the theshhold of originality. There is, to say the least, no consensus that it is a PD-textlogo.

Hypothetically, if it were in the public domain, it could be used in a template, as you say. But since it is a trademark, its is governed by trademark law, no just copyright law. Notice that my edit summary on the userbox based the edit on the fact that the use was a trademark violation. More specifically UCLA reserves the Bruins logo exclusively for use in UCLA athletics.

The UCLA logo for general purposes is File:UCLA Logo.svg. I will replace the Bruins logo with that in the userbox; not only is that clearly a textlogo; the use would not be a trademark violation. —teb728 t c 01:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I won't change the userbox, since there is a lack of consensus about whether the UCLA-script logo is copyrightable. But I would dispute that assumption, and I would also point out that a trademark claim does not create a limitation on public-domain use. People are allowed to directly use (even sell) others' marks as long as they are not copyrights (and they do not misattribute a source of goods or services). This occurs all the time with things such as college/university marks, the Coca-Cola logo, etc.. So the fact that a univserity logo is trademarked does not limit its dissemination in the public domain. Anyway, I'll leave the UCLA userbox alone. BillTunell (talk) 13:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Bill, this isn't a slam on you, but you have a few facts wrong here. The fact that the image is trademarked does put limits on its use. It cannot be used in such a manner that would imply sponsorship or endorsement. It cannot be used for initial profit (i.e. commercial sale, but selling your old "UCLA" sweatshirt at a garage sale is appropriate). The same kind of restrictions apply to patents, which are, by definition, PD; you cannot make that patented item and sell it, but you can create it and use it for yourself. Even the Coca-Cola image, which is PD, is still indefinitely protected by trademark. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Bill, since you mention the Coca-Cola logo, let me use it as an example of trademark problems: If a user created a userbox saying, “This user enjoys Coca-Cola,” he probably could use the Coca-Cola logo, for it is unambiguously in the public domain. If, however, the userbox said “This user enjoys carbonated soft drinks,” using the Coca-Cola logo would be trademark dilution.

Similarly, if Wikipedia allowed group accounts, and if a userbox said, “This group of users is a UCLA athletic team,” the userbox might use the Bruins logo (if hypothetically the logo were PD). But in a userbox that says, “This user attends or attended UCLA” it would be a trademark dilution, for UCLA reserves the Bruins logo for “athletics, recreation, spirit groups, support groups and student groups.” (See p 14 of this manual.) —teb728 t c 02:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with most of the above except some of the commercial-related comments. It is legal to direclty sell a non-copyrightable mark, provided that you do not misattribute the source. People do this all the time in the context of college and univesity marks (i.e., print "OU" or "ND" hats and sell them without university permission). Colleges don't like it, and have responded via the CLC to limit market power of such knock-off artists. But it happens and is legal -- again, provided wee're talking about a non-copyrightable mark. BillTunell (talk) 21:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Image use policy clarification

If you have the time I'd like your input on my proposed clarification of WP:Image use policy concerning fair-use/copyright versus public-domain/trademark image use. The proposal is contained here. Thanks. BillTunell (talk) 21:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

2009 MTV VMAs

I have a few problems with your add: "Unlike normal VMAs the rules did not entitle the winner to a Moonman,[2] and mtv.com gave no recognition to the award or the winner.[3]" Rather than revert, I thought I should chat with you about them.

First, the phrase "normal".

Second, you supply no evidence as to what the rules of all the other VMAs entitle the winner to.

Third, you supply no evidence that mtv.com gave no recognition to the award or the winner.

Fourth, as you I believe know, MTV did supply recognition through its co-sponser, and through videos, and through coverage on MTV and MTV2, etc. So that sentence is both POV and markedly misleading.

Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

1. By “normal” I meant only to contrast the local awards with other VMAs that I am aware of. I did not mean to suggest that the local awards were “abnormal.” Would you like to propose a substitute? “Ordinary” maybe? 2. You do acknowledge that most if not all other VMA winners get Moonmen, don’t you? In our discussion on the article talk page Andresg770 emphasized they did, and you didn’t object. Would you like to propose a substitute?—something that says ordinary VMA winners receive Moonmen, but the local award winners did not. 3. I did provide links to mtv.com searches which show no 2009 hits for "Best Breakout" and no hits for "MeTalkPretty". Unfortunately the MediaWiki software garbled them. Thank you for pointing this out; I will get them to work. 4. According to OurStage, the co-sponsor was not MTV but rather their parent MTV Networks. I am not aware of any videos supplied by MTV. (Indeed another thing that distinguishes the local awards from ordinary VMAs is that they are not based on videos.) I am not aware of any coverage on MTV as opposed to MTV2 and MTV Tr3s. What I am aware of is that neither the MTV winners page nor any place else on mtv.com mentions the local awards. —teb728 t c 01:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 21:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Help on including images in Wikipedia articles

Hello TEB728. I want to thank you for your remarks at the help desk. I have been trying to get my poster into my article using your hints—and I am still confused. Some questions:

• If I use your "non-free use rationale" do I still have to upload the file to Wikimedia?
• Or, do I "paste" it directly into my article and just tag it somehow in the way you indicate?
• You said, "Tag the poster with {{non-free poster}}" I do not know how to do this. Where do I do this "tagging"? In Wikimedia? In the article infobox? Into the file itself? I am at a loss as to what this means.

I understand the legal strategy of what you advised; I just do not know how to do it. You can answer me here or on my user page as you prefer. I hope I am not imposing on your time. Respond only if you think it is possible to help this poor technically clueless editor.--Foobarnix (talk) 02:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

All images used on Wikipedia have to be uploaded to Wikipedia (or to Commons but only free content there); there is no other way to show them. The upload page creates a file description page; if it isn't right at first, you can edit it like any other page. The file description page must contain a “file copyright tag,” which identifies what free license the image is released under, why it is in the public domain, or what category of non-free use you want. (For a non-free poster the tag is {{non-free poster}}.) For non-free files the file description page must also have a “non-free use rationale (to explain how the use accords with Wikipedia′s non-free content policy).” For a film poster the {{film poster fur}} template is a convenient way to create a rationale. This template has several parameters. The Article and Use parameters are always required. (Because an article name is required, don’t upload the poster until you move your draft to article space.) Since you want to use the poster in the infobox, the correct value for the Use parameter is Infobox. See the template documentation for all the parameters. Look at the wikisource of File:Avatar (2009 film) poster.jpg for an excellent example of a poster description page. (Ignore the interwiki links at the bottom.)

See Wikipedia:Uploading images for more info. —teb728 t c 06:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

More questions

Hello again TEB728. I am still struggling. Your info was so helpful, but I need some further clarification if you have the patience for it.

1. Do all uploads (in my case, at least) start by going to the special page: Special:Upload? (which confusingly has the name Upload file when you go to it)
2. On the page Wikipedia:Uploading images, which you directed me to, I found the statement: "You can upload an image by using the Upload file link in the toolbox" What toolbox is this? Part of the wikipedia editor? Part of my browser? I am unable to find such a "Upload file link" [OMG! I just found the Tool Box. It is right there on every Wikipedia page. I had never noticed the name before, although I frequently use parts of it.--Foobarnix (talk) 04:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)]
3. When I was looking at the images and templates for uploading, I ran into the statement (somewhere), "Please do not use cut and paste to create this page" or something like that. I would like to take the template in the Avatar page, modify it for my poster using the advice you gave me, and paste it into (and thus create) the page for my poster. That, I think I could do. Am I forbidden to do it that way? Is it perhaps OK to paste the filled out Film poster fur template into the field on the Upload file page. That seems like it should work.
4. You said, "Tag the poster with { {non-free poster} }, and in the non-free use rationale list the purpose as "to identify the subject of the article". Where is it that I do this "tagging"? Is this additional info that I have to somehow paste into the Upload file page?
5. Here is a partially filled out (and disabled) template. Am I on the right track?

{Film poster fur | Article = For the Love of Movies | Use = Infobox | Name = For the Love of Movies | Distributor = LEF Foundation | Publisher = | Type = | Website = | Owner = | Commentary = | Description = | Source = This poster can be found at Posters | Portion = | Low_resolution = | Purpose = | Replaceability = | other_information = }}

6.. I have photos for two other biographical wikipedia articles which are very similar to the film poster situation: The persons involved want me to use their photos. You said,

"and the way to go on this is non-free fair-use: one fair-use film poster is usually acceptable in the infobox of a film article to identify the subject of the article. Tag the poster with { {non-free poster} }, and in the non-free use rationale list the purpose as "to identify the subject of the article"

Can I use this same strategy to add these photos to their corresponding articles? Is there a template for photos analagous to the template Film poster fur? One of the photos is at Marc Culler photo. The other is with the film poster at Gerald Peary photo.

I am determined to get to the bottom of this damned image uploading labyrinth. I hope I have not taken up too much of your valuable time. You have been so kind to help me along this far. Sorry that I am somewhat technically dense.--Foobarnix (talk) 02:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

1. Basically yes. It is actually better than where I would have started at Wikipedia:Upload. The reason I would have gone there is that you can get there from the toolbox (see #2); it also has the advantage that it takes you to Special:Upload with automatically created content for some cases. But since those cases do not include movie posters, and since you already know what you want on your file description page, going directly to Special:Upload is better for you.
2. The toolbox is in the left sidebar of all pages, including this one. If it shows as a link, click on it, and it will open, showing a list of tools including Upload file. Clicking on Upload file takes you to Wikipedia:Upload.
3. That’s exactly what I would do. (I don’t know where you saw that statement.)
4. Yes, the Upload file page creates the initial content of the file description page. If you don’t get it right at first, you can edit the file description page like any other page.
5. Looks good. For readability of the wikicode I would put each parameter on a new line, beginning with the | (like in the example).
6. Sorry no. Here is a longer version of what I wrote at the Help desk: See Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Non-free content must fulfill all ten criteria (including the sub-criteria). A film poster used in the infobox to identify the subject of a film article (or a logo to identify the subject of article that the logo identifies, etc) is generally considered to fulfill criterion 8. The fact that a portrait identifies the subject of a biography of a living person would seldom if ever help because the use would fail criterion 1: The portrait could almost always be replaced by a photo which could be taken and released under a free license. The Cullen photo is by Roberta Dupuis-Devlin, probably a professional photographer, and the Peary photo is probably also by a professional photographer. In order to use the photos on Wikipedia the photographers (not the subjects!) would have to release the photos under a free license, and unfortunately professional photographers are very loathe to release their work under a free license. The easiest way to get photos of the subjects would be for you or some other non-professional take a snapshot of them. The result wouldn’t be as attractive, but the articles would be reusable, which is a central Wikipedia goal.

I don’t mind spending time with you because you are earnestly learning how things work, which will make you an excellent contributor. —teb728 t c 08:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

A small breakthrough

• I finally located and sort of understand the use of the template Non-free use rationale. Below is partly filled out template for it and also for template Non-free poster. Do I need to have both of them? Do these templates overlap in function with the template Film poster fur?

{Non-free poster}}

{Non-free use rationale | Description = | Source = | Article = For the Love of Movies | Portion = | Low resolution = | Purpose = to identify the subject of the article | Replaceability = | Other information = }}--Foobarnix (talk) 07:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You're going backwards. I strongly recommend you stay with your original {{Film poster fur}}. It creates a {{non-free use rationale}} with tailored content. If you use this basic template instead, you absolutely need a Source, and you really should provide text for all the parameters except Other information like so:

{Non-free use rationale
| Description = The poster for For the Love of Movies
| Source = http://www.fortheloveofmovies.net/press-room/photos-and-posters/
| Article = For the Love of Movies
| Portion = The entire poster. The entire image is needed to properly identify the film without tarnishing or misrepresenting the poster.
| Low resolution = Yes [when you upload, make sure you use a small version like the thumbnail on the poster page; even the "low-res" version is too large]
| Purpose = to identify the subject of the article
| Replaceability = Not replaceable. No free replacement could properly identify the film.
| Other information =
}}

{{Film poster fur}} does all that better and much easier. Look how nicely it worked with the Avitar poster! —teb728 t c 09:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

And yet more questions

Hello again most excellent explainer and patient person, TEB728

1. I think you are saying that the film poster fur and the Non-free use rationale templates are mutually exclusive.
2. Both templates contain the purpose field. The Avatar example does not have this field filled in. Was that because infobox was entered in the use field. Should I do the same, or is it helpful to put " to identify the subject of the article" in the purpose field and also put "infobox" in the use field?
3. I am still unclear about the Non-free poster template. The Avatar example does contain this in the "Licensing:" section. Do I need to paste this template into the field on the Upload file page, or is it somehow automatically generated? If it does not appear, I will just add it later.
4. Some of my questions could be answered if I just went ahead and created the Upload file page. But you said, "Because an article name is required, don’t upload the poster until you move your draft to article space." Can I create the Upload file page now and upload the file later? I am very unclear on this point. (I am not quite ready to move it to main article space.)
5. I want to emphasize that my questions all along have had more to do with the simple mechanics of uploading images than with the intricacies of copyrights. When I am done, I am going to make a very simple page (with an example) of the steps needed to upload image files. Would you like to see it when I do that? [For example, I was not even aware of the fact that image files even required special pages or that step one is to click on Upload file (or alternatively go to the Special:Upload page). I would make this all clear by 1,2,3,... examples.]
6. Both templates share some, but not all, parameters. I have made a new partially filled out (and disabled) template using all my previous information (as well as your suggestions in the Non-free use rationale example template you included) to create the template below. Is there redundant info in this template? The Avatar example does not have this much information filled in. Note in particular the fields Description, Distributor, Low_resolution, Purpose, and Replaceability. I am really just winging it here.

{Film poster fur
| Article = For the Love of Movies
| Use = Infobox
| Name = For the Love of Movies
| Distributor = LEF Foundation
| Publisher =
| Type =
| Website =
| Owner =
| Commentary =
| Description = The poster for For the Love of Movies
| Source = This poster can be found at Posters
| Portion =
| Low_resolution = Yes [when you upload, make sure you use a small version like the thumbnail on the poster page; even the "low-res" version is too large]
| Purpose = to identify the subject of the article
| Replaceability = Not replaceable. No free replacement could properly identify the film.
| other_information =
}} As always, thank you so much for your help--Foobarnix (talk) 04:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

1. Something like that: {{film poster fur}} and {{non-free use rationale}} both create non-free use rationales. The latter is general purpose; the former is tailored for film posters, creating default text for most of the fields.
2. If the Use parameter is “Infobox,” “Header,” or “Section,” film poster fur creates an excellent default Purpose. For example for Infobox it says “Main infobox. The image is used for identification in the context of critical commentary of the work for which it serves as poster art. It makes a significant contribution to the user's understanding of the article, which could not practically be conveyed by words alone. The image is placed in the infobox at the top of the article discussing the work, to show the primary visual image associated with the work, and to help the user quickly identify the work and know they have found what they are looking for. Use for this purpose does not compete with the purposes of the original artwork, namely the creator providing graphic design services to film concerns and in turn marketing films to the public.” This includes the idea of “to identify the subject of the article.” If the use is something else, you have to provide your own Purpose to explain how the use fulfills WP:NFCC#8. Or if you think you can improve on the default text, you may provide your own Purpose.
3. You provide it; otherwise Special:Upload would not know what tag to provide. (I think that Wikipedia:Upload provides a tag for some of its special cases, but then you tell it what the special case is.)
4. You can’t do an upload without doing an upload. But can preview template results by putting the template in user space and clicking “Show preview” on the edit page.
5. If you are talking about publishing a page to project space (i.e. Wikipedia:*), you might want as for comments at the Help desk: The helpers there know a lot more than I. They may know of a page that already does that.
6. The shared parameters enable you to override the default values (except Article which has no default). You use them if you can improve on the default text. In your case your Source is better (more specific); for the others the default is probably better. I just wrote minimal text to show what a rationale had to contain if you used the general purpose template. BTW my [bracketed] comment on “Low resolution” was info for you, not something you would write.

—teb728 t c 11:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I think I now understand both templates and how to upload. Soon my article will be ready for moving to article space and we will see. You are welcome to remove or archive our discussion. I have archived all of it on a personal page so that I may refer to it.
Thanks for everything TEB728.--Foobarnix (talk) 23:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Atom

Nice catch on that help desk question/statement/thing. I would never have thought of that in a million years. :-) --Danger (talk) 11:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

It occurred to me when I was looking at my watchlist and noticed that the top line of the Toolbox in the sidebar on that page said “RSS” and “Atom”. —teb728 t c 12:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Still impressive to a person who can spend a solid hour looking for wallet and keys. --Danger (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

ONTORULE

Thanks for your comments. Don't worry, I know how things work here, that's why I appreciate your comments. Due to my relationship with the original source of information, I'm the first to assume the errors on previous versions of the article. So I'm working for improving it, and I hope now it'd be more useful for people from a encyclopedic point of view. Please, I ask you to unmercifully highlight any other possible issue. Sergioferlo (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2011 (CET)

IP bias

Even handedness sorta dictates that you drop the same template on User:Wtshymanski. It takes two to edit-war. 24.177.120.74 (talk) 02:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Since your contributions log indicates you are new here, I believed you might not know about Wikipedia’s policy on Edit warring; so I thought it would be worthwhile to notify you about it. Since Wtshymanski’s contributions log shows he has been editing here since November 2004, I assume that he has become aware of the policy since then; so I believe it would be a waste of effort to notify him. (It’s not a matter of IP bias: I would consider it equally a waste of effort to notify an anon like say User:220.101.28.25, who has over 8000 edits.) But if you seriously believe Wtshymanski needs to be notified of the policy, you are could do it as I easily as I. —teb728 t c 08:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I did. It strikes me as bias-y that you threatened me with a block, and didn't even contact him/her/shim, but I'm willing to let it go. Have a pleasant day. 24.177.120.74 (talk) 15:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it is unfortunate that the standard template that I used contained a block threat. I posted it to inform you of the policy, assuming that being aware of it, you would comply (and would not need a block). —teb728 t c 00:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Atacked First

I thought it was awkward you would erase that comment, when the user "bsuorangecrush" is the one who added fuel to the flame. Instead of taking sides you might want to review the whole converstation, I really don't care if people don't like me on here or not. SteveoJ (talk) 23:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Although I disagree with his opinion that the logos should be delete and believe his comments would have been better if he had not mentioned you, his post basically stated his opinion and presented rational (if mistaken) arguments why he disagreed with you. In contrast your post was a pure attack and had no redeeming quality. The fact that you felt attacked is no excuse for your attack. —teb728 t c 00:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for help with images

Greetings TEB728: You were a tremendous help educating me on uploading images. I have now both uploaded a Non-free poster at For the Love of Movies and a Wikimedia photograph with permission at Marc Culler. I must have done it right because neither image has been taken down yet. Thank you so much--Foobarnix (talk) 10:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I spoke too soon. Another editor has caused my image File:For the Love of Movies.jpg to be seriously reduced in quality. (He has evidently done this to a lot of people's work.) It is unclear to me why he did this to my poster. I thought the template Film poster fur had taken care of everything. Do you have any thoughts about this? Do not waste a lot of time thinking about it if you do not know. Thanks again as always for your time.--Foobarnix (talk) 19:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the reduction: The (boilerplate) text from the template says, “The copy is of sufficient resolution for commentary and identification….” The reduced image is still sufficient for that purpose. The original upload was 17.185x26.559” (at 96 px/in). That is certainly more resolution than is needed for the purpose. BTW, If you look at the edit history or the file, you will see that it was actually User:Sfan00 IMG who requested the reduction. User:Xnn is a user responds to such requests, which is why he does it a lot. —teb728 t c 08:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi TEB728 Before leaving this subject, I just want to be sure I understand the policy. I did indeed originally upload a high resolution image. The producer of the film gave me informal permission in an email to use the poster, and in fact wanted me to use it—but, of course, this is legally irrelevant. Because the "fair use" principal is really just a loophole in the copyright law, it should not be used to include high quality images because that would violate the spirit of one-time-use that fair use allows. Furthermore, others could assume that the high quality image, since it is in Wikipedia, can now be used for commercial purposes. The thumbnail image gets around this problem because others cannot profitably use it because of its low resolution. I suppose that if I wanted to negotiate with the owner of the image the very complicated copyright permissions request procedure (which I assuredly do not) that I could get the high resolution image into Wikipedia. The upshot is: If you upload something using fair use, never upload anything more high res than a thumbnail.

If I have more or less summed up the situation, could you please just answer "yes" here. Thank you for your time.--Foobarnix (talk) 20:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Basically yes: I wouldn't call fair use a loophole; rather it is a feature of copyright law. Wikipedia's non-free content policy is more restrictive than fair use law (For that reason I tend to talk about non-free content rather than fair-use content.) I would say: If you upload a non-free image, make the resolution as low as will fulfil the encyclopedic purpose. —teb728 t c 11:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:Buildings and structures at night

Thanks for your answer on my shots not showing up in the category at commons, but the problem is still there. The file is at commons, but if you look at the category itself, the pix aren't there, but they were a couple of weeks ago. They should still be there, as that category is listed on their edit pages. Sardaka (talk) 10:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I see it at Commons:Category:Buildings and structures at night. It is the 4th file in the top row. —teb728 t c 11:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Cleaning up multiple images in file history

Thanks again for your help regarding Eleonora and Ethel Olson. I also added a 1905 public domain photo of William F. Kirk to Wikimedia Commons. I must have done something wrong because the file history of this jpg. file shows four separate images even though they're all identical. Is there any way to clean this up? Thanks for any advice in this matter. Pfa (talk) 02:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that there is no way to delete the old versions of File:William F. Kirk 1905.jpg. I know there is no way to delete old version of text pages. —teb728 t c 06:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

One problem solved and more questions

I uploaded the William F. Kirk photo with a different name and then marked the old photo for deletion as a duplicate. That solved the problem even if it was a little unorthodox.

A few years ago I wrote five articles about old-time Scandinavian entertainment. All of the articles were linked to photos but until recently none of them actually had any. Now I and another user have added public domain pictures from 1905 to 1920 to four of the articles. I would like to add one to the remaining article and then retire from the picture uploading business.

The picture I want is dated 1930s, 1940s and 1950s. I am certain it is from the 1940s. It is located at the The Minneapolis Photo Collection of the Hennepin County Library. I cannot furnish a direct link. The MPC is at: http://www.hclib.org/pub/search/MplsPhotos/

To find the picture type "Slim Jim". It is number 4 of 7 pictures: M3833a.

I contacted the library and was told that it owned the photo but not the copyright. This was presumed to belong to the photographer who took the photo over 70 years ago. This photo is currently being used by a web site owned by the University of Wisconsin, and it was used on an album cover about 30 years ago. I doubt that either party owned the copyright.

The Hennepin County Library sent me a long form, which I signed and returned. It basically states that I (and not the library) am responsible in the event of a copyright violation. (Something that is very unlikely to happen.) For one thing, the photographer is almost surely deceased — as are the two men in the picture.

Otherwise I may use the photo as long as I credit it in the following way: "Courtesy of the Hennepin County Library, Minneapolis Collection, M3833a."

Can I date this 1940s and still tag it as public domain? Or what would the tag be? The library is granting me permission in a limited sense. Any advice or help in this matter would be appreciated. Pfa (talk) 05:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Free-speech-flag.svg

thanks for the pointer Decora (talk) 03:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Hugh DeHaven

I corrected your edit because I corrected the spelling of the entire article title. GROW THE HECK UP!!!!! --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 01:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Please stay off my talk page. I'll ask you once. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 02:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Be reasonable

I do not see why you needed to remove the photo I had on this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hg3300 "In the first place I removed the image, for non-free images may not be used except in articles. (They may not be use in user pages either.)"

• Yeah...what the heck does that mean? What the heck is a "non-free image"?
• I'll admit I don't understand this copyright stuff so I just "guessed" what to use. Maybe I'm wrong.
• What's the REAL difference between "free" and "non-free" on wikipedia? Because clearly it has nothing to do with money. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hg3300 (talk • contribs) 07:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

"Free" means "free of restriction" not "free of cost." Specifically, a free image is one the may be reused by anyone for anything, including commercial use and modification. See Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria for the policy. Specifically see WP:NFCC#9 for why a non-free image may be used only in an article. —teb728 t c 07:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• • I'll allow it to be free. After all, the whole image isn't on Wikipedia. It is my image, and if Wikipedia needs it to be free, it shall be free. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hg3300 (talk • contribs) 07:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Thank you for clarifying the status. —teb728 t c 07:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Rejiggering info

I am going to edit out the word for word and just give broad info. as is done in many synopses of info. from the information in question. I am thinking that takes care of copy r. issues. Check it out Technocracy Movement comment on the talk page then please. Also if you would edit the information to make it a non issue after I do if there is still a problem that would be nice. Just deleting it and not re editing removes some good information and a nice citation of some history of the thing in question and if it is just changing it a little,please help to do that, instead of deleting the info and the link. Thanks Fidel Drumbo 10:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FidelDrumbo (talk • contribs)

Thank you

Not that I want to discourage you from looking more, but I'm a woman of my word. :) I really am grateful. I hate that this has come up at such a bad time for Tony, especially. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

@TEB728: FYI, I commented more at that discussion regarding which images can be relabeled. Since it's moved up on the page I didn't want it to be overlooked. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I just now replied there. —teb728 t c 22:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Your response on the Help Desk

Hey there. While I truly appreciate your response to my question on the Help Desk, I am fairly ignorant of the ins/outs of copyright on photos. You said 'No Derivative Works' is not an acceptable restriction" That is confusing to me. So it's not restricted...but not restricted from what? Anyway, I re-asked the question at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Trying to determine if an image is OK to use if you want to weigh in there. If your busy, I'm sure someone else will get it...but I wanted to let you know since I mentioned your response in the new post (and that I was confused by it), so I thought it polite to inform you. Thanks again. Quinn ^{✩ STARRY NIGHT} 17:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Possible sock? Or meat?

Doesn't this series of edits look a little odd, bearing in mind what happened yesterday regarding those images/articles? Special:Contributions/Bn_bt_ec01 - Sitush (talk) 12:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Varian photos and photo credit

Hi TEB, thanks for helping me keep the Varian images. However, I noticed you tossed the Ansel Adams credit on the Russell and Sigurd Varian photos. Now I did look at the WP guidelines that normally discourage such things, and here I think there is a place to make an exception: Ansel Adams was, of course, a very famous photographer, and he also happened to be a good personal friend of both men, but Russell in particular. For that reason, I think the credit is relevant here and within the scope of the WP guidelines. But I'd be curious to see if you concur or not. Montanabw^(talk) 07:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I was about to reply that Adams wasn't mention in the article, but on checking he is. So OK. (Interesting guys!) —teb728 t c 08:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting family. I got to this via writing the Sheila Varian article. Montanabw^(talk) 18:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Email

A minor, tiny, little quibble - I hope you don't mind constructive feedback; you said on HD removed your email address because we do not reply via email [11].

I know what you mean, and it's kinda true, but not entirely. It's true that, in general, requests on HD are unlikely to be answered via email. Although, they could be. For example, yesterday, there was some nasty business over a user complaining about an article about her - she gave an email addy. Although the addy was removed, I still wrote to her, to help sort it out.

Anyone could email a user - no harm there. The reason we remove email addresses is, to prevent them getting loads and loads of spam - because bots will crawl our pages and extract addresses, in order to email people fantastic offers about Viagra, etc.

So it'd be better to say, "removed your email address so you don't get loads of spam" or something like that.

As I say - a tiny, tiny quibble. Please keep up the good work; your answers are generally excellent. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  02:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. —teb728 t c 02:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI

See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Pages on Law firms. Mtking (talk) 00:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Your reply re: keeping oneself out of Wikipedia

Ummm... No biggie, but I think that WP:BEANS applies here. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

On personal attacks

Hi TEB728,

I saw your redaction and the advice to read WP:PA.

1 which of WP:NPA#WHATIS are you referring to? I can only surmise "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" but the evidence speaks for itself 1.1 he followed me to the help desk 1.2 yet he wasn't named in the request for help 2 assuming you agree that following me like this is not acceptable, how would you advise me best to deal with it?

Thank you for your attention. Obliged. FightingMac (talk) 06:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

It was actually with reference to the lede, “Comment on content, not the contributor.” WHATIS is not an exhaustive list, just some worst cases. But now that you mention it, your accusation did lack merit. There are other likely reasons for his visiting the Help desk and its talk page: For example, it may be on his watchlist; I know he does post there every few days. And surely the reason for his posting at Wikipedia talk:Help desk#Should a noindex tag be placed on the page? is that Obsidian Soul referred him to that discussion from User talk:Obsidian Soul#help desk. Even if he followed you to the Help desk from watching your contributions, there is nothing wrong with that: I frequently watch contributions of editors I think are problematic. (If you want to watch my contributions, they are at Special:Contributions/TEB728.)

So how do I advise you to proceed? In the first place comment on content, NEVER on the contributor. Making personal attacks like “Wikipedia busybody” or speculating on another editor’s motives turns people off and tends to make them ignore any good points you make. Second, read Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Off2riorob might be mistaken about interlanguage links, but I am confident that he is here to improve the encyclopedia. You will deal with him more effectively if you realize that. E.g. understanding his point of view would make you more able to counter it. If all else fails, proceed with Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, but remember that the Help desk and its talk page are NOT forums for dispute resolution.

I have changed the section title to the real topic of this discussion (as is my right on my talk page). —teb728 t c 08:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of the Help desk is to give advice on how to use and edit Wikipedia. It is not to deal with personal disputes or content disputes. The following restatement of your post would have been in-scope for the Help desk:

“I am having a disagreement with another editor (Off2riorob). He thinks (if I understand him correctly) that interlanguage links should never be used in articles, but I think they are sometimes useful (for example [here]). Is there a guideline on the use of interlanguage links? If not, does anyone have a third opinion? Off2riorob and I have discussed the issue [here] and [there] and have not come to any compromise. How should we proceed?”

Such a post might have gotten a response like:

“WP:LAYOUT#External links says InterWikimedia links to other projects (except Wiktionary and Wikisource) should only appear in the External links section. Probably the reason for this guideline is that Wikipedia has a goal of producing reusable content. But if there were an interlanguage link in the body of an article, and a mirror site did not mirror the foreign language article, the link would be broken.”

—teb728 t c 20:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for this TEB728.

Regarding WP:LAYOUT#External links, interlanguage links are not [[WP:LAYOUT#External links | InterWikimedia links]]. The purpose of interlanguage links is clearly laid out at Help:Interlanguage_links#Purpose. Off2riorob accepts this is so (he opined it was badly laid out but he does accept it's policy) but was essentially saying it should not be policy in his disobliging manner eloquently expressed thus by  Obsidi♠n^Soul

• Am I the only one supposed to assume AGF then and you're exempted from it because you're too awesome or something? Everything you've said so far is laced so thickly with condescension, it's no wonder FightingMac came to those conclusions.

The position is that I applied for a Third opinion and have obtained one favourable to my position i.e. supporting my use of interlanguage links whatever Off2riorob might happen to think of them and in due course I will be contacting Off2riorob to see whether he accepts this opinion.

Your suggested in-scope edit no doubt preferrable. I'll remember next time I have to apply Help desk (this was the first time I've had to in 10 years of editing Wikipedia).

I notice you imply my contributions are problematic.

Of course Off2riorob followed me on my user name to the Help desk and given his creepy interrogation of me regarding his anxiety that I had edit warred him under a sock over Roman Polanski and Frederic Mitterand ( doubly creepy and threatening because both of these are infamous for extremely sordid sexual issues) I should think that reasonable enough cause for concern in the circumstances. Plainly you do not. Whether I elevate my concerns or not depend in part on how repentant (he's good at apologising, has to be on his form - blocked ten times so far) I sense off2riorob is when I contact him, but if I do elevate it I shall likely cite you as an example of how difficult it is to get heard on these predatory issues which we know are turning away so many new editors away from Wikipedia. Perhaps the help desk should deal with them. Just a suggestion.

You did not explain to me why you think I was making a personal attack, but I see you do at least concede it was none of WP:NPA#WHATIS thank goodness.

Thank you for your time and attention. Appreciated. I will let you know if I do elevate and cite you. FightingMac (talk) 22:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for providing the translation of Michèle Sabban. I've added the standard Translation template (which gets it categorised as a translated page, put the Brit flag on it (assuming you're Brit, change it to American otherwise) and added Wikiproject France. Thanks again. Appreciated. FightingMac (talk) 01:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring you. My slowness in replying is because you give a lot to reply to, and I have other things to do. —teb728 t c 12:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

No need to respond TEB. Just thanks from me. And absolutely creating the stub must have taken you some time. It is appreciated but perhaps you better understand the point about it not always being practicable to do. There's also Irène Théry to be getting on with. :-) FightingMac (talk) 17:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Lewontin's Argument

Fllowing the recen afd our participation in the dicussion about the title and scope of the article will be apreciated.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Content at Sacred Texts is PD

Please see sacred texts copyright disclaimer, virtually all of sacred texts is PD, and this source was last published in 1910. It is not considered good form to reproduce pd text wholesale, but that's not the same as it being a copyvio (and of course Wikipedia got started by importing the text of the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica). --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Looking for the copyright status of the source, I got as far as the footer text at the Sacred Texts home page, which says that some of the text is PD and some all rights reserved. I regret I didn’t go one step further to the “Site copyrights” link there, which is the page you link to. Avicennasis pointed out at HD that that particular source was PD, and when I saw that, I withdrew the copyvio nomination. (I’m allowed to do that, right?) Is there anything else I should do to right things? —teb728 t c 12:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

No, you're fine, thanks for withdrawing. I happen to use sacred texts, so I know its copyright policies. The proposed article was a bit problematic anyway. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

In Reply to "In reply to your post at Media copyright questions"

You asked recently at MCQ for a “foundation statement … to justify that fair use images can't be used in news stories”; since you may still be hibernating when my reply is there is archived, let me reply also here: Although it is not exactly true that fair use images may never be used in news stories, undoubtedly what you are looking for is wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy, which says that if a Wikimedia project allows any non-free content at all, it may be used only in accord with an Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP) and that an “EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals”. The EDP for English Wikipedia is Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. —teb728 t c 01:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Teb. I moved discussion here because it's too little too late for me.

Just remember that deleting is a very forceful 'un-wik' action to be taken in cases of legal necessity. If you're gonna do it, you be damn polite about it and you better take a lot of time to walk people through the steps of why it's the right thing.

The deleters don't have that time-- they're too busy racking up deletions. So we shared pieces of each others' minds, had an unpleasant experience for everyone, managed to even degrade some articles in the process. Good work for us all.

Anyway, that's not you, you weren't involved. You just watch me burning out and notice that if you're going to piss on someone's work, be sure to do so politely, especially if they know more about copyright than you do.

IF this is the only wiki you edit, then I probably sound crazy. But I edit lots, and none are as hostile as EnWP. --Alecmconroy (talk) 11:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you please help me

Dear Editor,

I have written many versions of the information on the non profit school 'The British school of Bucharest" and each time I posted it as an article on Wikipdia it was deleted as advertising.

There are many Wikipedia lists asking for additional schools to add their information to complete the lists:

Categories: Education in Bucharest | International schools in Romania | High schools in Bucharest

I hav checked and the information I have on the page made at the user address below is based on the information offered by other school and is much less than many school have listed, such as AISB Bucharest.

Can you please tell me how I can have the information checked and tagged as acceptable before I load it as an article using 'article wizard'.

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Madabucharest&diff=0&oldid=443833205

For all changes since your last visit. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Madabucharest for the current revision.

Thank you for your help. It will be a relief to finally get this done.

Best regards,

Mada 07:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)Mada — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madabucharest (talk • contribs)

Hi Mada,

I made some superficial changes to your draft which don’t really affect the acceptability of the article—mostly changing external links to internal links to Wikipedia articles, also changing section headings according to the Wikipedia:Manual of style.

The most important thing I notice about the draft is an almost total lack of references to reliable sources. I converted your external link about the ISI inspection into the only reference. All facts need to be verified by citations to reliable sources.

Oh!! I just noticed there already is an article International British School of Bucharest. Is that the same school?!

I don’t understand why you hesitate to use the Article Wizard. It helps beginners create draft articles, and I believe it finishes by submitting the draft to Wikipedia:Articles for creation, which gives the kind of assessment you are looking for. Since I have never used either the Wizard or AFC, I can’t help you with the details of using them. —teb728 t c 11:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Help, please.

Hi TEB728! :D

I really need your help here. I'm currently writing a new article about a person who passed away last week, on the 9th. Before I go any further, this person, is notable, as I now have sources to coobarate that :) The only thing that I'll need, is an image. This person is all over the internet, but I can't seem to find an image of him on the internet that is labelled for reuse --- nothing on Google; Commons; Flickr --- they're all labled "All Rights Reserved" which is really annoying me :) Do you have any suggestions of what I can do? Thank You -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 10:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Why do you think the article needs an picture? Pictures are nice to have, but an article doesn't actually need one. I would just publish the article without a picture but keep my eyes open in case something turns up. —teb728 t c 10:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I know, I'm just saying the article would look better :) But since the person has died - who becomes the legal copyright holder of an image of him (Sorry if that makes no sense whatsover, not good with copyright etc.) Thanks :) -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 10:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

In most cases the photographer (same as when he was alive). The exception is when the photographer was doing work for hire; in that case the photographer's employer (same as when he was alive). —teb728 t c 12:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Alright, thank you! :D fingers crossed they somehow release images into public domain, doubt it, but still. ;) -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 12:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ducktv-logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ducktv-logo.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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 18:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

File:3 WOMEN & A CHATEAU.jpg

Sorry, when it comes to possible breaches of copyright we don't deal in credible assertions. The website displays a clear copyright notice, and the user has provided no evidence that he owns it, therefore it should be speedily deleted. If permission is later forthcoming, it can be undeleted. I am restoring the speedy tag. – ukexpat (talk) 21:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Removing AfD template

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Houston Voice. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it. Snotbot  t • c »  11:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Please revert yourself. If you had read my edit summary, you would have seen that I removed the AfD tag because that article was never nominated for deletion. The article nominated for deletion is Montrose Star, and Houston Voice was copied from Montrose Star AfD tag and all. —teb728 t c 11:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:SEMF logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:SEMF logo.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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 18:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

thanks!!

Thank you for providing the citation example in the James Doolin article I am working on. I really appreciate it! :D Norlns22 (talk) 07:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

So it's ok to upload that image right?

Do I have to do something special? Glock17gen4 (talk) 09:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

An FBI mugshot would have been OK, but I can't think of any reason to think an Oregon mugshot would be OK. —teb728 t c 23:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Uploading Flickr images

I noticed this edit on WP:MCQ but if you are not familiar with it I suggest using the Flickr upload bot which makes life rather easy for this purpose. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 04:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that? —teb728 t c 04:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

There are a few other useful tools linked on my commons user page you may not know about. ww2censor (talk) 04:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note

No doubt, User:CatWizard777 is feeling frustrated. His edit history shows him as being on board since 2009, but his arguments are those of a newb. I left him a message which hopefuly clarifies a bit. If he asks for userfication, he'll get it... and lots of advice... but that article is not going back to mainspace unless and until the topic meets criteria. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Help desk

Thanks for that but it was Hoary (talk · contribs) that was asking the question. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 21:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Oops, thanks for pointing that out. —teb728 t c

Image of Underworld (film series)

I discovered that you previously attempted to replace the DVD cover with your own image. I don't know what yours is, but I replaced the DVD cover with the franchise's logo, hopefully that should be fine.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 09:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

You misread the history: I reverted an anon's attempt to replace the DVD cover. —teb728 t c 09:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

So it is okay to replace the DVD cover with the franchise's logo? The reason I replaced the DVD cover with it is because the DVD covers only composed the images of the first three films, and now that there is a fourth, I believe that it should be a logo in its place due to there's gonna be more films before it ends.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I actually have no interest in the article. An anon had posted a question at WP:NCHQ; I checked what he was doing and noticed he needed to be reverted. —teb728 t c 19:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

In other words, I guess what you are trying to say he's been vandalizing.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 19:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

No, he was just clueless. He may have been trying to do the sort of thing you did. But he didn't know how (and as an anon couldn't upload anyway). —teb728 t c 20:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

GESTR ROOMS

Good Day! Hi, Need your help to Requests for undeletion for GESTR ROOMS Sra30 (talk) 13:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)