User talk:Elcobbola/Archive3

Thank you for your work at FAC during April

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		To Elcobbola, For your exceptional reviews of at least 39 Featured article candidates during the month of April, the FAC community and I thank you for being one of the top reviewers this month and for your dedication to helping assure that only Wiki's finest (and most "legal" :-) work is recognized on the Main Page.[1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad I haven't been entering comments one way or another on articles that come to FAC without image issues; the deceptively low 39 count lets me retain the delusion that I don't need to get out more ;) (Thanks, Sandy!) ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 12:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I knew the 39 was a drop in the bucket :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Xzibit

How should the captions be? I want to fix this soon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laughing at my money now (talk • contribs) 22:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It's just a minor thing; in the absence of multiplicity, captions should not end with periods unless they are complete sentences (see WP:MOS#Captions). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 14:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Query

Elcobbola, can you browse the query at the bottom of User talk:Raul654? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the actual image has been deleted, so I entered general comments at the article's talk page. In a way, they're both wrong. ;) ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 23:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Priory of Sion

Hell Elcobbola. Are you willing to reconsider your vote of opposition to Priory of Sion becoming a Featured Article in light of recent changes that I have been made? --Loremaster (talk) 23:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Good Freudian slip. ;) Oppose stricken. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 14:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Janet Jackson

hello,

I was wondering if you wouldn't mind helping me with the audio samples of the Janet Jackson article. This is the first music artists page I've contributed to significantly and I've been hesitant to delete any of the current audio samples in case I can find critical analysis since I have no way of recreating them if they are deleted. Do you have any recommendations? Esp on how to write a fair use rational in terms of policy? I'd appreciate any help. Thankyou. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 03:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I certainly have no problem with one audio clip, as establishing vocal and musical style is important, I think, to understanding such a performer. I wrote the rationale for the clip used in the Michael Jackson article and would suggest similar verbiage for Janet. That said, however, I don't think there's support for six song clips, which seems superfluous even in the absence of NFCC#3A (which requires minimal use). As someone unfamiliar with Janet's music, I'm afraid I can't recommend which one should be the one to stay, nor do I know whether a significant voice/style change has occurred during her career that might warrant the inclusion of a second clip. If you think certain clips need to stay, perhaps I would be most helpful as a sounding board (e.g. let me know the reasons you think they are necessary and how they are expected to contribute significantly and we can work from there).

I've removed three audio clips and moved the remaining ones to the "Artistry" section of the article. The three clips I've left remaining I believe hold significance to Jackson's musical style and public image-the later being a cornerstone of her overall career.

1) "Control"- the song establishes Jackson as an independent woman, emerging from the shadows of her family's careers.

2) "Black Cat"- This is the only song in Jackson's career to be written entirely by herself and her only pure rock song. The single deals with drug abuse as a part of Jackson's over all socially conscious theme of Rhythm Nation 1814.

3) "If"- the single is the first instance of Jackson exploring her sexuality through her music which is a central theme to the janet. album.

All three singles follow the chronological order of her albums: Control (1986), Janet Jackson's Rhythm Nation 1814 (1989), janet. (1993). They also follow the order of her evolving musical themes: Independence (Control) Social Responsibility ("Black Cat"/Rhythm Nation 1814) and sexual freedom ("If"/janet.)Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 08:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use images

I have debated images with you to the point, where I am certain that you have far greater understanding of image guidelines. Is there a policy against altering fair use images?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I was just about to ask the very same question as Tony. D.M.N. (talk) 07:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope, alter at will. Wikipedians are constantly altering FU images (e.g. changing resolution, cropping, adjusting balance/contrast, etc.) The resulting image would just be a derivative work (and would thus still need a fair use tag/rationale and credit to the original copyright holder). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 12:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Aeneas Mackintosh

Could I ask you to look at the Aeneas Mackintosh page, and let me know if what I have done with regard to the group photograph is OK? Basically, I ve ditched the photo with the dubious source, located another copy of the photograph and uploaded it. Brianboulton (talk) 16:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, indeed. I just added some author and publishing information. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 16:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:NFCC check

Could you please perform a WP:NFCC check for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare per this? Thanks! Gary King (talk) 19:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Natalee Holloway

With Black Kite's opinion noted, I've removed the images of the book covers, reward poster, and the F-16 (which BK felt was irrelevant). I hope we've sufficiently addressed your concerns that you can support the nomination. - auburnpilot talk 21:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

In light of the changes we've made per your concerns, would you reconsider your oppose vote on the FAR for this article?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hugh Trumble

Hi and thanks for taking the time to take a look this article at FAC. Following up on your concerns I have raised a query at FAC about the sourcing of the images that you queried. Could you please take a look and give me your advice if possible.Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 22:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I have addressed your concerns about images if you an opportunity to take another look. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 21:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Saying hello

Hi Эlcobbola, Sorry for not telephoning you first, but I'm just popping in to say hello and to thank you for my not having to worry about the images in the FACs that I occasionally review. Your detective work is admirable. Graham. GrahamColm^Talk 22:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Image OK?

Hi. Is this image good for a FAC article? ('Image:Kanaka.jpg').

Thanks, Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No, Image:Kanaka.jpg is in bad shape. Most glaringly, it doesn’t have a license (required per WP:IUP). The uploader, also, acknowledges it is a derivative work (“scanned copy”), but does not provide a source, author, etc. for the image, nor is there any reasoning or basis provided for the assumption that it is free of copyright restrictions. I've tagged it with {{nld}} (no license). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 20:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Map load time

Hi Elcobbola. I'm writing to ask a favor. Johnson Creek (Willamette River) is at FAC, has support from various quarters and no opposition. However, a question has arisen about the load time of the largest of its maps, an extra-wide, multi-panel photo map. None of us working on the article has found a specific rule or guideline about this kind of image. Any guidance you could give would be appreciated. Finetooth (talk) 18:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Policy/guidelines actually recommend uploading the largest (i.e. highest resolution, quality, etc.) possible, so long as it is under 20 mb. This recommendation, however, seems to be made with the assumption that the "thumb" parameter be used as mitigation in cases of extreme file sizes. The only real hint of an "official" stance on avoiding large image sizes I've seen is the recommendation that still frames be used to link to large animated .gif files. WP:SIZE addresses the issue in spirit, as it addresses the issue of load time on dial-up connections (i.e. decisions on content inclusion should consider impact on those with older computers and/or slower connections). Possibilities to remedy the problem may be (1) to utilize a thumbnail with a larger than average forced size, (2) to create an alternative image with less frames and a link to the full version for those who want more than just a sample or (3) to upload a lower resolution/quality version (i.e. more so than has already been done). Obviously, these suggestions would enact WP:IAR to a degree. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 21:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to say thank you here too. This was most helpful, and we are working on a solution amenable to the involved editors. Finetooth (talk) 21:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Facebook

Not caught up yet, was in the garden all afternoon ... what's the issue with it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, now tell me what I missed ? I had to get the garden out of my hair :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Facebook

Hey, just wondering why you removed this [2]? The Facebook FAC that Sandy archived was the 2006 FAC. -- Naerii 00:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Correct; give Ec a moment to respond so we can sort this out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, saw the edit summary for this and acted too soon. It's back. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 00:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see; I should explain :-) GimmeBot and articlehistory started about January 2007. Old FACs before that weren't all botified; they don't all have a previous FAC file, and the FAC archives contain the original FAC file. Some editors (grrrrr ... ) don't follow the instructions at the top of WP:FAC when moving the old file manually, which instruct them to check "What Links Here" and update other links. Whenever I notice on old FAC file got moved, I have to check everything (it's something to watch for, and I often notice when checking each talk page). Even though the instructions tell them to check What Links Here on the FAC, and correct the old links, they rarely do it. That leaves the *new* fac archived in the old fac archives. We have to add the archived version (which is something GimmeBot has done automatically since Jan 2007). They also often fail to update the article talk page when they move the old FAC page. In this case, the nominator got the talk page, but didn't get the old archive file. Thanks for looking out ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yakshgana

Please review the images in this page. I plan to use one of these images in a FAC per reviewer request. 'Image:Yakshagana Progress1.jpg', 'Image:Chittani Dancing.jpg', 'Image:Devendra Shivashankara.jpg', 'Image:Kondadakuli.jpg' and 'Image:JT-tikacharyaJT.jpg'. Sorry for the bother. thanks, Dineshkannambadi (talk) 11:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• Serious image issues, I'm afraid:
  • Image:FullPagadeYakshagana.jpg had a deprecated GFDL tag, which I've fixed. Although it's a "GFDL-self" (implying Gopal bhat took the photograph), it's curious that it's of a low resolution, it has no camera metadata, it was not uploaded by Gopal bhat and the uploader (Ppntori) has numerous deletion warnings. It just doesn't smell right.
  • Five images (Image:Demon Yakshagana.jpg, Image:Uloopi Mantapa.jpg, Image:Devendra Shivashankara.jpg, Image:Vrushasena Naveena.jpg and Image:Kondadakuli.jpg) are sourced to this user at Flickr. Only Image:Kondadakuli.jpg has not since been deleted from Flickr (concerning in and of itself). This image (and all of that Flickr user's other images) states "all rights reserved". There's no indication that they have been released as GFDL. Image:Kondadakuli.jpg is certainly not acceptable, and I see no evidence that the since deleted images would have been licensed otherwise.
  • Image:Yakshagana Progress1.jpg and Image:Chittani Dancing.jpg are both sourced to a non-existent website. They technically provide links as required by WP:IUP, but they're certainly not verifiable. I'm especially skeptical because it's quite seldom that websites use the GFDL license. The statement of "Mr.Upadhya ... has graciously released all rights" is also contrary to GFDL, which maintains some rights.
  • Image:YakshaganaPuppet.jpg is not acceptable fair use, as a free version could be readily obtained (fails NFCC#1) and, although now moot, it has no rationale (required per NFCC#10C and WP:RAT). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 14:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• You also mentioned Image:JT-tikacharyaJT.jpg, which is not in use in Yakshgana. I don't buy the rationale that a non-free version wouldn't exist. This person died in 1388; if he was indeed notable, I simply do not believe that no image/depiction of him was created and/or published before January 1, 1923. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 15:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Akhtar Hameed Khan

Hi, per Sandy's advice, could you pls confirm if either Image:AHKhan.jpg (just updated rationale) and/or Image:Akhtar Hameed Khan.jpg (just added) can be used in this FAC? Cheers. --IslesCape^Talk 18:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Image issue

Can you help? This:Image:Sir Tannatt William Edgeworth David (1858-1934).jpg appears on Commons. From the information in its Commons file, do you think this image is free for use? Previous problems on images sources have made me cautious. I'd be grateful for your opinion. Brianboulton (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It had been tagged with the wrong license (and the information template was corrupt), but I've cleaned it up on the Commons side. This is one of those rare images that actually has verifiable proof that it was published before January 1, 1923. This is a good one. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 18:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for that. Brianboulton (talk) 19:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Hey, I know you review images well. Can you please run a check on the images on this article please? The article is up on FAC and I see some red flags especially in the light of this scam I helped bust. Can you please take a close look at the images and their sourcing. Thanks. Sarvagnya 23:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:PreityZinta.jpg and Image:Ness & Preity.jpg both claim OTRS tickets. The tags were added by Lucasbfr (talk · contribs), an admin and OTRS member, so I don't doubt that they are genuine. I've emailed OTRS to double-check, but I fully expect the response to be that all is well. Otherwise, I don't quite buy that both of the non-free images are necessary, but my opinion on the matter isn't strong enough to raise at the FAC. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 01:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, fwiw, I also dont buy that fair use rationale and I've told them that only to be jeered at. And dont be so sure about those OTRS tickets. They had OTRS tickets last time round too - all 150 (or so) of them. The question in the Bollywoodblog case was not whether they'd released the rights on CC-3, but whether the rights were theirs to release in the first place. That was something none of them could answer.. including an admin with OTRS access. I was even told that it was "multi-million pound company.. they are obviously reliable" etc.,. Turned out that it was just another screwed up blog who'd scammed us from the get go. I wont be surprised at all if this was just another such scam. Sarvagnya 17:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the threshold for inclusion on Wiki is verifiability, not truth. If we have an email of release from the source site, we have done our due diligence. Even if, for example, we were to find those images on another site (e.g. through Google images or on Flickr), it could be possible that those sites also obtained the images from the Bollywood site. Ultimately, in the absence of reasonable evidence to the contrary, there's not much we can do. Wikipedia does indeed have a philosophical problem of "how good is good enough", but requiring, for example, photographic negatives with signed and notarized statements of release would go beyond practicality and common sense. (OTRS still hasn't responded, by the way) ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 14:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

If you're still watching/interested, OTRS replied confirming the release. I'm happy to forward the email to anyone interested. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 00:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Howdy

I requested Peer Review of an article today, here. Would you mind taking a look? The peer review includes an image issue, and I hear that you're very good at addressing those. Thanks in advance for peering into this.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I replied there. I'm not sure whether that was the correct place to have done so (I'm not familiar with PR), so certainly let me know if the comments should be moved elsewhere and/or if I should be following-up elsewhere. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 16:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the many useful comments. I've replied to some of them, and hope to address others later today.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi elcobbola, I think we've addressed all of your comments now.[3]Ferrylodge (talk) 13:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe now.[4]  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I made comments, only one of which needs any action (double-check my source correction). Otherwise, images look to be resolved. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 15:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

To Tell the Truth GA reassessment

I have removed all the unreliable sources from the article To Tell the Truth. I've also added a buttload of amboxes, as I think they're needed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Quick look?

Would you mind taking a look at the comments in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/National Ignition Facility? I'd like to know if they address your concerns, and/or if there is some more formal method I need to use to do this? IE, does this need an OTRS ticket? Maury (talk) 17:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Myst at FAC

Hey, Ec, this doesn't seem to have had an image check at FAC yet; are you able to have a look? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you also do an image check on the 1995 Japanese Grand Prix article, which is also at FAC? Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 07:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please do get to Myst, I think it's almost done in terms of criteria; by the way, I opposed Super Smash Bros. Brawl at FAC because I felt there was excessive use of fair use images in some cases; I was wondering if you could look over my comments and the article and see what you think. FAC is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Super Smash Bros. Brawl. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with the Smash Bros. assessment (I'll comment there and at Myst later today). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 16:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I've responded to your comments on the Myst FAC page, thanks for the review! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

A thought...

Have you seriously thought about administratorship? I've known you for a while now (we met once on an article that needed reviewing over at GA, I don't know if you remember me or not) and I know you are a civil editor, with a clean history and excellent contributions. Would you consider going for it? Regards, Rudget (Help?) 21:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Dibs on co-nom! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Greetings, Rudget; I remember you indeed! Seldom is there a day when I don't wish I had the ability to fetch neglected source information from Wiki images deleted after being moved to the Commons. In that sense I've thought about it, but I very seriously doubt that an Elcobbola RfA would succeed and I'm not convinced that the handiness of the tools would be worth the pettiness and paranoia which seem to plague the RfA process; I seem to get more than my fair share of criticism and stress outside of that process. ;) I greatly and sincerely appreciate the thought (and the support from Sandy) and it's been encouraging to see the (apparent) success of Risker and Jbmurray, but I worry it would be an exercise in futility. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 15:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

If those are your thoughts, I can't change them. No matter. Contact me when you feel the time is right. Regards, Rudget (Help?) 17:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

film stills as fair use

I invoked you here with reference to this. What's the WP position on film stills, do you know? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

As I may have been canvassed, closed the GAR, and am not exactly thrilled with certain comments at the FAC, I'm going to keep my distance on this one. G-Guy responded correctly that, although the stills would indeed satisfy fair use in "the real world", Wikipedia has a proprietary FU policy which is deliberately more restrictive than the actual U.S. fair use law. Not to put words in the Foundation's mouth, but the reason therefor is to minimize and discourage what is essentially a "necessary evil" in a free encyclopedia. Film stills are treated as any other fair use images; if they're necessary and contribute significantly (among the other criteria), they may be used. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 15:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the response. (I wasn't too bothered about that particular FAC; I more wanted to know in general.) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to say hai

Tinucherian has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend or a possibly new friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Have a great day ! -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 10:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

1995 Japanese Grand Prix FAC

I've replied at the FAC. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 16:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Doddabasappa Temple

Hi. yesterday I uploaded three images (photographs I had taken in India) in this article's gallery and indicated the license to be "user created Public domain". Is this okay?. Or should I have put it in creative commons? Does it matter?Thanks,Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether "should I have put it in creative commons" is refering to licensing or uploading to the actual Commons, so I'll cover both bases:

Short answer: As the author and copyright holder, you are free to use whichever license you wish. Uploading to Commons (as opposed to Wiki) is preferable, as it allows all projects to access the images.

Long answer: PD, GFDL and certain variants of creative commons are all okay to use on Wikipedia. As long as one of those is being used, the only sense in which the choice of license would "matter" is what rights you, as the author, would like to retain. CC, for example, allows you to request attribution and require derivative works be published under the same or equivalent license. Public domain does not retain such rights. I release my images as PD because I'm such a lousy photographer, but your philosophy may differ. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 14:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I will switch to CC license from next time.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 21:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hence forth, I will upload under "cc share alike 3.0" as here Image:Sadashiva Temple at Nuggihalli.jpg. Looks ok?Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, looks good! ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 00:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. How do I delete an image I uploaded myself?Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Without a mop, you can't (literally speaking, that is - and, even with it, there would need to be a policy-supported reason to do so). If it meets a certain criterion, it may be eligible for speedy deletion. Otherwise, there is WP:IFD. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 01:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/NeXT

Hi there. Please review this again, changes made to the lead. Thanks! — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 09:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Rush Street

I see I have resolved your issues. You have remained neutral. You are one of the experts on images. Can you tell me if there are other WP:FAs that have taken advantage of the new templates to incorporate a new level of pictorial detail. I had hoped for support from someone such as yourself given images are at issue here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Irony of ironies: I was just reading the article. I generally remain neutral unless I'm specifically asked to review, or it's a topic on which I have substantial competence and personal interest. If you'd like me to do a complete review (i.e. not just against criterion three), I can try to enter a review by or over the weekend. Note, however, that I usually take substantial time to review (partly why I stopped doing GAs) and Sandy might, therefore, promote/archive before I get to it. I'd have to do some research regarding whether other FAs are utilizing the multiple image templates; I don't know off of the top of my head. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 14:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair Use

Can you let me know if I am using an appropriate fair use template at Image:Old CBOT.jpg.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm concerned that it fails NFCC#1 (and, consequently, NFCC#8). Image:Old CBOT commemorating Lincoln.jpg is free (PD) and provides a reasonable view of the exterior. Given the understanding already provided by that image, does the "whole building" image really contribute significantly to our understanding? There are then minor issues, such as some missing "necessary components" as described in WP:RAT. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 00:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

... and to answer the question I think you were actually asking: no, {{Non-free 3D art}} isn't right (U.S. buildings are indeed copyrighted, but public photos are allowed - and the pertinent law applies only to buildings completed after 1990, so this one just made it ;) ), so the applicable copyright here is a photograph owned by Chicago Daily News. {{Non-free historic image}} or {{Non-free fair use in}} would be better. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 00:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC) shenanigans

Facebook

There are questions about the screen shot that haven't been cleared up on the FAC; would you mind looking if you get a chance? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

There's also a question at Mulholland Drive (film). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Give me ca. two hours... ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 00:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks!

		RfA: Many thanks
		Many thanks for your participation in my recent request for adminship. I am impressed by the amount of thought that goes into people's contribution to the RfA process, and humbled that so many have chosen to trust me with this new responsibility. I step into this new role cautiously, but will do my very best to live up to your kind words and expectations, and to further the project of the encyclopedia. Again, thank you. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Help?

Hi! I am genuinely impressed by the elegance of your prose at the userpage. Since your're obviously also proficient in German, I hope you can help. How do you translate the following Goethe citation into decent English: "Ich sah Heidelberg an einem völlig klaren Morgen, der durch eine angenehme Luft zugleich kühl und erquicklich war. Die Stadt in ihrer Lage und mit ihrer ganzen Umgebung hat, man darf sagen, etwas Ideales". Thanks in advance for helping out! Fred Plotz (talk) 11:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Allzu wörtlich:

I saw Heidelberg on a completely clear morning, which, due to a pleasant air was both cool and delightful. The city, in its circumstance and with the totality of its surroundings, had, one might say, something ideal.

Etwas Elegantes:

I saw Heidelberg on a perfectly clear morning, with a pleasant air both cool and invigorating. The city, just so, with the totality of its ambiance was, one might say, something ideal.

Natürlich ist die letztere Version wünschenswert. Erinnern Sie sich doch, dass die deutsche Sprache (besonders Goethe!) zu schön ist, richtig ins Englische übersetzt zu werden. ;) ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 14:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Herrlich! Sie finden Ihre großartige Übersetzung jetzt hier. Nochmals vielen Dank für die freundliche und überraschend schnelle Hilfe. Sollten Sie sich doch noch, wie oben vorgeschlagen, zum RfA durchringen können, dürfen Sie mit meiner Stimme rechnen. Beste Grüße Fred Plotz (talk) 15:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Dispatch image question

Hey, ec; I need help in getting to the bottom of this, as Tony often helps with images for the Dispatch. Image:FA main page (excerpt).png was used in the April 7 Dispatch. It was removed and tagged with no notification to Tony. First, why isn't there notification to the uploader; second, what did Tony do wrong; and third, is there a way to tag this image so it can be used? There are similar images in other Dispatches. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

1. That may be a question for ImageBacklogBot and/or STBotI's owner(s), but I suspect I know the answer: given that a bot has the ability to tag en masse, the notification may be disabled to avoid instances, for example, where the bot would "mechanically" template 20 times a user who had uploaded 20 problematic images (I trust you saw JBMurray's talk page and concerned reaction to getting rapid/multiple image warning templates - from a human user, nonetheless).
2. Tony didn't really do anything wrong (directly regarding the reason for its removal, anyway): ImageBacklogBot removes fair use images that are being used outside of mainspace (Signpost is in Wikipedia space). STBotI tags fair use images not being actively used in an article (NFCC#7). Once the first bot struck, the image was fair game for the latter.
3. The way to avoid the fair use nonsense all together is to crop out the Wikipedia logo (the source of the problem) and tag with {{Wikipedia-screenshot}}. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 12:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Unsure of the difference between WP space and mainspace. Isn't the second one still usable? What is the big deal about using the WP icon on WP? (How precious.) TONY (talk) 13:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Mainspace is the encyclopedia proper and WP space (a/k/a project space) is information about WP and/or its sister projects. Fair use in WP space is explicitly disallowed (albeit with somewhat vague explanation); ultimately, I suppose the idea is that fair use images should never really be needed to convey understanding of free/GFDL projects (NFCC#9 is, in that sense, somewhat redundant to NFCC#8.) You're preaching to the choir on the last bit, though. Restricting use of the WP logo on WP is perhaps needed for consistency, but it does seem to spit in the face of common sense. Bots, unfortunately, can't IAR. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 14:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Images on Cranmer article

I deleted the images that you named. --RelHistBuff (talk) 17:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Me again, image question

The editor who wrote this FA is no longer around; can you translate this edit summary for me? Is there a way to add back that image ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

"Bust a Cc-by-nc-sa-2.0 image" translates to "remove an image with a license that does not permit commercial usage" (the NC means non-commercial, which is verboten per WP:IUP, WP:TAG and Jimbo). Unless the image has since been re-licensed by the copyright holder, WP can't use it. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 23:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

you know ... some of these image types can be really jerky. Besides shorthand the average person can't decipher, just like the previous situation, no notification, now the image is gone, and since I'm not an admin, I can't verify who took the picture so I can contact that person. Oh, well; not enough hours in a day to track it all down. But you need to become an admin, Elcobbola. (And Laser brain has left the building after the disgusting debacle and display of bad faith today at Talk:Elderly Instruments. There are some days when it would have been better not to log on here.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I take it back: there is a notification at User talk:Enano275. I guess I'd best watch his talk page for any more, since he's also left the building. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh. This was the original information and licensing: El Hatillo Municipality as seen from El Calvario. Created by Rafa M. {{cc-by-sa-2.0}}. HTH. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Jb; I tracked it back somewhat, and it does look like Enanito goofed. Oh, well, long day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Jb, go to the bottom of the Flickr page; the crossed out dollar sign is a bad thing. ;) The {{cc-by-sa-2.0}} license was wrong (the deletion was actually correct). This is really common; people see the CC and a 2.0 and slap on a license that looks similar. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 00:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I see. I was just using my newfound awesome powers (heh) to find the source in case SandyG wanted to follow up with the person who originally uploaded to Flickr. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I certainly agree that the esoteric shorthand falls well short of being considerate of other editors. I'm indeed finding myself somewhat distressed after watching from afar the events surrounding Elderly Instruments (ANI, article talk, etc.) It's a lovely article and Laser is entirely honorable, competent, and an invaluable asset to the project. To see them both attacked with ignorance of policy and assumptions of bad faith is (and I find myself saying this word all too often on Wiki) disheartening. The admin thing ... I just don't know. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 00:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Very disheartening. I do fine when I'm attacked; I do less fine when I see good, decent, innocent editors unfairly attacked, particularly by armchair quarterbacks. Ah, the herbal bath beckons. Thanks for the image help (and just for that, it would be helpful if you were an admin :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

As it's the middle of the week, and I'm pretending not to be here, I choose to remain heartened. Enjoy the herbal bath! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I will: go practice using your new tools on the obvious vandal on my user page :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism? Please, everyone knows that they are in their 40's! ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 00:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Right, watching over Michael Wolff's and Polly Draper's kids takes more out of my day every day than any single article, even Tourette syndrome (which is why I watch over them). Gosh, I'm in trouble: had a full massage and facial with hair and manicure only a few hours ago, and I still need an herbal bath ???? Darn, I expected to come home and find the world was well with Laser and his Instruments. Bah. That kind of bad faith really Bums Me Out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Is that your connection to TS? I've been resolving bad faith with beer, bananas and Vivaldi - a method that has not exactly caught on this side of the pond. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 01:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict:) C'mon, even a vandal can be right some of the time. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Beer and bananas is not funny; in fact, ec, that is *really* gross !! I take my beer with pretzels, thank you! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

A nice Bohemia with fried plantains, or Hitachino white ale with banana tempura would cure what ales you (but I'll pass on the Vivaldi).--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Nah, the best cure for what ails me (ales me ? :-) would be to beat up on someone for Laser brain (she said as she looked around the room, let's see, two innocent little dogs, one big adorable dog, one lounging adolescent, and a snoring husband since the Red Sox are trouncing Kansas City ... who do I choose ... ? ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Lock the husband and a dog in the car truck. See which one is happy to see you when you open it. ;) ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 01:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

How am I going to get the big snoring one down the stairs to the car (dogs, no problem) ? Far easier would be to pop him over the head with a frying pan and see if that stops the rumble and cures my foul humor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Too bad I don't have a SNORINGHSUSBANDBOOK (cf [5]) in my userspace. I might pressure you to contribute.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Three items: ether rag, wheelbarrow, adolescent assistant. Would make a funnier photo for TFMWNCB, too. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 01:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Pictures of my dogs on the internet? Fat Man, Never !!! Please, think of the consequences. (Where does one buy ether? Where does one buy ether at night? ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Socks stuffed in his mouth might work too, they might shut him up. (I feel for you on the loud snoring, first hubby snored so bad you could hear him downstairs in our house. It took me almost a year to get used to sleeping without that sound after he died.) Ealdgyth - Talk 02:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. "Socks stuffed in his mouth....he died." Sorry for vivid imagination. You did say "pile on." Sorry again for vivid imagination. You can delete this comment if totally tasteless and harsh. Sorry. Anyway, there is an "increased susceptibility to snoring as age increases", so the best way to deal with snoring is to not let age increase.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 04:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

As we say in Spanish, when they reach 50, you're supposed to trade them for two 25-year-olds. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Why do I have a sudden urge to watch Y tu mamá también? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 12:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Do I get to pick the 25 year olds? Mine is only 40, can I trade him in on two 20 year olds? I like this plan....Ealdgyth - Talk 14:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Urgents

Maintain User:Deckiller/FAC urgents if you want, but it was only frustrating me because it was one more thing to keep up with, and I had no sense it was attracting reviewers to the articles that most needed them. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll pick it up. It'll be a net positive even if we just get one extra pair of eyes on an article. If we don't get that, at least we tried. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 12:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm still concerned that it wasn't a net positive, as I was getting the sense that reviewers were waiting for me to add an article to Urgents before looking at them, and many of those articles could have been closed much sooner. It was beginning to feel like people were waiting for me rather than reviewing articles as they came up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, maybe if someone beside me is doing the updating, that will be less of an issue. I dunno ... willing to try. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's up to you. I treated the urgents as a last call (i.e. if you haven't already reviewed, speak now or forever hold your peace), but the impulse to ration scarce time to just those that are "urgent" is a behavior to be expected. I suppose I'm just happy to see reviews regardless of their impetus. Anyway, I'll give it a go; just give me a few days to familiarize myself (I haven't been around much lately). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 00:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

IFD

I think "I'll strike on the FAC when the notice of the OTRS ticket is posted." means I am suppose to do something to post this image. I don't know what an OTRS ticket is.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

When you said "I notified permissions", I had assumed that to mean you'd emailed the correspondence/permission to OTRS, as their email address is permissions (at) wikimedia (dot) org. See Wikipedia:COPYREQ#When_permission_is_confirmed; if those are indeed steps you've taken, an OTRS member will add a template to the image indicating that permission was received and has been archived. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 13:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:WilliamRemington.jpg

This image would go well in Learned Hand, but I don't know if I can follow the licence. The link shows that some photos are free by gift, but I can't see how to tell whether this one is. Any advice would be appreciated. qp10qp (talk) 19:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that the original uploader was confused, too. The PD claim is being based on the belief that New York World-Telegram & Sun is the copyright holder and has released (via gifting) the image into the public domain. The author, however, appears to be the Associated Press, not the former (both are listed under "notes", so I can see where there might have been confusion). New York World-Telegram & Sun appears to have been merely the assembler of a collection. Indeed, the rights information link states images "were gathered from diverse sources" and "These photographs may be restricted by copyright." The LoC site itself says "Publication may be restricted". As an image created in 1948 (well after 1.1.1923 cutoff), it would not be expected to be PD. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 21:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, many thanks indeed. I rather feared that would be the case, but the image information gave me a sniff of hope. I usually don't stray past the year 1630! qp10qp (talk) 21:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Lewis Hamilton FAC

To avoid us tripping over each other, I've just left messages for the four main contributors asking for their thoughts. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Rust Street Images

Indeed, I concur. I am trying to persuade TonyTheTiger to go along with my advice - could you add a few comments to this discussion? He seems to add too many images to all articles he works on, in particular Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago) as well as the Rush Street one. Thanks! — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 22:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'd be happy to comment at the PR or article talk page where there's context and broader exposure to other editors' input. He's welcome to his opinions, after all, and I don't want my joining in on his talk page to give the false impression that he's being pestered (although that, obviously, would not be the intent). I did oppose Rush Street for, among other issues, the superfluous images and subsequent harm to readability and layout, so I believe he already knows where I stand on the matter. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 22:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:Image

Deleted. Its original (non-cropped) version, Image:Deltarhynchus flammulatus.jpg needs to be taken care of as well, if it is non-commercial only. --BorgQueen (talk) 13:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Request to check out image

You've helped me out before on possibly suspect images. I have been asked to check the copyright status of this.

. It was apparently uploaded to Commons by its author, from one of his old film prints, and I see no problem with it. Can you confirm this is so? Brianboulton (talk) 22:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It has some curiosities, but seems otherwise ok. I've commented in somewhat more detail and on other "Nimrod" images at the FAC. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 17:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Help?

I come bearing two requests. Would you be willing to take a look at the images at William Wilberforce and let us know if all is kosher? We are hoping to take it to FA and would prefer to avoid any nasty surprises if possible! The other, probably more interesting article is Learned Hand where there are some questions about at least one of the images on the talkpage. The source, a Harvard website, says one thing, and the man's bio says a date 20 years later. See [6] and [7]. Any advice or direction welcome! But don't worry if you can't manage either of these. I realize everybody is busy.--Slp1 (talk) 02:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

<replied on article page and Slp1 talk> ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 19:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The short version is that the same picture has one date (1930s) in our most reliable source, the Gunther book, and another date (1910) at a Harvard website. [8] which I guess is a not so reliable site in a way. The internal evidence, (physical appearance compared to a known 1912 photo as well as this one with a 1924 date (though I wonder the date of this one too, myself) [9] , suit styles) all suggest the later date, as does the fact that the Harvard photo is inscribed with a dedication to someone who was his legal clerk in the 1930s. It seems unlikely that anyone would give somebody a photo of themselves that is more than 20 years out of date, but I guess it has been done!!! Shoemaker's holiday says he has emailed Harvard and they confirm the 1910 date. I myself am more concerned with accurate descriptions/labels that the copyright situation, but I guess the latter comes into if we opt for the later date. Thanks for your help! Slp1 (talk) 01:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Your guidance required

GAN review of 2008 attacks on North Indians in Maharashtra says:

A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: Fail

Being the GAN nominator I would be very glad if an expert like you can point out the copyright concerns with the images so that I can fix them. - KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 07:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

<replied on KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 talk> ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 19:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the quick response. I have made changes to the captions (ie. remove periods where not necessary) and also right aligned those images which were pasted under === Subtitle ===. I have also updated the summary of the NFC images - Image:Mumbai violence 20080205.jpg and Image:Mumbai 20080212.jpg. Do I still need to delete one of these or the new description can keep them safe? - KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 09:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I still think one needs to go. The only difference is the affiliation of the individuals - affiliations not illustrated by the images and, even if they were, would not seem to be a significant contribution (NFCC#8). Indicating "no" for low resolution is a step in the right direction, but you'll also need an explanation as to why the higher resolution is needed. I'm happy to reduce the size for you, too, if you'd like. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 15:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I would be grateful if you reduce the size of the images. I still can't decide whcich one should I remove? - KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 17:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll reduce them this evening. My recommendation would be to keep Image:Mumbai violence 20080205.jpg, although I don't really have a good reason why. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 14:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Images on William Wilberforce

I saw your post on Slp1's Talk page and, rather than reply there, thought I should contact you directly. Thanks so much for your offer of help. It appears to be the licences that are the problem, as well as explaining to the Flickr contributors exactly what it all means. It's meant a couple of quite long emails already, unfortunately – and they may both now be quite disenchanted with the idea!

The images I originally hoped to use are at [10] and [11] – the first one was actually uploaded a month or two back, used for the article and speedily deleted after two days or so. I have the originators' full permission to use both photos (but have been trying to explain to them about the licensing terms, etc.

Any help you may be able to give would be much appreciated. Please feel free to contact Adam and Alan (the photographers) if you feel that may help – Cheers, Bruce Agendum (talk) 21:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I should have said that both Flickr contributors know me as 'Porteous', rather than 'Agendum'. Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 07:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I worry about scaring them off by popping up out of the blue (especially if they're already disenchanted). Having not seen the correspondence thus far, how do you think I would be most helpful? Is there a particular aspect they're having difficulty grasping? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 01:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I haven't heard anything from either of them. If I'm honest, it may have been the length of the email and the potential complexity of the process that could have put them off. The licencing thing is the stumbling block, I think. I'll check again to see if they've responded tonight when I get home, and send a brief mail saying that you'll be in touch "on behalf of Wikipedia", or some such thing. Would that be OK? Shall I give your name as ElCobbola? Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 15:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, an "introduction" may be helpful. Be careful with the "on behalf of Wikipedia", however; we don't want to give the false impression that I'm an agent of the foundation or in any other way official. I'm just an average Joe. ;) ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 14:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to be so long getting back. But now I have four full days off, so may be able to get more done. I have now had a reply from the second Flickr contributor, who is willing to be talked through how to upload his pic and how to licence it. It occurs to me that you may be better at this and more experienced than I, so may I give him your name? Don't worry – I won't use the sentence above, ElCobbola. I'll also mail the other guy and see if he is willing to be contacted by you – I'll describe you as "experienced in the uploading and licencing of images", or something like that. Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 23:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Nimrod Expedition Images

Before you disappear for a few days, could you look briefly at the two replacement images? The new Beardmore image is of from a magazine drawing that can safely be dated to before 1921 when he became Lord Invernairn. The new "furthest south" image is admittedly of a lower quality than the former, but it is the version which is published in my 1911 copy of The Heart of the Antarctic. So both images appear to meet the "prior to 1923" criterion. Brianboulton (talk) 10:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I responded at the FAC; in summary, though, Image:Shacksouth09.jpg just needs the addition of Heart of the Antarctic's bibliographic information. I came across and uploaded some images (Image:Northernparty.png and Image:Northernpartyplateau.png) in case they would be helpful/useful. Thanks for following up on this; I feel badly for prompting you to jump through hoops and I know images issues can be esoteric and, well, annoying. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 16:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

May FAC stats award

		The Order of the Superior Scribe of Wikipedia
		To Elcobbola, For your superior reviews of at least 36 Featured article candidates during May, thank you for being one of the top reviewers this month and for your careful work and thorough reviews of images to help promote Wiki's finest work. Your polite thoughtful reviews are an inspiration. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Special thanks to Ling.Nut—a retired editor who had a strong commitment to excellence in content review—for designing this award, and to Maralia for running the stats for May.

Just a note (divulging of private e-mail authorized :-): I hope you'll take special pride in the design of this award. Ling.Nut had asked me weeks ago if he could design a new reviewer award and deliver your May award should you qualify, along with a personal message from him. Circumstances intervened (according to him, he'll probably be back after a number of months), but he said the following: "Elcobbola, I must admit that doubting you when we first met was one of the bigger mistakes I have made. You are an awesome contributor to the encyclopedia, and we appreciate you." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:2008 attacks on North Indians in Maharashtra

Can the concerns regarding images at the FAC be resolved? KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 07:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for my delayed response; Kelly has stricken the concerns, so I assume the answer to be "yes". ;) I disagree that NFCC#2 is or was being violated, as, in this case, compliance with NFCC#3B will nullify the issue (a low quality, low resolution image would not be reasonably expected to sufficiently or adequately "replace the original market role"). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 14:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Authorised use of image?

This Image:William Speirs Bruce.jpg

File:William Speirs Bruce.jpg

dated 1905, has been uploaded to Commons with a claim of PD because copyright has expired. Author is stated unknown. This is a much-used portrait of Bruce (see google:Images), but I'm not sure of the PD claim. Is this safe to use, or is a better justification needed? Help would be much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 11:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm always amused when images claim PD based on the lifetime of an author while simultaneously indicating that the author is unknown. I looked in the Library of Congress and Google images and didn't find any other versions with author and/or publication information. The image is dated 1905; the photographer could have been, say, 25-35 at the time, and could therefore have indeed lived another 33+ years (unlikely given life expectancies at the time, but still possible). To the point: there's reasonable possibility that 70+ lifetime is an incorrect assertion. Without knowing the author, I don't think it's responsible (or really ethical) for Wiki to claim PD. Although it's quite likely to be PD, my primary concern with images in general is that they not make false or misleading assertions (indeed, per WP:V, verifiability, not truth, is the threshold for inclusion). To that end, I'd probably recommended a fair use claim for William Speirs Bruce (and Scottish National Antarctic Expedition, if you could support it). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 14:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I initiated the deletion review at the Commons. Image source is here in case it is indeed deleted and needs replacement on en.wiki for fair use. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 14:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

In anticipation of the deletion, I have uploaded the image as DrWSBruce1905.jpg and claimed fair use on William Speirs Bruce and Scottish National Antarctic Expedition. Thank you for your advice and help as always. Brianboulton (talk) 10:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Questionable license on two photos...

I've noticed two photos, Image:Atherton 2.jpg and Image:Atherton 3.jpg, that claim that they are {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy}}, but come from Navsource, a non-Navy website. In general, the source website hosts a lot of PD images from the U.S. Naval Historical Center but also includes photos sent to that site's webmaster for use on that site. (Because the photo owners give Navsource permission to use, I see no copyright-related problems linking to that site.) In the specific case of these two photos, there is no indication at the site (page link here) that the photos are official Navy photos or were taken as a part of "official duties". (There's no indication, though, that they weren't taken in that manner, either.) What is the way to handle tagging or listing such photos to ensure that WP is not listing non-PD photos as PD? Many thanks in advance. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I share your concerns and agree that the current PD claims lack proper support. Other than contacting the source's webmaster to inquire further about Robert Hurst, the only course of remediation, unfortunately, is to nominate at IfD. In theory, someone will step forward with better/sufficient support or, failing that, the images will be deleted. In reality, well, no comment. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 15:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

NY 32 FAC

Are you satisfied with the article now? The shields are all gone, and although I'm now getting opposes for that, its probably gonna have to happen. So, I'd like to know if you're satisfield with the article now.^Mitch32^contribs 09:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

My issues are indeed resolved. I suspect you needn't worry about the new oppose - as it currently stands, anyway. Opposes need to be based in the FA criteria to be actionable. I don't see that the opposer has referenced a criterion. Indeed, the basis appears to be a perceived failure to follow an "accepted usage" - usage not supported, and contradicted, by guidelines and FA criteria. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 12:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks man. Yeah, the oppose was sort of expected. Anyway, looks like a better chance NY 32 will pass as the main issue seems to be dissolving.^Mitch32^contribs 12:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

And for my part I graciously thank you for your praise for the route description section, which I mostly wrote the gist of (at least the Woodbury-Albany sections with which I'm quite familiar) one day while substitute teaching and have tweaked and added to as needed since then. I wrote it with the pictures in mind even though I hadn't taken many of them yet ... every single one of them is taken looking in the same direction of travel as the route description is written, so they complement each other (I only wish I had occasion to drive it from Cohoes north to Hudson Falls and take some apropos pics along that stretch, particularly where it and US 4 run right along the river). If you look at NY 299, you'll see that I even went to the trouble of shooting the same buildings in downtown New Paltz from the reverse angle since that road's description goes west to east and therefore the downtown New Paltz duplex section has to be written the other way around.

Anyway, enough about my philosophies of writing and illustrating route descriptions; your support and praise have validated them a thousand times and now we can give it out within USRD as something to look at by way of example, even if I wish the Cohoes-HF section were complete. But FAs (assuming it gets promoted, which I think likely at this point) can always be improved further. Daniel Case (talk) 16:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Photo on Angus Lewis Macdonald entry

Thanks for taking the time to review the photos again on the entry for Angus Lewis Macdonald which I have submitted to FAC. I am rechecking the publication date for the photo Image:ForrestBuilding MS-Ref 3.14.jpg I based my claim that this photograph is in the public domain on the grounds that it is not subject to Crown copyright and was created before January 1, 1949. The photograph dates from around 1930. However, I'm trying to ascertain its original publication date from the university which granted me permission to use the photo on January 28, 2008. (I have an e-mail to that effect from the Dalhousie University Archives.) I must say though that I find this a bit frustrating because the photo itself is not that interesting. But I've been having a devil of a time getting relevant, copyright-free photos for this entry. I toyed with the idea of taking my own photo of the Forrest Building, but decided that would not be appropriate because there have been so many changes to the building, it no longer looks like it did in the 1920s when Angus L. Macdonald taught there. Anyway, thanks again for assessing the photos. Bwark (talk) 18:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I was operating under the assumption that Dalhousie University, as a public university (and presumed author and/or copyright holder), would consequently be a state entity as a matter of technicality (i.e. subject to crown copyright). I suppose that is an assumption based on my experiences with German and American universities; is it different in Canada? If it's not a state entity, I'll gladly strike, as creation (not publication) is indeed the test for non-crown. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 21:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. I'm 99% sure that Dalhousie is completely independent of both the state and the Crown. I consulted the 1996 legislation amalgamating Dalhousie with the Technical University of Nova Scotia. It states clearly that the amalgamated university is operated by an independent Board of Governors. The law's technical language asserts that Dalhousie is "a body corporate and politic under a single board of governors and having the name Dalhousie University." The law continues: "For greater certainty, (a) the amalgamated university is not an agent of Her Majesty in right of the Province; and (b) a person employed or engaged by the amalgamated university is not an officer, servant of agent of Her Majesty in right of the Province." I served as a professor at the University of King's College which is closely associated with Dalhousie and we always regarded ourselves as independent of government even though we received money from it. However, just to be absolutely sure, I have a call in to an officer at Dalhousie who can tell me with 100% certainty what the university's legal status is with regard to state and Crown. Bwark (talk) 15:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

That's more than sufficient for me; I greatly appreciate your thoroughness and specificity. In anticipation of your interpretation's vindication, I'll go ahead and strike. Thanks again for your diligence. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 15:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The officer from Dalhousie just got back to me to confirm that the university is completely independent of state and crown. Thanks for all your help. Bwark (talk) 17:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Maindate

Gimmebot is out this week, and I'm still trying to catch up after putting out fires this morning and will need to manually botify tonight: do you have time to do Raul's latest batch of maindates? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem; Tiger won, so I can move to the computer now. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 20:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Tiger, won ... oh my gosh, I can't get away from it (the TV, the husband :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Come on, Sandy, it's sudden death golf! Surely the greatest absurdity of our time. (We had it on in the conference room; it's as close as the firm gets to a golf outing, so I take what I can get). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 21:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The only things I hate more than golf are 1) golf on television, and 2) bowling on television. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Guess you haven't seen darts on television... ;) ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 21:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Poker on TV. 'Nuf said. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Amateur vocalizers on TV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Ping pong Ealdgyth - Talk 22:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Ha ! I care :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah good, I was unsure whether the "away message" was useful to anyone. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 18:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Feature Article Candidate Roman Catholic Church

The nomination of the above article was archived by the Featured Articles Director, with the comment that the page had again grown too long. He has asked that all remaining objectors produce a list of their specific problems with the article in its current form. These will then be addressed by the article's editorial team before re-presentation for FA status.

Can you therefore please post a complete list of any specific remaining objections you may have on the article's talk page at: Talk:Roman_Catholic_Church. If possible can we have this list in by the end of June, so that editors can begin to address them all in detail in July. To prevent the nomination again becoming over-long, we would ask that you raise ALL of your remaining concerns at this stage, making your comments as specific and comprehensive as possible. It would help if all your comments were gathered under your name in a single heading on the page. Thank you. Xandar (talk) 01:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for Review

Just want to say thanks for all your hard work on FAC; it's definitely been noticed and appreciated by all. I've got another project I'm working on with User:Johntex — a somewhat lengthy article called 2007 Texas Longhorn football team. We're trying to get it ready for FAC, but we're at the point now where we need some outside input to keep working. Seeing that you're probably the best reviewer around in terms of depth, we were wondering if you could take a look at it and judge it as you would an FAC. There's no time rush at all -- it'll be done when it gets done, and I'm not even planning to submit it for FAC until we can get three peer reviews and Johntex is as happy with it as I am. Any help you'd be able to give would be much appreciated. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. I'd be happy to look at it. Counterintuitively, I tend to do things faster when there is no time limit, so hopefully it won't take me too long to get to it (I will be out of town this weekend, however). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 18:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. I'm headed up to the North Slope here next week, so I'll be out of touch at times. JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Update: I'll be flying to the east coast next weekend and it's my intent to make reviewing this my activity for the flight. Apologies, as always, for my dilatory pace. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 00:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Update: A month already, eh? I did indeed read this en route to NH, but June ended up being too busy to sit down and type (ca. 30,000 miles flown - oh the joy). Will get to this...eventually; it's not forgotten. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 03:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Mary Shelley

Qp10qp are getting ready to bring Mary Shelley to FAC and it is currently at peer review. We were wondering if you could check over our images to make sure that they are all in order. We would greatly appreciate it! Awadewit (talk) 19:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Please forgive my belated response. I'm back in on the 25th and will gladly check it over then. If more expediency is needed, Black Kite (talk · contribs) (who may be on a semi-break) and Kelly (talk · contribs) have both done a good job on images at FAC in the past. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 17:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks good - commented at FAC. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 15:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. All the same, some of those are vulnerable to deletion at Commons, unless the present strict rules are reversed there (bites nails). qp10qp (talk) 12:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, as long as "strictness" and "correctness" remain distinct notions, the former is probably a compliment in the realm of copyrights and greater IP issues. ;) Are there particular images in Shelley or Commons policies about which you're concerned? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 14:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I've put this one up for deletion as a test case. If it goes, then I think I will replace similar images in the article with Wikipedia versions, which will insure against future deletions. I am in favour of strictness as long as it's not unnecessary; I'm not entirely convinced that Commons has things right at the moment, but so long as they have rules that regard most British photos of old art as copyright under British law, they are likely to delete images, like some on Mary Shelley, that don't satisfy those rules. qp10qp (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hare coursing FAC

I wonder whethe ror not I have been able to resolve your concerns: [12] (Hope this is neutral phrasing. Regards. MikeHobday (talk) 06:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Just William....

I see you are now back, and I hope you enjoyed a good break. Have you had a chance to look at my message above re William Wilberforce yet? Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 23:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping (I would have indeed missed it)! Yes, by all means let him/her know I'd be happy to walk through it; just let me know the address (if it's not on the Flickr page) and any other pertinent information and I'll get moving... ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 12:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether to give you their email address, or ask them to join Wikipedia – which would be a bit of a liberty imho, as they're already doing me a favour. If you are on Flickr, the pics are "Wilberforces's Personal Record Book" by ALOFBRID (Alan) – see [13]; and the "Wilberforce Monument" by acwalby (Adam) – see [14] Actually, I can't put their email addresses here because of privacy, but you can contact me securely by Wikipedia email at the foot of my User Page, and I can then forward their addresses to you. Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 18:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Email sent. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 18:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Have you had any response? Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 16:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope, but my German account loves getting caught in spam filters, so I'll resend tonight with gmail. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 15:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Elcobbola – I'm assuming you didn't hear anything from either of the Flickr contributors? If you didn't, I'll try again myself – I'm especially keen to use the photo of Wilberforce's Daily Record Book. So I propose to ask the photographer if I can upload it myself as his work (not really sure if that's allowed) if he can't fathom it out himself – it can look quite complicated at first glance, if you haven't done it before.

Or is there another way around this that you could suggest? The article has now gained FA status, but this would enhance it still further, if you are able to help check that the image is OK to use (it's in the Wilberforce Museum in Hull, but I don't think it's copyrighted as long as we get their permission to publish it). I'd really appreciate your input on all this – could you please reply on my Talk page? – Cheers, Bruce Agendum (talk) 12:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Michael Gomez

I haven't got a clear read on the images at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Michael Gomez. (Glad you're back!) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Sandy. It's good to be back. I'm sorry you got stuck with the urgents (although I did enjoy the anguished edit summaries - oh, sweet Schadenfreude). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 14:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Triple Crown

I, Casliber award Elcobbola with the Triple Crown Jewels for exceptional content improvements to Wikipedia. Thank you for all you do. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

RfA Review

Hello Elcobbola. I've noticed that you have a completed set of responses to the RfA Review question phase at User:Elcobbola/RfA review, but they don't seem to be included on the list of responses here. If you've completed your responses, please can you head to Wikipedia:RfA Review/Question/Responses and add a link to them at the bottom of the list so that they get included in the research. We have a closing date of midnight UTC on 1st July, so please add your link before this date. Once again, thank you for taking the time to participate in the Question Phase of RfA Review.Gazimoff ^Write_Read 12:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Licensing expertise

Your expertise is needed at talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

<commented there> ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 02:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Replied.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thriller picture

I've added a new picture, its the same as the cropped one I had to remove. I believe it holds all the correct details. I would still rather use its crop though. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 17:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas ;) ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 18:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

That was very nice of you. Thank you for helping me. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 22:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The exciting world of image licensing

I am trying to learn all of the rules regarding image licensing at Wikipedia. We don't seem to have enough people who really understand this thicket of rules, so I thought I would slowly read the pages and try to learn. Any advice you could give me would be much appreciated. I have started commenting on images at FAC. Please correct any mistakes you see me making. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 17:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

That makes my day. We need all the judicious and thorough folks (like yourself) we can get. General advice as you’re wading in would probably be to largely ignore what is written on Wikipedia (which, obviously, is not a reliable source) and, instead, try to read the actual statutes and adjudicated decisions to which the Wikipedia pages make reference. These pages, additionally, are handy as “Reader's Digest” versions (although Title 17 itself is the "authority"):

• http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/public_domain/
• http://www.copyright.gov/circs/

Otherwise, watching deletion requests at the Commons can be helpful, as there is often a reasonably high rate of competent admin participation. For issues unique to the Wiki-universe, images are not entirely unlike prose in that the main requirements are that they be sourced (attributed) and are verifiable (i.e. as it pertains to acceptable licenses). Non-free images are a nightmare (users engaged in their scrutiny are markedly more prone to retirement and/or extended and numerous wiki-breaks); the Foundation's resolution on fair use and archived talk discussions at WP:NFCC are probably the best places to get an understanding of the reasoning and motives behind the policy. If you need some humor, I think User:Angr#A Parable is a riot. In any case, I'm always glad to help with questions or point out "mistakes". Best, ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 18:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of ... another one bites the dust.[15] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I watched all of that nonsense as it transpired yesterday - a very unfortunate loss for the project. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 18:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you ever get discouraged, let me know, and I'll send you some chocolates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Something tells me you'd know anyway. :) Past chocolates have been delivered with impeccable timing and were, frankly, pretty much the only things that kept me around. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 18:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. I am going to really dig into this when I return from Wikimania. Leaving in four days! Awadewit (talk) 17:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for review

Hi Elcobbola. Could you take a look through Conan (2007 video game) and spot any issues that would be of concern at an FAC? I appreciate your comments at its peer review. Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 00:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Your expert opinion sought

Hi there: at Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Final_Fantasy_compilation_albums#List_of_Final_Fantasy_compilation_albums, MASEM has stated that the eight album covers should all go. We're thinking of NFC criteria 3 and 8 here. Could I ask you to sneak over and give a quick opinion? TONY (talk) 07:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

Hi, you commented at a previous FA review of the Michael Jackson article. Currently the article is at peer review and I will be renominating the article for FA at some point soon. I would really love to know what your opinion is of the articles quality now, either at the PR, the article talk page or even my talk page. The current PR hasn't drawn much attention so I'm in real need of feedback. I hope you can contribute an opinion to this article. Thank you, regards. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 17:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm months out for "full reviews"; If an image/media check would suffice, I'd be happy to do that. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 15:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Phan Dinh Phung

Hi there. I've replied to your query. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I've chopped it for you. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping. I hope you didn't cut the images solely "for me", as it should have been done only if you believe it's a reasonable thing to do (it was, after all, only a comment and not an oppose). I'm no longer participating at FAC, so my concerns may be considered resolved/withdrawn. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 14:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Michael Jackson - video clip

Hi, as you probably know I'm trying to get the Michael Jackson article to FA, I'm nearly there infact. However I think its vitually important that the reader is also able to see a snipet of Jackson dancing to understand his visual impact on the audience. This is something that cannot be expressed in pro's. Michael Jackson is a visual artist both in music videos and his on stage dancing, because of wikipedia's strict rules on these things it is very hard for the reader to understand. I really wanted to include a snipet video of Jackson doing the moonwalk or some spin or something in one of those flamboyant costumes. I think its very important for the reader to be able to see these things. I'm quite interested in introducing a snipet from the early to mid 1990's as we don't have any clear pictures of him from then. Could you help me with this? I know your probably a busy person right know but I would really appreciate your help, I can't do it allown, I simply can't understand the policy involved. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 15:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you need help selecting and uploading a clip or help ensuring it meets policy? Video clips would be subject to WP:NFCC. My primary concern would be the video's ability to pass NFCC#1, which requires that "no free equivalent is available, or could be created" (emphasis mine). This is a difficult hurdle, as Jackson is still alive and, thus, a free video of his visual impact or of him preforming a given dance move could indeed be created. (NFCC, for better or worse, does not consider ease or likelihood of obtaining the free equivalent). The way around this (other than WP:IAR) might be to identify a particularly notable and unique past performance with elements, meaning, impact, etc. not reasonably expected to ever reoccur. Critical discussion of those elements could, conceivably, pass NFCC. I'm not, however, familiar enough with Michael's work to know whether such a thing exists. Do you have particular clips in mind? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 15:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Image license issues

I respect your opinion on image licensing issues greatly, and I have been having mostly polite conversations with a user who may not be assuming good faith on my part. Can you tell me if these three similarly licensed images—Image:ConfederateArtillery.gif, Image:Cavalry3.gif, Image:Central Rebel Mascot.gif—are properly licensed? They all come from this site. Many thanks in advance. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The source page does indeed indicate "All are welcome to use this artwork. All that is requested is a link to our page." Problems, however, include:

1. Requiring attribution is acceptable, but Wikipedia and its allowable copyright licenses (to my knowledge) only really recognize author attribution. (Yes, {{CopyrightedFreeUse-Link}} can define a website as a "courtesy", but the source's "request" for website attribution seems much stronger - i.e. almost a requirement). It seems debatable as to whether this is an acceptable condition.
2. The source disclaimer does not explicitly articulate whether derivatives and commercial use are allowed. The latter may be implied by "All are welcome", but no part of the disclaimer addresses the former. Without explicit articulation of commercial and derivative considerations, we can't take them.

As they stand now, we simply don't have enough information to apply a license. Perhaps it wold be best to email the author (email is on the source page, although it appears to have been last updated in 1999) and get the explicit permission (see WP:COPYREQ). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 16:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the considered reply. — Bellhalla (talk) 17:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)

Could you respond at Talk:Trump_International_Hotel_and_Tower_(Chicago)#images.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

New Johnson image

Ec, can I add Image:Johnson 1769.jpg to Tourette syndrome? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a wiki; you can put it just about anywhere. ;) It needs a verifiable source, however. (WP:IUP)

Darn, are you going to make me learn this stuff? ;) (Or are you giving up like Black Kite?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

My user and talk pages are still here, no? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 23:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

King Arthur

It doesn't appear that Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/King Arthur has had any image review (images have changed recently). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Kelly got the sourcing issues; there are two likely copyvios, however, but FAC is now the last place I'm going to bring up such issues (and especially a FAT nom). One is Commons, so I'll address it in due time. I'm not prepared to be attacked again, so I'm not going near the one hosted locally. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 02:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I completely understand ... <sigh> ... but you know I don't understand images and won't be able to find the copyvios myself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Aeneas Mackintosh (FA 12 May 2008)

A question has arisen, in connection with another article, about the last image on the Mackintosh article, which went through FAC in May - you looked at the images, you may recall. I wonder, could I ask you to look again at that last image, of four Ross Sea party survivors, and let me know if you think it is OK to use. Many thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 12:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

NE2 may have a valid point. My "reasoning" the first time around was that The New York Times source credits the image to The Lost Men. I assumed, as the Aeneas Mackintosh article uses that book as a reference, that you had access to that source and had based the licensing on publication/authorship information contained therein (admittedly, though, using a lifetime of the author PD criterion for an "unknown" author is a contradiction I should have noted). In any case, if the author is indeed unknown, the image would need a source confirming publication before 1.1.1923 to be PD-US. Does The Lost Men have any information to that effect? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 14:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately it does not. I have established that this photograph was taken by A H Ninnis, and that Ninnis died in 1956. He does not appear to have published anything. Regretfully, I am deleting the image from Mackintosh, and also from the Ernest Joyce article. Thanks, anyway, for your help. Brianboulton (talk) 20:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted it on the Commons. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 20:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Image review

I'm having a hard time sorting the status of the images at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Roman–Persian Wars; I sure miss that big red sig over a cap, that let me know all was well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, the Santa of signatures. Commented at FAC. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 00:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Alleyway FAC

Sorry to bother you, but I did some work on the Alleyway article and fixed the fair-use for the images. One of the reviewers for the current FAC is asking if you're satisfied with the results now or if I need to do further work on them.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Commented at FAC. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 00:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Responded and covered each.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Dispatch query

Here, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, I had no idea these things existed. What's the desired length and detail? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 01:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You had no idea they existed? They ruin my life (those darn deadlines every week). See {{FCDW}} for past samples. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't didn't read the dispatch.  ;) ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 01:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

EC, see User talk:Karanacs; any chance you'd be interested in doing the Dispatch of August 11 instead? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm out of town all of August, so anything I'd write would be largely completed this month anyway. Slot me in whenever. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 15:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, we need to cover for Karanacs, and it's an important topic. If you can give us a basic tutorial, maybe even I will learn :-) How about you write it now at WP:FCDW/August 11, 2008, and I can have others polish it off in your absence? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been "struggling" thus far, as I'm concerned it will get too detailed too quickly (such is my nature) and/or turn into a rehash of existing image policies/guidelines. I'm almost debating whether it would be best done in two parts (e.g. one about free use images and one about fair use images) or just take the form of "common mistakes/things to look for". Thoughts? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 15:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

My sense (which could be wrong, not sure), is that there are generally two different groups of editors looking at the two different kinds of issues, with you basically as one of the few editors who looks at both. If that's true, I'd say split it into two Dispatches. If it's not true, or not optimal, one tutorial. What if you write one, and we split it if needed ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I dumped in what I had thus far (I missed removing a few notes to myself - ignore those); let me know if it's too technical, wrong direction, usw. or any other comments/concerns/feedback. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 17:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I've got to look at it when I'm refreshed (which I'm not now, end of the day); I'll look at it tomorrow. Don't worry at all if it's going the wrong direction, because Tony and others really tweak the Dispatches until they shine. Just chunking in the content is the best way to start. I'll look tomorrow. Thanks so much Ec. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)\

No problem. Maybe one of your loyal talk page readers will chime in. I don't think I have readers. ;) ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 01:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

tehehe ... sometimes I have to leave home to have a quiet conversation :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh the irony... (although he took out my "Russian" note; I needed that to remind me that the wording was sappy). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 01:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It's 'cos I don't really understand Russian... Sorry! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I had my first quick look. I don't think you know how low Dummies 101 is in this case :-) If you can take me from where I am now (I understand NONE of it) to where I need to be, Your Mission Will Have Succeeded :-) But you have to really crank it back a notch for me. Sample screenshots would help, along with step-by-step, first go here, then look for this line that says X, if it's not there, then next do this and read that ... and so on ... flow chart style for dummies ... where to start reviewing images ... what big glaring things to look for that anyone can spot ... links, links, links to all those miserable acronyms. I suspect there are many editors like me who don't even know where to start. Plenty of time, Aug 11 is a ways off, and I'm a good test audience :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Good, that's what I needed to know. Thanks! ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 12:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll get to it later <sigh> ... sheesh, I literally spent almost all of my editing time today dealing with Miss Ima, a perfectly compliant article. I like to review FAC at the end of the day, when I'm relaxed and can focus exclusively on FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Example

Another example for you at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Toronto Magnetic and Meteorological Observatory on Image:Louis B Stewart Observatory.JPG re licensing. Now, here's what happens when I try to sort this, after the nominator says that "SimonP fixed the tag on the one image":

1. Let's leave aside that I don't know how I was supposed to know that the image is "using a deprecated license that explicity should not be used (emphasis in original):; that's a whole 'nother story. I'm just taking it from how I could verify that it is actually fixed, after the nominator says it's been fixed by SimonP.

2. I go to Image:Louis B Stewart Observatory.JPG and find there is no article history tab, so I have no idea why the nominator says it's been fixed. Who knows why images have no history tab or how I figure out the image history. But I do find that it was uploaded by someone named Dodo, even though it is later said that the picture was taken by SimonP. Don't know what that's about or whether it's an issue.

3. I eventually figure out that this is a copy of an image at Commons. Never mind that I don't know how or why we have the same image in two places, or why we're using one on en.wiki when we have one at Commons, I figure out that I probably have to go to Commons.

4. Ah, so I find a history tab at Commons, and find that SimonP recently changed from {{GFDL-user-en|SimonP}} to {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}}. Let's set aside that I don't know what either of those are or how I would determine if they're valid. The next problem is that my favorite image reviewer said that the license needed to be replaced with {{GFDL-user-en-with-disclaimers}} or {{GFDL-user-en-no-disclaimers}}, and that's not what I see. So I don't know if the image is clear or not.

So ... bottom line is that I need for a trusted image reviewer to clear images, because there are a gazillion steps along the way that make no sense to me. Can the tutorial take me through all of this? (I doubt it :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

1. I think you just needed to look a bit closer for this one. Look at the red box between the copyright tag and "File history" header.

I'm looking; was that there when I was there before, because I don't remember it. It has four terms and templates that I don't understand and would have to study up on before I even know what they are. So I'd already be stumped. I don't know what those templates mean. Can the tutorial give me an index? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, those boxes are part of the copyright tag itself; they only disappeared when SimonP updated the license. In a way you might be over complicating things. You don't necessarily need to know what a copyright tag "means"; in this case, you'd only need to bring up that the license is indicating it's deprecated. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 04:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

2. There's an uploader/author discrepancy because the image was originally uploaded to en.wiki and later transferred to the Commons (someone other than the author - Dodo - made the transfer, thus they are the Commons uploader). If you look at the log of the original en.wiki version, you see SimonP was indeed the original author and uploader, so things are kosher.

So, who is Dodo and by what magic did you find that log? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure who Dodo is. Some folks use their Wiki time to transfer images (after all, policy recommends all free images be on the Commons). The Oliver picture I took, for example, was transferred by Boricuaeddie. I've never heard of them. When you're in user space, the "toolbox" section (second under the search box) has a "logs" link. Just choose "all logs" and enter the image name (e.g. Image:XYZ.jpg) in the "Title" field. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 04:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

3. Look just below the image itself; there's a template indicating the image is transcluding from the Commons. The en.wiki page doesn't actually exist, thus the red image and discussion tabs, "lack of history" (logs are still there), etc. Think of it like two transparencies on an overhead projector; if one is blank (local en.wiki page), it doesn't impact the display of the contents of the other (Commons page).

Oh, so it's a transclusion. But since there's no edit history and I can't view the page in edit mode, I guess I have to be a member of the Secrety Society to figure that out :-) You see, how many of us editors know none of this, which explains why we can't review images at FAC? The tutorial really has to aim at the Dummies 101 level. When I was first reviewing FACs, my idea of an image review was "click on the image, see if the pictures are on commons, if so, images are fine". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

If you click on the "description page there" link in the "Commons" template, you can see histroy, edit mode, etc. just as you do on en.wiki (no mop or Commons account needed). If that's the impression folks have of image review, that would explain a lot... ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 04:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

4. The new license is ok. It's a lot of typing to explain, so let me know if you need/want the full explanation. This is a rare circumstance (the disclaimer stuff). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 03:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't need for you to explain all of this to me; I went through the example so you'd see just how low the Dummies 101 level is, where the Dispatch needs to aim, and why I can't promote articles until a knowledgeable image reviewer has checked them. So that article is OK now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, this image is fine. Can I abstain? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 04:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

oh, man, now you're killing me :-) That's why you're the best. Well, anyway, I'm displaying all my ignorance so you'll understand why I hate image review, and hopefully so you'll see how low you have to target the Dispatch. It needs to aim for a really basic level if the community is ever going to be able to help out on this, and I seriously doubt that I'll ever get there. I may be the stupidest image reviewer on Wiki, but I suspect that there are quite a few close to my level. Images give me an old dog, new tricks complex. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It's really just a twist on old tricks. The long and short of it - and this is why I've said image reviewing isn't that bad - is that, at the end of the day, all you're doing is checking that the copyright tag exists and that the information present corroborates the tag chosen. It almost boils down to a source check. Whereas Ealdgyth, for example, checks that the source itself is reliable, image reviewing is a check that the source (or details like resolution, etc) says what the tag says it does (e.g. when the tag says the author has been dead 70 years, it had better have a source that says exactly that). The dispatch is far from complete, so I'll try to do future sections as walk throughs; keeping it broad enough to be widely applicable, however, is a challenge. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 05:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

And remember to say what you just said (above) in the Dispatch. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Review

I know I'm a tough customer since I don't get it with images. Sorry to drag you through the 64,000 dumb questions.

The first "jargon" link I dig around in and try to decipher is non-free content. I roughly gather that "non-free" is some subset or has some relationship to Fair Use, but I don't get a clear, simple definition of the term up front (I come to it eventually, but I'm struggling in the lead). I intuit the "free" is related to public domain while "non-free" is related to Fair Use, but I wish I could get a one-sentence summary right up front of what Wiki means by "free" and "non-free". I find this info at the end of the second section: is there any way to excerpt some of those basic concepts sooner, to the lead? Otherwise, the lead paragraph is clear and easy to follow.

Since this Dispatch is focusing only on "free" images, that split (and a future Dispatch) could be made clear in the opening (a future Dispatch will deal with ...). Is it true that non-free can't be hosted on Commons? So does this Dispatch apply only to Commons? How does that flesh out? That is, the lead section should define the scope of this Dispatch relative to future Dispatches; does this apply to Commons and en.wiki images? Can the sentence dealing with the scope be bolded, so others as clueless as I am won't think this is everything?

In other words, because all of this is Greek to me, I need for the opening to define the scope of what I'm about to learn. The info is all there eventually, but I struggle in the beginning. Ease me in, and the article is not TLDR; just don't lose me in the lead.

In the "Reviewing images" section, I get very tangled up in the two sets of three. Left an inline note. Are these the same three items, or is it coincidence that each contains three. Then when I get down to the "Good image" section, I find four check points. This kind of thing makes it hard for my brain to get around it all. Maybe 1, 2, 3 using a, b, c will help me know what sets of three things I have to check?

It is not too long; it's wonderful. Just try to ease the reader in earlier on, and make it easier not to lose the clueless among us (me). It's going to be very helpful; others probably aren't as bad at image review as I am.

Can it conclude with a line that a future Dispatch will cover <whatever>, and then when we write it, we can add the link. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Sandy. I haven't paid attention to the lead since I changed the scope, so that does indeed need tweaking. I'm out of town, so I'll be working on it sporadicly. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 19:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Pulmonary contusion

Ec, this image was added just as I was promoting; is it OK? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, indeed! If only all images were so well sourced... ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 12:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

United Airlines Flight 93

Why is the commons thread mentioned at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United Airlines Flight 93 getting no feedback? This one needs the master's touch. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, deletion requests can go on for months. There's also currently a big to-do about National Portrait Gallery images, which may be a distraction for a while (a "bigger fish to fry" thing, perhaps). Should I comment at the FAC or try to stir up participation at the Commons deletion request? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 14:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how I can clear a FAC with a known and unresolved issue; I need someone or something to go one way or the other, since no one anywhere has taken any stand in any direction. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Another one, with a lot of back and forth and no clear resolution: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Toronto Magnetic and Meteorological Observatory. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Nuthatch

Thanks for sorting the sound button. The audio side of Wikipedia seems to be less developed than images, but forcing the image size works - how long before someone reverts because it's a forced image size(:  ? 05:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimfbleak (talk • contribs)

FAC has demonstrated that no one gives a damn about that element of Image MOS (among others). The answer probably depends on when it's on the main page. :) ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 14:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion request

Hi Elcobbola, I saw from Awadewit's talk page that you are an admin on Commons and can delete things there. I was making a map which had a copyrighted image in it for reference and accidentally uploaded it to Commons over two years ago. There are five more recent versions of it, so I doubt anyone will see it, but it has always bothered me. The file in question is the oldest version of Image:Map of Montgomery County Pennsylvania School Districts.png, if you would be so kind as to delete just that. Thanks in advance, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

That would be the horizontally-aligned map? What was it's source (something other that US Census?) ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 15:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, it is only the oldest version that includes the horizontally aligned map that needs to be deleted. The horizontal map was from a real estate web site and had been used as a copy vio in the article, which I found and got deleted (I think via PUI). That is what prompted me to adapt the Census maps (to replace what had been deleted) and I uploaded the scratch map by accident. I can probably find the source if you need it - it was not PD. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 16:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Lions (album) FAC

Hey there. Thanks for catching the lack of an image license. I've added one, but SandyGeorgia needs you to clear it... —Zeagler (talk) 20:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

so some say!

And I disagree ;) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Y tu mamá también ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 01:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

"Rules that can be classified as FOLKLORE are “rules” that are enforced by many schoolteachers, but ignored by most educated and careful writers. This folklore includes the notion that one can never begin a sentence with and or but. The truth is that the vast majority of highly regarded writers, even the most conservative writers, begin sentences with and or but. The same is true for sentences beginning with the word because. Some schoolteachers tell children this instead of taking the time to make sure the children really understand clauses and fragments". --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Or better still (this is from the revised edition of Fowler): "That it is a solecism to begin a sentence with and is a faintly lingering superstition. The OED gives examples ranging from the 10th to the 19th c.; the Bible is full of them." --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I always yield to native English speakers in grammar disputes. I've never seen it in formal business writing, however, which is the world in which I live. And I'm pretty sure I have a primary school teacher spinning in his grave. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 01:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

<gulp> ... in the "only thing I know about prose" department ... in the olden days ... when I was in the corporate world in a big way, and they made everyone take a better business writing course, they practically ordered us to start sentences with "and", "so" or "but", telling us that let the reader know right away what was coming (more of the same or something different). I'm pretty sure Tony has taken all of my ands and buts away from me, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Beginning of a long list of questions as I learn....

Image:Stephen Tyng Mather.jpg - This appears on the National Parks website - does that automatically mean it is a National Parks image as asserted on the image description? I'm unsure about that. Also, IF it is in the public domain, can it be cropped as it has been? (I think it can, but I wanted to make sure.) Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 13:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

In this case, the image seems to be fine given the presence of the disclaimer that "Information presented on this website, unless otherwise indicated, is considered in the public domain." The image and the page on which it is used does not indicate otherwise, thus satisfying the condition. For what it's worth, I find "information" to be a curious word choice and would be much happier/more confident with, say, "material", but that's not an issue I'm willing to press on Wikipedia. You're right, however, in that merely hosting an image, in and of itself, would not be sufficient indication of authorship. Absent the aforementioned disclaimer, the site would need to reasonably confirm that the photographer was a federal employee and that image was taken during the course of his/her official duties to truly satisfy PD-Gov.

Public domain means the image has no restrictions whatsoever; PD images may be freely cropped, resized, hacked, chopped and decorated with fake mustaches and devil horns. It is (strongly?) recommended, however, that the whole original work be uploaded in addition to the crop, but it is not mandatory (so far as I know). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 15:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I think I'll go add a mustache right now. :) Awadewit (talk) 15:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Ec, maybe you can add an FAQ section to WP:FCDW/August 11, 2008 for questions like this that might come up often? These will provide good examples of the kinds of things many of us are unfamiliar with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you read German better than I do - could you take a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nuthatch? I'm just trying to resolve some publication dates there. Awadewit (talk) 18:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Guck mal... und hier noch. Hennicke edited/published a second run (zweite Auflage - although it was actually a third run) between 1896-1905, which is where the 1897 is coming from; this particular image appears to be from volume two (Band II) of twelve or thirteen total (if the site says for the third run, I missed it). Very much so a multi-volume. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 22:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Ec, busy afternoon, and then I got sidetracked; is that (Nuthatch) sorted yet? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Awadewit (talk) 12:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Some images that need looking at (when you have the time, that is)

Could you please check out a couple of images for me? The page is Scottish National Antarctic Expedition, and the two images I'm concerned about are the ship photo which heads the article, and the "St Paul's Rocks" photo a little further down.

• The ship image was uploaded to Commons by someone, but the details look bare - from an "old postcard", based on a photograph "probably" by William Speirs Bruce. Bruce died in 1921, so if he did take the photo all is presumably well, but did he? I don't think we can establish this for sure. We do know that Bruce was a keen photographer, and that many of the expedition's photographs are his work. Sadly, however, unlike the famous piper and penguin, this photograph is not in the official history of the expedition, published in 1906.
• The St Paul's Rocks image was uploaded by me. Same story, really - it is probably but not unquestionably Bruce's work, and I can't confirm when it was published.

I'd rather remove and replace the photographs now, than have a dispute at FAC, if I take the article there. Your advice will be much appreciated - even though I'll probably not want to hear it. Many thanks Brianboulton (talk) 21:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Although weak and certainly not optimal sourcing, this page has a postcard with that image of the Scotia. That seems to be enough reasonable indication of publication before 1.1.1923.
• I agree with the concerns about St Paul's Rocks. The source, unfortunately, does not have publication or author information. Isn't it a bit curious that it's in color, too? The technology existed then, but all of the other expedition images are black and white.
• Image:SNAEflag.jpg has incorrect licensing; The flag may have existed in 1902, but this image of it did not (color and other technical qualities are too good to have come from a 1900s era camera). Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. only applies to exact photographic copies of public domain images; the flag is technically a 3D object. If you could get the 1906 version from The Voyage of the Scotia, you'd be fine, or you could Paintscape an .svg version and use {{PD-flag-100}} (although that would not have the historic mien).
• Image:Polar medal top.jpg can't legitimately claim fair use per WP:NFCC#1. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 14:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Your opinions and advice are always much appreciated. I will delete St Paul's Rocks, a relatively unimportant image. As to the flag, assuming I can't upload a 1906 version, I'm afraid I don't know how to "Paintscape an .svg version and use {{PD-flag-100}}". And I don't quite understand what you mean about the medal - (As an object still in existence, a free alternative "could be obtained"). Is this telling me to do something? Sorry about my confusion.Brianboulton (talk) 22:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion; my comments were ill-articulated, to say the least; I hadn't had my coffee, apparently. Regarding the flag, I actually meant inkscape, which is just a vector graphics program (a resulting flag would be similar to this "style"). Regarding the medal, the non-free content criteria (WP:NFCC) only allow non-free images when a free version could not be created. For example, we couldn't use a copyrighted picture to illustrate a fire hydrant, as a free image could be obtained (e.g. Wikipedian takes their own photo and uploads it with a free license). So, too, is the case with the medal. The object still exists, so the opportunity for someone to photograph it and release that photo with a free license also still exists. By comparision, fair use for Bruce is ok, because he's deceased (i.e. no opportunity for a free photo to be created). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 14:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. As to the flag, I am now using a non-contentious image of the Scottish flag, which is OK for my purposes. As to the medal, this image appears on a number of wikipedia pages (Polar Medal, Harry McNish and William Speirs Bruce); are they all in breach of the rules? It might be theoretically the case that a free version could be created, but polar medals, unlike fire hydrants, are pretty rare, and the opportunity to photograph one exists only theoretically, for most people. My best chance would appear to go out and win one (if they're still being awarded), but failing that, I'll look for an alternative image. Brianboulton (talk) 17:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, the image shouldn't be used in any article. For better is worse, the criterion does not include consideration of ease of obtaining the free version (to play devil's advocate: an object introduced in 1857 is more likely than not to have public domain images - somewhere; a object of historic interest may be in museums; an object awarded to still-living individuals has a small, but existent, pool of people who could take a free image without the need for the object to be on public display). Not that the redlink will help much, but Image:New Henri Delaunay Trophy.jpg was recently deleted for the same reason. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 20:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

My cup runneth over. Brianboulton (talk) 23:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Saint Paul GA Preparation

Hello,

The Saint Paul, Minnesota article is being prepared for GA Nomination ahead of the 2008 RNC and the attention the article will be receiving (and in some cases already has).

Other editors and myself have been working on the article lately and we would like to you to help. If you have additions, comments, concerns, questions or other feed back, it is all appreciated. There is a peer review already set up and detailed checklist of issues that need to be fixed is on the talk page. These items can be crossed off when completed. Feel free to add to the list and sign your username, so that we know who added it.

Any help is appreciated. Also, if you would like to work on other articles directly related to Saint Paul, especially those that link off the Saint Paul article, that would be great too.

Thanks and have a great day, Calebrw (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Anekantavada

An editor states at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Anekantavada that images have been resolved; I can't see that conclusion. Do you have time for an update? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing to update; the images haven't been so much as touched. The concerns, however, have been summarily dismissed and I've been implicitly written off as a "hot shot" following a suppositious "moral duty". Another example of precisely why I dropped FAC. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 12:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

That's what I thought :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the images on the article Anekantavada. Per SandyGeorgia advise on Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Anekantavada, can you review it? Thanks--Anish (talk) 04:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Some of my comments seem to have offended you, which I did not realise, and for which I apologise. I will strike out those comments. --Anish (talk) 04:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I've commented at the FAC. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 12:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Is this image here [16] copyright free? It says Gandhi at his spinning wheel in 1929. Public domain image. If yes, under what licencing can it be uploaded? Maybe this will resolve the last hurdle.--Anish (talk) 20:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, verifiability, not truth, is the threshold at Wikipedia. If you can demonstrate that the website is reliable per WP:RS, et al., then it's "fine". The wrinkle is that I suspect the site is speaking to its status in India, not the United States. To be used as such on Wikipedia, it would need to be PD in the U.S. (India status is only germane on the Commons), but I won't press this issue. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 19:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Another question.

A lot of pictures and images on Jainism are available on www.jaina.org, in its education folders (which is also distributed as free CD’s) like this. [17]

Its readme folder says here [18] that all the material is from its own past publication, public domain and is not copyrighted material. So now the question is – can we upload the images from this website? Hope you will reply here. Thanks--Anish (talk) 14:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm out of town and short on time, so give me a few days to get back to you (didn't want you to think I was ignoring this bit ;)). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 19:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Anekantavada

Thanks for helping in the promotion of the article and also for having patience till the end. You tip on the last image did the trick. Thanks again.--Anish (talk) 19:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

redtigerxyz (talk · contribs) have made a recent edit on Anekantavada, changing the image here [19] of Gandhi. I am not reverting his edit as it seems to be a good faith edit and the status of image may have changed of which I may not be aware. I know you are abit busy but can you do a quick check whether the status of Gandhi images has changed.Thanks --Anish (talk) 04:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

No, there hasn't been a status change. Just revert and point folks to the FAC, if needed. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 12:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)