User talk:J Milburn/archive23

This is an archive of past discussions. Please do not edit it, it is for reference purposes only. If you wish to continue a discussion here, please do so on my talk page.

Formal Mediation for Sports Logos

As a contributor to Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/RFC_on_use_of_sports_team_logos, you have been included in a request for formal mediation regarding the subject at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Use of Sports Logos. With your input and agreement to work through mediation, it is hoped we can achieve a lasting solution. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Images

The images which i have uploaded are taken by me, but i admit that a few pictures which i have uploaded are from other sources.

Colossal (talk) 16:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

yes it is Nanjing Greenland Financial Center, rose tower , Q1 tower and a few others.

Colossal (talk) 16:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I have already deleted them, for your confirmation, see in the articles of List of tallest hotels in the world, list of buildings taller than 400 m, and list of tallest residential buildings in the world. thanx

Colossal (talk) 17:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleting photos

I can think of better ways to spend my time. I know you have many Wikipedia rules behind you to back you up, but I do wonder why you concentrate so much of your energy into this particular pursuit. Does it please you to be the Wikipedia photo policeman? This is not attacking you in any way, but I'm very curious. Why do you like it so much? (It must, or you wouldn't spend so much time on it.) Was this a job you were asked to do, or did you slowly gravitate towards it?--andreasegde (talk) 18:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW, your coments said "unneeded non-free images", but if the images were from Commons, would they still be "unneeded"? I'm interested.--andreasegde (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Good humor man and his bacon popsicle

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For making me laugh, I award you this barnstar. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I saw your nice note and was happy to receive fan mail from an illustrious character, but I didn't remember that we had interacted. Then by chance, looking at K-stick's link to my Fakon comment (a suggested topic for the Kelapstick Bacon Challenge 2009, and now added to the 2010 Bacon Challenge) I saw our discussion there at the bottom of the archived talk page. Hahaha. Good memories. And I see you have wonderful clear instruction on operating your talk page right there at the top, but still no mention of including a LINK on the photo upload page? Tsk tsk tsk.

I would change it myself, but it's a special page, so perhaps that takes a decree from the emperor himself. Anyway, thanks for stopping by and dropping your challenge on me. Surprisingly the sources for fakon, facon, vegetarian bacon, etc. are few and far between. It may be an issue of failure to adopt a single catchy name instead of a bunch of competing trademarks.

I think I must be in deep trouble with the halal, kosher and vegetarian crowd. Before bacon I had been working on category:Minnesotan cuisine. And it looks like clams may be next... In fact, I need to upload a bunch of photos. I wonder if I should do it at Commons? Yikes. Oh well, I'm sure you'll let me know when I muck it up. Cheerios J Milburn. You be good. I'm happy to see, from a comment above, the we noobs are still giving you grief about your photo patrolling. :) Pigs get no respect, not even for their fondness of maple bacon donuts, if you know what I mean. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

My apologies

• ^
• |
• |
• |
• |

--KMFDM FAN (talk) 16:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Nabil rais2008 (talk) and copyright violations

After deleting approx. 20 copyright violations by the user (of the last 21 uploads), seeing that the user just removes all notes about the issue from the talk page I am prepared to block by the next copyvio upload. I just do not have the time to delete the rest of the copyvios now. The user failed to indicate what are actually their images -- so I only see a total deletion. feydey (talk) 12:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Support the indef. block. Thanks for deleting the rest. feydey (talk) 22:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of images

Hi there. I have noticed you have removed and put up for deletion many images. For example, the picture of Gay Byrne is significant, as he was the first presenter of the world's longest running chat show, RTÉ's flagship programme and has Ireland's biggest television audience. The RTÉ News Now image, is non-replaceable as it shows the format of the online news channel. Thank you, CargoK ^{user talk} 12:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. File:Gaybyrne.jpg and Image:RTÉ News Now Layout 2009.png, which seem now to be deleted. The file File:RTÉ News Ident.png is the on-screen logo for news bulletins. CargoK ^{user talk} 12:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I meant File:Gaybyrnelate.jpg. What do you mean BBC1 this is an article related to RTÉ. Ireland not UK. CargoK ^{user talk} 12:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

User: Nabil rais2008 ‎

Hi J Milburn. I noticed you blocked User: Nabil rais2008. Now i know its not my job to intervene, but User: Nabil rais2008 was in the process of really expanding the Dubai article, and has really created alot of new useful articles that never existed before. I know he does seem to upload alot of stolen pics to Wikipedia, but he is an excellent editor, and has really improved the quality of many articles. And moreover he was also in the process of bringing in new information to the article. Please give him one more chance. (195.229.236.215 (talk) 12:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)).

I appreciate that Nabil rais2008's article work was possibly very good, but, sadly, the kind of dishonesty and disregard for copyright practises, policy and law that Nabil showed was really quite shocking. I am not prepared to unblock him at this time. You may be interested in appealing to User:Mangojuice or User:PeterSymonds, the administrators (both of whom I know to be fair people with the interests of the encyclopedia at heart) who have dealt with Nabil's unblock requests. J Milburn (talk) 20:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Comncerning Diana Vickers

I know there was and AfD, but events have moved on and I feel that the AfD is no longer applicable and that Diana Vickers is clearly notable. see the talk page. I would propose a 2nd AfD to find a concensus if you disagree. --Triwbe (talk) 13:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Copy of deleted article

Greetings, I am trying to obtain a copy of a deleted article. What information do you need? The entry was called Calysto Communications (to the best of my knowledge). If there is anything you need to fulfill this request, I am your willing servant. Thank you. PS - I made this request of another administrator, but his talk page suggested that he may not be active at this time.--otherlleft^{No, really, other way . . .} 19:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Watch out

Watch out, you falsely-tagged a FU image as having no rationale. Using a bot or something? Anyways, just thought I'd point it out. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 18:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleted non-needed images of album covers

I am curious as to why you deleted the covers of Orquesta El Arranque's albums. I put them because a) I have no free image of El Arranque to go with the article and b) I had seen that other musicians (see Gotan Project, for instance) had their album art on Wikipedia. Should I make separate entries for each album I wonder? Thanks Gcmarino (talk) 10:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)Gcmarino

Deletion of image CO2Nobake.jpg

Yes sir, you are right that there is a copyright mark out there but fortunately I am the creator and owner of both the Image and the mark. I verymuch appreciate your work of preserving intel prop. I request you to please remove the deletion mark (I do not know how to do it since I am new to wikipedia and sincerely wish to contribute in the short span of time which i get). Warm regards Kiranisht (talk) 12:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you sir Kiranisht (talk) 12:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
The same applies for the image resincoated.jpg which, has also been marked for deletion. Kiranisht (talk) 12:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks once again Kiranisht (talk) 12:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyright issues

Hey! Thanks a lot for notifying me on these standards. Can you please now check whether its now all right, and if not can u please advice me on the matter. I have listed all the pictures in the following.Thank you.--ChaudhryAzan (talk) 12:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• File:PresidentMujib.jpg
• File:PresidentAbuSayeed.jpg
• File:PresidentSayem.jpg
• File:PresidentZia.jpg
• File:PresidentAhsanuddin.jpg
• File:PresidentMohammadullah.jpg
• File:PresidentBiswas.jpg
• File:Arshad.jpg

My apologies, I forgot to add ".bd".

The website is www.bangabhaban.gov.bd

Owh. Well what made me think was that these pictures are regularly shown across bangladesh, on websites, news channels, tv channels and so on. So does this qualify for deletion? What do i do now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChaudhryAzan (talk • contribs) 12:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Horne's logo

I did create the updated Horne's logo as there's no official photo on the Internet, but I incorrectly labeled the photo.

Neurodistortion (talk) 4:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Horne's logo

Right. For people like me who don't post pictures that often on this website, I was a bit confused as to what option to select since I created the logo (I also created the previous Horne's logo for the page) but don't own the rights to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neurodistortion (talk • contribs) 09:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

optimus prime

we might be able to take out 1 Baller449 (talk) 20:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

FFXIII 5th NORA Crew Member

You obviously did'nt read past the Fair-Use suspition claim because I have added the correct licensing and descriptions. Sorry if my abundance in not removing the Suspition claim soon enough tricked you in any way. If you're still suspitious then please take your time to read through the images description, license details and then the article it's being used in. That should Validate it. The Cosmo 20:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, yes I understand the layout within the file may not illustrate the images uses completely, so I will add more information. The source and the description are still correct as a game Trailer is a promotional piece of work by a company. The image itself was composed by Yours Truly, so within technical aspects its a self-made piece of Promitional art work where as I own the rights to the Image itself, but not the Contents of the image as that belongs to Square-Enix, as of which it came from a Promotional Piece of work. But I will ensure to add more information. Plus the layout you specified was not given due to the route I take during the image upload process may never be the correct one as different routes give different layouts, however this is changable once through, (thus is why i find it easiest to go down the free route then add the Correct license and alter the layout accordingly and add the correct information) I always take the correct route when circumstances are met, but other times it is more questionable.

Sorry if this concerned you and Thank You for your Acknowledgement. The Cosmo 21:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

You most certainly do not own the rights to the image, Cosmo; because it's made of screenshots, it's a derivative work. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Have I not dealt with the issues yet? please give me an example of how to improve this. The Cosmo 21:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I have given reasons for existance on all of my images, clearly this is being overlooked, and you are not specifying what is needed to meet the criteria for explanation for Use of Existance on wikipedia. If you are not pleased by the performance of reasons given can you please supply an example. And please dont remove the other 4 images, they have got a reason and this was resolved weeks ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XCosmoX (talk • contribs) 21:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

J, I see you just barely beat me to removing the images. I started a thread at Talk:Final Fantasy XIII#Gallery removed (when I thought I would be the one removing them), so you are free to comment if you like. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking it might be better to wait until the article has stabilized, so we can be 100% certain that image and the others will still be orphaned? Speaking from experience, I know what the outcome of the discussion will be anyway...but I figured I should at least wait it out. I am planning on at least leaving links, at the discussion, to the 5 images in question, so it will be easy to find and tag them as soon as a consensus is reached. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I am ready to explain my case. The Cosmo 21:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I listed all four images at FFD: Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 June 15#Final Fantasy XIII - Lightning*.png. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, but XCosmoX has started this again—this time he spliced the four images into one file and uploaded it, saying that it's no longer a 'gallery' since it's one upload rather than four; the latest discussion is at Talk:Final Fantasy XIII#New Comprised FFXIII Characters Image. I am tired of dealing with this, especially given that this user does not seem to understand the non-free content criteria, so I have listed it as WP:3O; an outside opinion from you would also be helpful, if you have time, but of course you're not obligated to get caught up in it again. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem

You posted

It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file.

regarding my image File:Iran2009waves.png In the image page I say under source:

I created this work from data at http://tehranbureau.com/2009/06/13/faulty-election-data/

Does that not mean you "can determine the source of the file"?

In my user page I say

All my contributions after 2005 April 15 and until further notice are multi-licensed under the default wikipedia license and the Creative Commons licence Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0.

Does that not mean you "can determine the license of the file"? Miguel (talk)

Is it okay now? Miguel (talk) 21:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The Lisa Hill article

I do not understand why you nominated this article to delete. What is your problem with this rightly? Krisztian Kleh (talk) Krisztian Kleh 15:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The George Allen Sr. Photo

Hello, J. In reference to the George Allen Sr. photo (last section on my talk page [[1]]), I have added the source and linked to it. Is this sufficient?

Thank you,

EdHubertson (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by EdHubertson (talk • contribs) 18:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 unported license. EdHubertson (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by EdHubertson (talk • contribs) 19:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I will. Thank you, J. EdHubertson (talk) Ed Hubertson 19:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

==Re:Copyvio uploads==

Hi, user: J Milburn, Thanks for your concern. I will stop editing. and also will try to clean up the messes i made.  N A V I N S H E T T Y

You are free to delete. NAvin Shetty Brahmavar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Navin Shetty Brahmavar (talk • contribs) 07:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I want to restore the Images u have deleted from my user page, those are my own work, you can verify it here in my flickr page:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/navinshetty/ NAvin Shetty Brahmavar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Navin Shetty Brahmavar (talk • contribs) 12:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks alot! | talk • contribs)

Lightblue92

Sorry for all the errors in Wikipedia. I promise that I no longer create more problems.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightblue92 (talk • contribs)

I am Calm

Whats this talk of sniping and the idea that I seem to rant, I do type a lot and I am calm. How can I not be calm when where coming to solutions. You seem a little aggitated on this subject, and I respect the fact I was'nt reported due to the 3rd revert rule. There is still much being discussed. A comprimise has been proposed (again). The Cosmo 13:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Peru football picture

Hey, I replied to your claim on the Peru football picture thing, Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 June 15. If you're going to nominate something, for the least you could check it once or twice before you leave.--—Preceding unsigned comment added by MarshalN20 (talk • contribs)

Thank you for your explanation. Now that I understand why you did not reply earlier, I apologize for my aggressive statement in the prior message. Thanks again for your concern and understanding on the reliability of the image.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 21:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Amazing Race Wikipedia

Hello, J Milburn. Welcome to the Amazing Race Wikipedia. In your travels, you will encounter two types of tasks. In a Detour, you have a choice between two tasks. Both of you must work together on this. In a Roadblock, one team member must work on a task alone. Your Amazing Race Wikipedia submissions page is located here. Enjoy the competition! Best, Shappy (talk · contribs) and Firestorm (talk · contribs). 19:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Freddy Krueger Copyright

There are seven photos, that's not alot. We are currently considering deleting past main images of Freddy Krueger (see Category:Freddy Krueger images), maybe the promo pic of him and Nancy may not be entirely necessary, and maybe the baby photo (as long as it remains on the dream child page). Other than that, these images maybe considered crucial in describing the article's subject ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 22:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. ".....Um... well ...... his skin had like..... well it was sort of..... no. It was more like he had some kind of..... hmmm let me see... no" would exactly fit. How can you describe his face in New Nightmare. How else can you show a difference between old Freddy and New Nightmare Freddy? You can't, these are needed. ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 23:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The commentary under the pic, what did you mean by discussion?? It depends on who is having the discussion ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 23:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean the discussion page for the article? ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 23:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Photo removed to not violate copyrights

In New Nightmare, Freddy Krueger was portrayed closer to what Craven had imagined; darker and less comical. To correspond with this, the make-up and outfit of the character was different, along with the signature glove which was redesigned for a more organic look. While Robert Englund again plays the character, "Freddy Krueger" is credited as "Himself" in the end credits.

I'll go look for some discussion or some comments on this. I'm pretty sure I can get some on a respected site, although I would say the commentary right now on the photo is fine, be right back (You haven't seen New Nightmare? You have too! Soooooo scary) ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 23:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh,I got confused I was thinking of this on the thumb in the new nightmare page. I've transferred that to the production center, and I'll transfer this content to the Freddy page? Good? ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 00:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Like I said earlier, that image may not be totally necessary, on THAT page. It could be useful on the franchise page though. Otherwise, the other images are completely important. Convinced? ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 09:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed the prom pic, please take the tag off. Now there are only 5 (not including main pic) explicitly needed photos. Freddy vs. Jason... needed! Freddy's new face in New Nightmare.... easily one of the most important. Dream child pic..... probably can't go, displays a good example in the appropriate section. New claw pic... well needed..... all of these pics serve very good purposes ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 09:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I forgot about the demons photo, I will remove that. What is the problem with the image description pages (sorry, and no offense, but you tend to veer away sense when writing long paragraphs, just a thought!) Did you mean uneeded uses on certain pages? ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 09:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Would you like me to add reasons for the photos on their description pages? Is that what you meant? Also, for future reference, I hold no responsibility for different Nightmare on Elm Street and Freddy Krueger related images on the Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Commons, just these 5 or 6 ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 10:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Much like my previous message only more detailed. The baby photo= I now can see why this photo can be removed off of the page, but I do think it does play a very important role on the Dream Child page. Freddy vs. Jason= that maybe considered (and considered by me) to be a very good, important depiction from the movie, also I find it very informative. The prom pic= that definitely deserves a place on the franchise page, maybe I can find a reliable source for it's commentary. Main photo= well, it's the main photo. Demons pic= I do not hold responsibility. New claw pic= it is discussed, anyone who has ever seen the movie would know it's importance, also, you obviously know how iconic it is, and it does serve an importance on the page, it's change did kind of serve an important role in the movie. New Freddy pic= You said it is important yourself, Freddy's entire being has changed, and it cannot be described, it must be depicted with imagery. So that pretty much wraps it up, if you find further flaws, or disagree with anything in this message, please send me another message. ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 10:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to go pretty soon, it would mean a lot to me if you did not further in deletions. Freddy vs. Jason= I am not going to fight you on that one, please talk to it's uploader. The claw is well-needed, it's kind of a difficult thing to say in words, the claw is needed to show it's change. GOT IT! The new claw image can just remain on the New Nightmare page until a section concerning Freddy's claw is added to the Freddy Krueger page. Good? ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 10:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, it's shown in the photo from part 3 or 2. It was redesigned for the new movie, which would be like part 8 or 9 ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 10:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you can't see it at all, this one gives you an up-close look at it, very encyclopedic ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 10:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I have created a page in my user space on Freddy's claw, it will be added as a section to Freddy Krueger's page when complete. When this section is added, the new Freddy claw photo will be re-added. ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 23:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Packwood Windmill photo

I've reverted the removal of the image from the List of windmills in Warwickshire. The photo (which is likely copyright expired, but I can't positively identify it as such) is the only evidence so far of the mill's existence, which is why it is necessary to display it in the list. There is a website which might provide more details of the mill, but you have to sign in to access it, which makes it unusable for reference purposes. The image is of low resolution, and has a correct rationale. Mjroots (talk) 17:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by a photograph not being a reliable source. In this case, I claim that the Packwood windmill which is not standing today was a post mill. The photograph/postcard provides positive proof of this claim. What is unreliable about that? The person who published the postcard is now deceased, so I'm unable to ask further details from him. There isn't a {{cite postcard}} to use as a reference, is there? Mjroots (talk) 18:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Obviously you believe this photo shouldn't be in the article, while I believe it should. I'm not saying that you're wrong or that I'm right. Where would be the best place for this to be discussed at a community-wide level? Could you either point me to a suitable place or raise the issue there and let me know? If consensus is that the photo shouldn't be in the list I'll have to find another way around the problem. Mjroots (talk) 18:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, not sure about WP:FFD. Maybe WP:3O would be better. Sure, we have a disagreement, but there's WP:AGF on this side, and I'd hope that the same applies on your side. The "dispute" is between us two only, so it would fit the criteria for that page. What do you say, is this a better place to raise the issue? Mjroots (talk) 20:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:IRC is an admin only facility, isn't it. By all means ask there. I'll raise the issue at WP:3O. As you say, it's non-binding but I think it'w worth an outsider's view on the issue. 20:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It's looking like the photo is actually Shrewley Mill. If so, it is out of copyright as dates to 1895 at latest. Mjroots (talk) 11:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Ericsson Videophone photos -permission was remitted

Hi J Milburn: I sent in an earlier e-mail, at 12:28 DST this afternoon, which enclosed a forward of the permission provided by the copyright owner (the Ericsson Archives in Sweden). My email should be on file at Wikipedia.org, at the address you noted. If there are any difficulties with the e-mail reception, please contact me and I can resend it. --HarryZilber (talk) 20:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Famous Quotes Reference given

famous quote edit-reference black and white movie Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose- http://www.quotesdaddy.com/author/Netaji+Subhash+Chandra+Bose Famous Quotes

“You give me your blood and I will give you Independence!”

Contributed by: robert

Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose

   * Blood
   * Independence Day
   * Indian Holiday
   * Indpendence Day Message

Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose

“One individual may die for an idea; but that idea will, after his death, incarnate itself in a thousand lives. That is how the wheel of evolution moves on and the ideas and dreams of one nation are bequeathed to the next’”

Contributed by: robert

Do You have anything else to delete? Mamta dhody (talk) 16:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of University of Arkansas Athletic Logo from University of Arkansas Athletics pages

What exactly is your reasoning in your removal of several instances of File:Arkansas-Razorback-Logo-2001.png from pages such as Arkansas Razorbacks men's basketball and University of Arkansas? Do you realize that not only the University of Arkansas but every other University (i.e. Oregon State University) with an athletics logo does the same thing?

For instance, this diff has a false explanation: "Remove spare image. There is already an image better representing the university in the infobox. If this image is discussed, it can be placed next to the discussion, but is not needed here." This is not true.

The infobox has room for two images: the main being the University seal and one athletic logo. It doesn't make sense to remove the athletic logo with the rationale being that the university seal is already present, this is obvious when you look at the infobox. What you call the "better image" represents the University better, where the athletics logo represents the athletic teams of the University better than the University seal would. These are two separate parts with two separate logos; why wouldn't you use them both?

This flurry of removals has me confused. Brandonrush Woo pig sooie! 01:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

He's not soley picking on Arkansas, the logos on vitually every other university's site have been removed as well. I can personally vouch that LSU's have also been removed. Sf46 (talk)

You have deprived the readers of authentic material from original source

I have nothing against any religion in particular and it is you who are saying these things.Whatever I have said is from the religious books of the culprits themselves and the wrong knowledge that they have put to use in these modern times for criminal activities.As far as I know the general tone of Wikipedia is aginst heinous crime.If someone uses their religion to perpetrate crime on a mass scale ,it has to be brought to the notice of the general mileau and are termed as crimes against humanity and human rights violations. My edits to Subhash Chandra Bose are genuine and enriching and you have only served to deprive the readers of genuine knowledge.Sorry to have offended one person at the cost of saving so many lives.Mamta dhody (talk) 09:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Images in Characters in The Adventures of Tintin

Hi,

The purpose is to enable readers to more quickly and easily identify the characters. Illustrations add to the charm and appeal of articles. The images, Tintin_s_double.jpg and R.W._Trickler_and_Basil_Bazarov_in_The_Broken_Ear_and_maybe_Trickler_in_The_Calculus_Affair.jpg‎ are especially relevant.

Tintin's adventures went through various stages of publication in which scenes were altered or deleted. Tintin's double appeared in early versions of Land of Black Gold in 1940 and 1948, but is not in the current version, published in 1972 and most commonly available today. Thus having images of this one-off double would be of great interest to Tintin fans and followers.

R.W._Trickler_and_Basil_Bazarov_in_The_Broken_Ear_and_maybe_Trickler_in_The_Calculus_Affair.jpg‎ is based on an observation made by a third party and is a means of backing it up.

I'll conceed that there should be a limit to the number of images when dealing with a single subject — Tintin's own article (see Tintin and Snowy) is limited in the number of images, when you consider his importance. However Characters in The Adventures of Tintin deals with multiple characters so it is fair that some should be illustrated.

Cheers,

--Marktreut (talk) 15:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

"the use of non-free content to enhance "the charm and appeal of articles" have long been rejected". I'm beginning to wonder why I even contribute to wikipedia. You have to justify your every move. It's like having to draw up a detailed report on why you are going to the shops to buy some milk. It's not fun anymore.--Marktreut (talk) 16:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Like I say: the fun's gone out. It's no good. Congratulations, you've put me off contributing my latest article which many may have found interesting, but given the fact that you now have to justify this, that and the meaning of life, I'll keep it to myself and find another hobby. Goodbye, Wikipedia. It was good while it lasted, but now it's like stale cheese.--Marktreut (talk) 16:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Alesha Dixon etc.

okay whatever i don't want a "war" with you im not that bothered just stop ransacking everything ive ever touched, the victoria beckham vogue covers were justifiable just like the "britney spears rolling stone cover" bon her page because it illustrates an actual point, and don't delete the Mis-Teeq image because its the exact same fair-use as other bands such as Destiny's Child, because it's difficult to illustrate an article of a band getting three people at once so therefore is the only free image available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patyo1994 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, fine so the Mis-Teeq image lacks rationalle, but what would happen if "rationalle" were to magically appear? then if justifiable it would be allowed to stay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patyo1994 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't, fair point isn't needed on her page, because it isn't solely identifing her, so if it were singly on the Mis-Teeq page it would qualify for fair use already? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patyo1994 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Arkansas Razorbacks football

I'd appreciate if you not threaten me. I'm well aware of the rules regarding repeated reversions. I want no part of the dispute regarding the logos, but your edits have repeatedly removed JohnnySeoul's uniform gallery that has established non-free-use rationale for that page. Therefore, it shouldn't be removed, so I'd appreciate if you left it alone. Thank you. --Kevin W. 20:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Maxrcd cddvd.jpg listed for deletion

I don't agree with your rationale for deleting the image as it depicts a different product than the one not listed for deletion and therefore has a place in the article. The images are similar, but they should be as they represent two different releases for one single. It's no different than British single releases which are often released in multiple formats with similar cover art. For example, Radiohead's Karma Police article showcases two single covers for two different formats. The only different between the covers is that one has been tinted blue. The alternate cover for Rough Cut Diamond isn't even remotely as similar to its other cover than in the case of this Radiohead single yet this one has been flagged. Should the image be deleted, I expect other alternate covers for the thousands of articles within Wikipedia that would be similar to this case to be deleted as well. NATEamx (talk) 10:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

And in just about every discography related article I've seen on Wikipedia there is rarely ever a prose on album covers let alone alternate album covers, yet their appearance in articles is abundant. I am more than willing to write something about the covers within this article, but they have only been released within the last 24 hours and information such as graphic designers and photographers, etc, is scarce. This single is after all a future release. I do have some information about the production of the covers but I haven't gather any sources to write anything about them yet.

I don't want to come across as being whiney, so I just want to say that I am okay with the image being deleted if that is what should be decided. I only expect that all articles or images be treated with the same scrutiny. NATEamx (talk) 11:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

When I said discography page, I just meant any single or album articles for any given musical artist. Poor choice of words, my mistake. NATEamx (talk) 11:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You're on WP:AN

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard#Admin abuse by User:J_Milburn. – (iMatthew • talk) at 11:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Ashley Tisdale singles

I'm curious as to your justification for these. I work hard to keep people from creating independent articles about singles that haven't charted. In such cases, I encourage the merging of the relevant article into the parent album or artist article, and usually copy the infobox (including the single cover) into the parent. If you delete the cover illustrations, I'm going to wind up losing more often, and the net result will still be that the single cover is included: it will just be included in a stub instead of a decent article.—Kww(talk) 14:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Really have to disagree with you on this one. The whole concept of album and single covers as necessary for identification of content bothers me, but I think we have to take it as a given: album and single covers are acceptable to illustrate the topic in the main article discussing the topic. I have no problem with single covers in the album article so long as there is not an independent article on the single. Once the single becomes notable on its own, and an article devoted to it is created, that cover should be deleted from the album article and moved to the article on the single. It still qualifies as "minimal use": one instance of the identifying image per thing identified.—Kww(talk) 14:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I admit that I'm using a practicality argument, rather than one based in purism. We've already lost the battle against the use of identifying images: an album, single, or book cover does nothing to significantly enhance any reader's understanding of the subject of the article. The existing practice is that the use of the cover image for identification passes NFCC#8 anyway. If we assume that criteria is met, the use of a single cover in an album article that discusses it meets all other criteria. I don't see how you can argue to delete these single covers without arguing to delete all covers: a noble goal, but not one that you are likely to find widespread consensus for. By deleting them, it increases the pressure to allow the creation of stub articles solely to house the illustration. That doesn't further the goal of reducing non-free content, and makes keeping the single articles under control that much more difficult.—Kww(talk) 15:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Psarolepis-taxon.JPG

I think I fixed the tags now (?). Liopleurodon93 (talk) 15:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Pictures

Mu apologies about L. Dale I misread that one. The Alex Box picture was not Some Rights Reserved when I uploaded it. I see now that it is, but when I uploaded it, it was set to Free to Share - to copy, distribute and transmit the work.--The Sports Diatribe (talk) 19:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Amazing Race

I wouldn't mind jumping over to work with you on a few of the articles you normally work on, if you would do the same with the ones I do. That way, we wouldn't be at a big disadvantage. Thanks, gENIUS101 20:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Question on Deletion of Entry

Hello -

I was wondering if I could find out why my entry, "Ask.Screen.Know." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ask.Screen.Know. ) was deleted?

It was labelled "Spam"; however, I think this incorrectly categorizes the subject. Ask.Screen.Know. is a public health campaign that I'd like to provide information about.

I believe that the wording was objective and informative; however, if the phrasing is the issue, I'd be happy to discuss any necessary changes or modifications.

Please let me know any needed edits or overall issues so that I can address properly.

Thank you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by AskScreenKnow (talk • contribs)

To answer your question (as thought they were sincere)

The subarticle contains biographical info not in the parent. (Which you already know. (Hence my squinting at your protestations of your utter sincerity.) ↜Just M E here , now 10:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh & 4 extra credit

Point out where exactly in WP's s.o.p. it says to act prior to the fact in anticipation of supposedly likely AfD snowballs/speedy closes? Want to promise to unilaterally PayPal me $100.00 if your prediction should be false? If you can't, then I'd respectfully ask you to please not mess with the navigation to the biographical entry. (My OWN prediction? New information gets written in RSes each of the coming 10 days, resulting in plenty of material for a seperate bio. Hah!) ↜Just M E here , now 11:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK Newsletter - June 2009 Issue

Summary: This month, we have details on our response to HMRC, updates on our Initiatives and Membership drives, as well as our regular sections on Press Coverage, Upcoming Meetups, and activities from the other WMF Chapters around the globe. We're also pleased to announce that we now have a Paypal account! We also want your input on the future of this newsletter - get involved! We are hoping to get the July issue out very early in July in order to fit with our new distribution schedule, so don't be surprised to see two newsletters in quick succession.

In this month's newsletter:

1. HMRC Response
2. Initiatives
3. Membership Drive
4. PayPal
5. Press Coverage
6. Other Chapters' Activities
7. Meet-ups
8. Newsletter Feedback

Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki UK Limited. Wiki UK Limited is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. The Registered Office is at 23 Cartwright Way, Nottingham, NG9 1RL.

Mis-Teeq Scandalous US image

Can I ask why the image is up for deletion, as it seems to be completely fair use? Also you mentioned that a re-release is never mentioned let alone a cover, could you check again as I have added valid and referenced details to the article... --Patyo1994 (talk) 20:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

bu youre an admin right? couldnt you just delete it then? --Patyo1994 (talk) 21:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I meant close the discussion not delete it sorry --Patyo1994 (talk) 21:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess so but for one point, nobody would notice if you did close it, and secondly the admins will side with you the admin regardless of what has been put, because its your word against the pages. --Patyo1994 (talk) 21:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Stastny.JPG

Could you check that the fair use tag you mentioned is now correct. As it's a political campaign I'm pretty sure that we are allowed to reproduce a low res version.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kosice1234 (talk • contribs)

Thanks.

File permission problem with File:TomYoungblood live2007.JPG

J Milburn, Thank you for contacting me about the file permission problem regarding my picture of Thomas Youngblood. There seems to be a secondary issue on top of the one you reported to me. User kmiworld actually re-uploaded a copy of my picture under their account. This is evident if you take a look at the file upload history and you'll see one from myself and an identical one from kmiworld. I took the picture in question and authorize Wikipedia to use it, however I do not authorize kmiworld to upload a copy of it under their username. The original file lives here: Flickr Account with Permission and you'll see that it has a tag under the photo that permission for use with Wikipedia is in fact allowed. If I need to make additional steps to ensure my photo does not get deleted please let me know because the original site (my flickr account) already had permission for Wikipedia to host this file. I also need to see kmiworld's copy of the image removed as it was not reused with permission like the license states. Thank you very much. UnlivedPhalanx (talk)

Barnstar

		Bookbound barnstar
		To J Milburn, for contributing to the Internet "meme" (as reported in the The Washington Post) of "Neda," the slain Iranian protester.  — Justmeherenow 07:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

non free question

I am asking you because you are an administrator and seem to know policy.

Is this illegal use of non-free pictures? See Farrah Fawcett Not all 10 criteria are met. I have a photo of a celebrity (not Farrah) so celebrity photos for free use do exist.

Thank you for helping to answer my question. User F203 (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

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

This image is a screenshot of a copyrighted television program or station ID. As such, the copyright for it is most likely owned by the company or corporation that produced it. It is believed that the use of a limited number of web-resolution screenshots - for identification and critical commentary on the station ID or program and its contents

This condition doesn't appear to be met.

I prefer that WP be "The Free Encyclopedia" and not "The Nerdy Schoolboy's Depository of Stolen Images and Plagiarism".

Help me understand the concept of free use better. Thanks. User F203 (talk) 18:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I am not a troublemaker. However, I don't like stealing even if it helps me or my goal (to make WP comprehensive). Would others think it's plausible and ok to put a deletion request? Or will there be a big consensus that whoever nominates it for deletion is a troublemaker? User F203 (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I've decided not to nominate the photo for deletion. I have replaced the image with a call for a free image. To help those reading the article, I have put a link under "external links" to a photograph. There, it will be easy for readers to see her photo. The photo is from yahoo, so that's a fast upload time and not an unreliable site. Thank you for your guidance and discussion. User F203 (talk) 21:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

what?

Exactly what part of my message was a personal attack? Maybe you can point that out to me because I cannot see it anywhere. Murgon (talk) 00:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Fuck off and stop posting on my talkpage you annoying cunt. Murgon (talk) 13:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Nomination to delete a valuable cultural artefact

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Major_Whipple

Thanks so much for your valuable input, J Milburn. I take it you have some kind of qualification in the field of art critique as you seem to be judging the value of the article on your own taste, or lack of it. This article is not here to confuse, obfuscate, or mislead, merely to entertain mainly Guardian online readers where Martin Wolk is a popular phenomenon. It can only be arrived at by a direct search for Martin Wolk...which isn't likely to happen very often, unless by the aforementioned Guardian readers who are fully aware of the truth surrounding this artist. This page will be abandoned or removed or deleted by me within a few weeks once it has served its pupose. I realise this probably offends your sense of order but surely it is quite clear that there is no malicious intent.

Just give us a break for a couple of weeks.

Major Whipple and Rafibrown

P.S. "I'm no artist, but they certainly don't look like works of genius to me". You really think your uninformed opinion of an artist's life's work is so relevant that it warrents deleting his Wiki entry? Shame on you!

Major Whipple (talk) 18:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Photo uploads

Would you mind taking a look at the other files uploaded by Connie evans? S/he is claiming to be the owner despite the fact that many of them are publicity stills. 98.248.32.178 (talk) 19:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I was deleting them when you messaged me. Thanks for the note- I've explained the situation to the user. Seems to just be a misunderstanding rather than anything malicious. J Milburn (talk) 19:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Connie's at it again. So much for "just a misunderstanding..." 98.248.32.178 (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted the new uploads and issued a last warning. If another image is uploaded without an explanation, I will block. Thanks for your vigilance. J Milburn (talk) 20:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Scandalous image

Okay firstly I wasnt trying to disrupt you by re-posting it again, I only got this message and secondly the consensus has change, the rationale is both correct and legal, as it is illustrating something both mentioned and necessary in the article. --Patyo1994 (talk) 20:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Because, your main point for the deletion of the image was that the article supported no evidence of an American cover art and no rerelise, however that is no longer true as extra detail has been added to the article, giving it actual validity, therefore the image rationale is correct, however I agree it was not before in the original. --Patyo1994 (talk) 20:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Surely the image has a significant reason in its own right as this was the single cover that was their debut single into the US charts? A whole different country would be unfamiliar with the one picture that was never released there... So my point being doesnt the image have its own right seperate of the other image?? I believe yes it does... --Patyo1994 (talk) 20:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry it took so long to write (editing conflict) No cover is THAT important, not even the original, but my point remains that the rationale is fair and legal, as I have presented evidence that it is both supported in the article and has its own significant reasoning, that is fair... Wikiedia asks for more comprehensive pages and this has the correct rationale so why not? this conversation is fast becoming an oxymoron... --Patyo1994 (talk) 20:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the image is needed and not just for extra illustration, when I agree that one image would suffice, but I am making a point that if a single has been released in a different cover in a different nation, which speaks the same language [English] then surely they would use an English language Wikipedia. As both Americans and and Britons are using the same page then therefore the image is valid, I would understand your point if for instance I had placed a French cover there, because that would be completely unnecessary and useless, as it would belong on the French language page, but this image is illustrating the single from an American users perspective, and therefore needed --Patyo1994 (talk) 20:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not written from an English perspective, an American perspective or any perspective" exactly so if it were a neutral, then therefore shouldnt both images remain for indificational purposes on a neutral basis not favouring any one nation, as both images apply to different areas, but both equally important in identifying that image for a reader in that specific area. And the image in itself is significant, just showing it, proves to readers of their American breaktrough, and therfore thanks solely to the image all skepticism is lost. --Patyo1994 (talk) 21:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

But surely if the American release had different B-sides etc. than the EP itself would be different, thus giving the image more need to belong there, as it is not only a different country released single, it has remixed/different B-sides making that track-listings completely different and truely inependant in its own right? --Patyo1994 (talk) 21:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so my wording sounded a little wrong but the point im making is, im not just illustrating a different cover, but a whole different CD with different B-sides and different remixes to the other and extra tracks/different tracklisting etc. so therefore that deserves its own image. --Patyo1994 (talk) 21:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

This is what they are illutrating, the past 10 paragraphs I have given you various explanations, now my point is this: aside from sharing the same title track [Scandalous] which links them together the two CD's are totally different, the second is a completely remixed/changed version two the first, the two EPs share little in common except the single above, which is why the second deserves its own album cover because it has no comparison to the first (aside from already stated above) whatsoever. --Patyo1994 (talk) 21:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, the point I am making is that the cover, which clearly covers the CD is covering an entirely different one to the other, they are two different kettle of fish, both worthy to be there, if I put on the article, and showed the difference between the American and British tracks, thus showing the different remixes and songs there, they would illustrate the point that the US track cover is there, showing that it covers something entirely different making the use of the picture, not just to look pretty, but for an actual valid reason that shows the difference, thus making the point that it should be there in its own right because it is not the same as the original so should not be compared. --Patyo1994 (talk) 21:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so if they were discussed in the 'article prose' it would become valid, because I can (properly, not just write anything) write information on the topic??? --Patyo1994 (talk) 22:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It will be done then, I'll do it tomorrow. --Patyo1994 (talk) 22:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

deleted pictures

I have uploaded pictures but I do not quite understand the copyright tag thing, and now my pictures are candidates for speedy deletion. Where do I insert these tags and what would my copyright be considered? These pictures are from a company that gave me permission to use these photos on wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by StonyCreekBrands (talk • contribs) 20:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

City of Von Ormy Flag and Seal

J Milburn, I am the designer of the Flag and Seal of the City of Von Ormy, Texas. see File:VONORMY FLAG2.jpg and File:Seal new bw.gif, which copyrights you disputed. I am also the current Mayor of the town and I donated the design and these files specifically into the Public Domain when the designs were adopted by the City Council in December of 2008. You can verify this by calling or emailing our City..see www.vonormytexas.com for contact information. martinezdevara (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC).

I sent the email and added the {{OTRS pending}} tags. Thanks!—Preceding unsigned comment added by martinezdevara (talk • contribs)

Martin Volk

Well, now you have what you wanted and are no doubt very pleased with yourself and your continuing mission to wash the streets of Wikipaedia free of all the scum. A regular Travis Bickle. Well done.

Might I suggest you put your considerable talents to hunting down the bigots, con artists, and hate-merchants whose presence is all over this site and whose activities can cause real harm rather than gleefully spoiling the clearly non malicious fun of others, which you could always leave to later anyway? That would actually be quite useful.

You want me to plead with you not to ban me? Was that some kind of threat? I'm not even going to rise to that one. I imagine others before me have pointed out to you how pathetic that sort of thing looks.

Having said that I can think of one or two places where you could stuff your dodecahedral D&D dice...

I hope you continue to have a wonderful, productive, day and that you never stop spreading that sunshine.

Major Whipple (talk) 22:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Image Copyright Tags

You reguested that I require copyright licence tags to be added to the images on the page about the European Marine Energy Centre. I thought I did something along these lines when I uploaded them, but I am new to this so maybe not.

Could you instruct me on how to do this as they are my images?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by OrkneyViking (talk • contribs) 09:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Bora Milutinovic

Hi. Sorry but I'm italian and I don't speak English very well. My file of Bora Milutinovic is legal for Wikipedia or there's a copyright's violation? Anser, thanks. --Stephan Sensuality (talk) 11:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The picture of Bora Milutinovic is in internet. There are some photos of Bora, I had transfer one photo in my computer and after I had created the image in Wikipedia. It's legal or no? --Stephan Sensuality (talk) 11:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Martin Wolk

"My crap" as you so delicately put it is not interfering in the slightest with your mission. And if you had been a little less meagalomaniacal you would have taken the time to see that previous edits of mine have been to add to the body of knowledge in Wikipedia. It's an endeavour I applaud. The problem we faced was a specific one that required a Wiki entry to "validate" a discussion about an imagined British artist. Yes, it represents a misuse of Wiki resources, I appreciate that. But I doubt Wiki will come crashing down because of one or two - or even one or two hundred, or thousand entries such as ours.

To suggest that what rafi and I did was the same as vandalising someone else's entry by scrawling "he's gay" tells me more about you than I think I wish to know. That is ridiculous and you know it. We created a wholly original page; we did not damage, rewrite, or "vandalise" anybody else's. Neither have we been abusive to anyone. The only abuse started with your unpleasant manner of dealing with this. if you'd asked like a reasonable human being what we were up to then you would have had a straightforward reply, and maybe this could have been resolved more amicably. I don't object to the deletion; I see why it is necessary. However, Wikipedia does not belong to you personally; it is not there soley for your personal gratification. I suggest you get out a bit more.

And in that spirit of believing we have the authority to tell eachother what to do with our lives or the superiority to judge who or what the other is then I appreciate very much your suggestion that I shouldn't think myself some kind of artist...that comes as quite a relief considering that I don't consider myself to be any kind of artist at all, but thanks anyway for your input. "Silly encyclopaedia-building"? I told you above, I edit where there are factual errors on subjects I am knowledgeable about. If you read my first post you will notice that I declare an intention to remove the offending article...hardly a statement that the "rules don't apply" to me.

Fascinating to have met you, J.Milburn. May you have many wives and may your goblin smiting sword be forever keen-edged.

Major Whipple (talk) 11:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

House season dvd covers

Can you please explain why these are not justifable? they provide a bit of background to the dvd releases, i am not likely ot challange the decision to delete jsut liek ot understand more.

However when you removed them from the list of house episode you broke the table, why did you not use the preview button to make sure oyu never broke anytihng, i assume you do not know what colspan is? because if you had looked first oyu would have seen the ocloum where the images where was colspanned.--Andy (talk - contrib) 11:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, at least now i understand better why they are getting removed. Fair enough you missed the breaking ont eh preview, i jsut assumed you jsut deleted what looked right without looking, apogolise for jumping ot conculsions. The article is heading for FL i just added the images since it was meantione don the peer review, hopefully the thumb one will be fine.--Andy (talk - contrib) 12:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The reason why i thought personal it would not suit is similar ot the cast one, because it only shows them in picture as themself ie the person they are House = hugh laurie etc. I think a picture as the imaginer character house is what a appiorate ie a in univerese where the picture is of him asa doctor or something similar.--Andy (talk - contrib) 18:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Amazing Race Wikipedia Starts!

Hello, Shappy. This is a reminder that Amazing Race Wikipedia will start very soon. At 00.00 (or whereabouts), our host Firestorm will place the first Detour on your submissions page. Again, the Detour is a choice between two tasks; both members of the team choose one task and work together to complete it. A Roadblock is a task only one team member must perform; he/she may not have any help from the other team member. Good luck and enjoy the Race! :-) Shappy (talk · contribs) and Firestorm (talk · contribs) --EdwardsBot (talk) 13:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

How to tag a photo

j, thanks for the quick response. It is highly appreciated, especially considering time is of the essence. Now I have a new question. If we decide to make the photos for free use and copyright the photos with a free use tag, what would this tag look like and where would I put it? An example would be greatly appreciated

(StonyCreekBrands (talk) 13:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC))

J, thank you for the quick respons. I thank you very much for this, especially since time is of the essence. Now I have a new question. If i decided to release a photo for free use, how would I tag that photo? Where would this tag go? An example would be greatly appreciated.

(StonyCreekBrands (talk) 13:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC))

Martin Wolk

There you are, you see? Wasn't painful at all, was it. These things can be sorted out like adults. Next time my edits and articles will be genuine...don't worry, this was just a one off.

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

Major Whipple (talk) 14:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)