User talk:Elcobbola/Archive2

Oliver Typewriter Company

If you want any help tracking down sources for Oliver Typewriter Company, please let me know. I have access to a very good research library that has most any book you could want. I will gladly help you out, if you want me to. Awadewit | talk 21:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

There's no hurry elcobbola; I've noticed Raul rarely posts on weekends anyway, and he will most certainly wait for your discussion of the sources. With solid supports from respected reviewers, and all the other issues resolved, you don't have to worry that he'll suddenly fail the fac. When I took the position as his proxy, it was with the condition that I would pass anything to him I wasn't sure about. Good luck with it! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The new information looked good to me. And you're welcome - it's always nice to help out diligent wikipedians! :) Awadewit | talk 16:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I left another reminder note for Raul (and thanks for the nice words today, they meant a lot to me :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you happen to know whether Raul has concerns preventing him from closing it? I’m not impatient, per se, I’d just like to move to other projects and it would be nice not to have the FA matzo ball lingering. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 20:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't really know. Two suggestions: it could be that he's waiting for more clarity on the Uncyclopedia FAC, so he can address both at once, or you could ping his talk page and ask him directly if he has any concerns. I know he seems to be very busy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I get that impression, as well. I won't bother the man; the last thing busy people need is pestering on matters of no great urgency. Thanks, Sandy, for your vigilance. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 21:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I struck my oppose on the 13th and left Raul654 (talk · contribs) a message then, and two more since then. Checking his contribs shows how very busy he is with checkuser, sockpuppets, image issues and User:Raul654/I'm only one man, and he recently mentioned a new job. I don't think a query from you on his talk page would be out of line since it's been almost two weeks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I left a message; seems like it's more a thorn in your side than mine at this point. ;) ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 16:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

ok, I admit it, I do like to see articles get their stars. :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Essay

I've belatedly replied to your request on my talk page. Sorry for being so slow. Geometry guy 20:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Much obliged. Our thoughts are not so different, actually; response forthcoming. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 15:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Her Majesty's Theatre

Hi. You and I disagree on how to apply WP policy to this image. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing - I'm sure we both simply want to make the article the best it can be. If the WP:CONSENSUS agrees with you, I am happy to remove the image. To oppose the FA based on this one image issue is unnecessary, since we will gladly remove the image if that is the consensus at the image review page, to which you referred the issue. As you said there, we need independent editors to weigh in on the issue. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not well versed in image policy/guidelines. May I suggest you all call in alternate opinions from Pagrashtak (talk · contribs) and Laser brain (talk · contribs) who both understand images? I haven't looked yet today, but last time I looked, the article still had issues with sources, publishers, and reliability of sources, so there is time to sort out the images. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Not at all harsh; in fact, I appreciate help in this area because I don't speak images, and there has been criticism in the past that FAC passes articles with non-free images. Say what you have to say, and if consensus goes against you, it'll pass, but extra opinions will help. I'm happy to see FAC get a better handle on image issues; Jkelly used to review them all (years ago), but he stopped, so I'm at a disadvantage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I commented at Fair Use Review but I agree with your assessment. I posted an alternate suggestion in case the editor wants to work on a solution. --Laser brain (talk) 18:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the message on my talk page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It was not my intention to ascribe any underhand motives to you. I remain frustrated with the system and the way in which it is adversarial, rather than collaborative. Kbthompson (talk) 10:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

How we do we pull that in from the German wiki? I'm happy to put it in as a placeholder while the other discussions wend their way to fruition. Kbthompson (talk) 15:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

FAC Reviews

Hi Elcobbola, I've noticed that you've recently joined the ranks of FAC Reviewers and I want to say THANK YOU. You're offering really useful comments to the nominators and providing a big impact as well. The rest of us really appreciate the help, and we're glad to have you in our little fraternity :) Karanacs (talk) 17:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for editing.

Hello, We are sorry for editing the Wikipedia Page on George Westinghouse. This is just a company test which would be reverted shortly. We will take note that we should use the sandbox instead for testing messages.

Shadeplay23 (talk) 02:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Metroid Prime

I removed an image, and asked you a question at the FAC for Metroid Prime, :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I think I understand what you mean. I removed the less crucial image, though my co-nominator may disagree, so we'll see. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Image question

Elcobbola, can you help me with this one? I can't remember why, but at some point in the past I deleted Image:Malraux.jpg from here. I can't remember if I was concerned about the image licensing, or if I didn't have a good reference way back in 2006 when I removed the image. I want to replace Mozart with Malraux in Tourette syndrome#Cultural references so I can reduce all that Mozart verbiage. I'm not sure about that image tag on Malraux ... what do you think? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Per this version, the image appears to be by G. Freund, dated 1935. Unfortunately, that means the “published before January 1, 1923” test is out. France and US have “life of author plus 70 years”, so, if G. Freund died within three years of taking it, there might be a chance. Let me do so more scouting and see what I can find. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 22:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. the original uploader to Wiki (User:Adam Faanes) hasn't made an edit since 2006; so much for checking with him. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 22:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Ms. Gisèle Freund was long-lived (died 2000), "unfortunately". The PD tag does not appear to be legitimate. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 22:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much; that what I was afraid of, and someone probably told me that in the past, which caused me to remove it in 2006. Thanks again, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Can I do anything with

This image is available from the United States Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division under the digital ID cph.3b26053
This tag does not indicate the copyright status of the attached work. A normal copyright tag is still required. See Wikipedia:Copyrights for more information.

 ? I don't speak images, so don't know what it means. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

More questions here if you don't mind looking in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

But I think the reason my brain refuses to wrap itself around images is that I just hate the vagueness of it all. I'm not sure a tutorial will help me :-) Thanks for the assistance ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful, we've gained a new coprolalia vandal watcher :-) Thanks for the help at TS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Miguel Pro Image

If it's really just a policy issue that it's violating (although I thought historical photographs of deceased people more than 50 years old were ok?) and this is not a bias against the religion, I say remove the picture from the article. I am not trying to be confrontational and apologize if you took it that way. Also, I'm not familiar with the use of "non-free images", every image I've ever incorporated into an article has been free/public domain, etc.--Mike Searson (talk) 15:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it matters one way or the other to the article. I think I initially misinterpreted your comment and for that, I apologize again. It seems Mexican copyright is for 100 years. I do not know who added the image (I suspect someone was incorporating information from that article and included the picture); it is a powerful image, but I too, agree with your concerns about free-use and think it should be removed. Thanks for the history lesson on images.--Mike Searson (talk) 16:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations

... on your new FA :-)

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		To Elcobbola, for your kindness, good humor, and excellent work at FAC. Congratulations on Oliver Typewriter Company !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

John Melendez

Yikes; is that a good image? [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Elcobbola, I'll take it to the BLP noticeboard then. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Heuschrecke 10 FAC

The Armor section is kindof a misnomer as it has about three things/topics/info in it, could we find a better title maybe? ~ Dreamy ^§ 01:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Ya, I just thought, you came up with precursor, you should be able to come up with a better title, no? ~ Dreamy ^§ 12:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Non-free reduce

I see you've been adding the non-free reduce template to a number of images. However, perhaps you could also explain why you believe such a tag is necessary. Why are the images you have tagged too large and what would be an appropriate size? I believe the images you tagged are of appropriate sizes already, so in the absence of further explanation will remove the tags. Thanks. GDallimore (Talk) 10:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Where is it stated that there is a limit of 300 pixels? Surely that's a completely arbitrary figure anyway as it will depend upon what is being shown in the picture. GDallimore (Talk) 12:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I still can't find anywhere that says that "low resolution" such as to qualify for "fair use" means 300px wide. However, given that most of the pictures show the necessary detail at lower resolutions, I'll replace them. The only one I actively disagree with is Image:Thrud_miniatures.jpg where the picture as a whole is not copyrighted material, only the five separate statues within it. Any smaller than it currently is and you wouldn't be able to make out detail. You could also look at it that each copyrighted part of the image is less than 300px as it currently stands; it's like a montage of thumbnails. Do you have any other issues? I've tried to include detailed fair use criteria, but do remember that there are no hard and fast rules here - it's a very grey area of law. GDallimore (Talk) 14:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I've updated the pics so that the three of Thrud are 300px wide and the three of the supporting characters 200px wide (since they're all quite tall). I've also updated the fair use rationales and, in partcular, have explained the reason behind the article having three pictures of Thrud - each is in a different artistic style which is discussed at length in the article. Your thoughts would be appreciated. GDallimore (Talk) 15:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that's essentially a direct quote. Thrud's a great read! As for the resolution thing. I hunted and hunted when I first uploaded the pics as to what counted as "low resolution" and couldn't and still can't find any good discussion on the point. It's something I think is seriously lacking in the whole non-free media policy pages but don't know how to go about resolving it.

As for 3a and 8. Please note the more detailed comments I've added on the three pictures of Thrud explaining why they are clearly of encyclopedic value given the legacy of Thrud. Hope you recognise those three are fine. The other pics are more difficult to justify, and I will address concerns you might have on FAC directly since I agree that reaching a broad consensus on those is worthwhile. GDallimore (Talk) 17:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Abdeslam Boulaich

With regards to your note on my talk page, the remainder of my comment was cut off; a simple search in English found 1,800 hits on Abdeslam Boulaich. Obviously, not all will be useful, but several of the hits (book on Amazon, part of university-level course reading, etc.) are sufficient to establish that a speedy deletion is in fact inappropriate. Beyond that, I would ask that you assume good faith on the part of your fellow editors, and avoid making completely unwarranted threats suggestions about AN/I reports. Note that the speedy deletion policy explicitly states that "deletion is not required if a page meets these criteria" and "Any editor who is not the creator of a page may remove a speedy tag from it." Speedies are a request for deletion, not a directive. As an administrator, I'm expected to assess your request, determine if it is warranted, and act accordingly. As an editor, I'm entitled to disagree with your opinion. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Out of respect for your reply, I've changed "threat" to "suggestion". However, that doesn't change my underlying concern that you would consider this as being even remotely worthy of an AN/I report. Those are generally reserved for serious issues, not minor disagreements over content (which is what this is.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Elcobbola! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page.

Finally, I'd like to appologise for any delay, and wish you luck with VandalProof! Ale_Jrb^talk 19:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Final Fantasy XI

Do you have any other concerns with the article (other than the ones already raised that have to be corrected)? Just wanted to follow up. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

If you have the time, I would be honored :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

What do you honestly think about the image size? I think as they are they are too small; they were a lot bigger before, and I reduced them, but my concern is they are tiny now, and doesn't fair use allow use to have them be larger so they are easier to see? Thanks.Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok thanks! That makes sense. I'll get on your corrections today, see if I can wrap up this nomination in a favorable way :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Added a bunch of content, so it probably wont need too much more reviewing, boy this one is exhausting! :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou

		The Reviewers Award
		I Woody, do hereby give Elcobbala this reviewers award for all the hard work and excellent reviews you give at the FAC process. They are much appreciated. Thankyou. Woody (talk) 11:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

About deletion debate

Who is going to close the deletion debate for Yukiko Tamaki? It has gone on for days, now.Kitty53 (talk) 21:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD is patrolled regularly. Closure will occur when consensus is reached or if it is determined that no action will be taken. There have been contributions from new editors as early as yesterday; the debate is, therefore, still on-going and closure does not appear to be warranted at this time. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 21:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Final Fantasy V

Someone has asked if we can use images from an unofficial English translation of this game, as we use I think two in the article. Is that ok? Is there a rule against it? Thanks for all your help! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I cut the Active time battle screenshot because that is not nearly as important as the job system, which is one of the big differences between this game and others. On the question of the crystal image, true it shows the crystal, but it is the only image that shows what the non-combat portion of the game looks like, when your traveling and exploring. What do you say to that? Is there another image that could go in its place, or should it stay? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll look them over again, I just think it makes sense to keep, since that is the perspective of 80% of the game, so to really show what the game looks like, we should have one I think...what do you think of the FMV image at the bottom of the story article? Or the box cover of the Gameboy Advance version? Your thoughts are appreciate, but sorry if I have so many questions! :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: DotA FAC

I've removed the statement you found not supported. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

...And I've added another source to the ESWC line. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I've replied to your queries about the reliability of the three sources mentioned. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Just so you don't forget.. *bump* Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Two FAC medals; comments

Hi Elcobbola,

• There are two FAC awards in fact: {{CRM}} and {{ReviewersAward}}.
• Errm, I should have said this a long long long time ago. I apologize. Remember Covering of the Senne? geometry guy, who is a gentleman and a scholar, priased your review. i saw much to like.. many useful comments! Most of them on the mark! But I also saw a serious problem with overlooking big problems while failing for irrelevant (in the sense of, not mentioned in WP:WIAGA) trivia. It has actually been bothering me ever since. So.. sorry to be full of vinegar... dislike me if you want; but I had to say something. You seem to be becoming a mainstay at FAC and GAN. :-)

Later! Ling.Nut (talk) 08:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no dislike of you Ling, quite the contrary. As someone whose real life and Wiki activities almost exclusively involve scrutiny and review, I absolutely appreciate the articulation of concerns – even if it’s airing of old laundry.

Covering of the Senne was failed due to the implications of this comment, which came from a nominator who had been combative and terse throughout the process. This ultimatum, in my interpretation, meant the nominator was not willing to work with me to find alternative solutions - the purpose of hold and the GA process itself. When cooperation is off the table, the review ends; it's that simple. It was not failed due to “trivia” and, frankly, my grounds were absolutely supported by GA criterion 1A: “the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct”. At GAR, the nominator was not able to defend his position on his own devices.

Every last reviewer misses something, from the greats like Sandy, Tony, Karanacs, and so on, to the lowly folks like me. The only “big problem”, a subjective interpretation, was the thoroughness of the lead, which, for my purposes, was satisfactory. It’s unfortunate that the event soured your opinion of me, but the ultimate outcome of the spectacle was an excellent article, which, frankly, should probably be running for FA; a Machiavellian interpretation I happen to like. It did, however, result in the GA process permanently losing an active reviewer. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 14:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

"Senne" resulted in a reviewer quitting? I missed that part. Hope I didn't say anything that went down wrong; I thought I was relatively restrained... I also was of the impression that the editor was bending way over backwards to be helpful and even compliant (though.. the idea of editors being "compliant" and being in an unequal relationship with a GA reviewer strikes me as being very wrong; GA reviewers are just editors...), but merely questioned your judgment on that final point. My memory may be wrong. It usually is. My memory sucks, and I am not joking... I'll go back and look at it in the near future. I'm truly swamped with real-life probs right now.... I just now glanced, and see at the end: "Article is very close to a GA and only minor changes are needed for a successful nomination." If the probs were minor, then why not heed the advice of {{sofixit}} — unless the editor disputed the veracity of the probs... in which case (if I had been reviewing) I would've left a message on the talk page of an old hand to ask for a second opinion (I really dislike that Second Opinion template process). The tone... "Either way, the removal of those words is needed." That's a very ex cathedra tone to take with a hard-working editor. The presence of such a tone often goes a long way toward explaining why folks dig their heels in the sand after a certain amount of time. It also goes a long way toward explaining why hard-working editors come away from GA with a bitter taste in their mouths... Sorry to speak so bluntly. I don't know any easy way to say somewhat negative things. Again, apologies. Ling.Nut (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Please critically analyse my language. Requiring compliance is absurd and an utter mischaracterization of my stance. Cooperation, my word (notice the “co” prefix), is what was needed. I will go to great lengths to work with a nominator to reach a mutual understanding; “digging one’s heels into the sand”, regardless of perceived impetus, is an unacceptable rejection of the collaborative process.

I didn’t exactly slap my reviews together in 5 minutes; reviews are a serious time investment. It’s perhaps a philosophical stance, but I have no obligation to make corrections myself after such investment. Alternatively, if I had made the corrections, Senne would never have gone to GAR for uncovering of “big problems”. “Either way, the removal of those words is needed” is far from papal fiat; it’s unfortunate that people are so thinly skinned as to perceive it as such. You’ll find I’m ultimately not receptive to criticism founded in unwarranted sensitivity or the failings of the English language. It may assist you to place yourself in my shoes and re-evaluate the events from my perspective, as it appears you have not yet done so (I don't mean that to be snippy; remember, too, that cultural impressions of "curtness" are no doubt at play here). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 16:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• (undent) Sorry if my remarks seem inappropriate to you. I understand and appreciate that you are a valuable (and valued) contributor to both the GA and FA processes. I also am aware that you invest a great deal of time and craftsmanship into your reviews.
• GA is the most frequent point of entry for newbies (both as nominating editors and as reviewers) who would like to start getting serious about Wikipedia. They are frequently self-conscious and thin-skinned simply because they are newbies. This is a reality that we need to accomodate. Moreover, since there is certainly a degree to which perceptions of curtness are culture-driven, then this idea might at least merit consideration: perhaps moving toward the cultural common denominator might be the culturally sensitive thing to do. What I mean is this: being "customer service with a smile" nice is not considered curt or rude in any English-speaking culture that I'm aware of. Moreover... there are ego issues at play among the nominating editors, more so at GA than FA. Passing GA merely means an article is "acceptable". Failing GA often (but not always) means that the article simply sucks... and so a GA fail is an ego blow. BUT... no matter. My primary concerns were a fail for invalid or at most (as you stated in the review) minor reasons (though it would have been valid to fail it on grounds of WP:LEAD) plus an unwillingness to {{sofixit}}. You seem to fundamentally disagree with both those points of my comments, so that's probably where we'll have to leave it. Sorry if I troubled you. Ling.Nut (talk) 05:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, unfortunately we will have to agree to disagree about the appropriateness of the failure and phrasing. I find “customer service nice” to be patronizing and facetious. I respect the mental and emotional fortitude and maturity of those with whom I interact enough not to sugar coat my words, especially when they’ve elicited an unbiased and earnest assessment of their work. For what it’s worth, I do think sofixit has merit (I am, for example, the third most active editor on Heuschrecke 10, an article for which I have only ever interacted in my capacity as GA and FA reviewer). As I alluded, however, a combative nominator is going to preclude my “going the extra mile”. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 05:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I think the problem you and I face is that we are operating from fundamentally different perceptions about the nature of the nominating editor's interaction with you. You perceived him/her as being combative. From my point of view, precisely the opposite was the case. I perceived him/her as being very eager to please for a long while, then finally disagreeing on one particular point, to the degree that he/she felt unwilling to accept your suggestion. From this initial divergence of my perception and yours, or so it seems to me, flow all our subsequent disagreements. I was quite surprised that you would be unwilling to simply {{sofixit}} such a minor problem, but your unwillingness stems from your perception that the nominating editor was combative. I was surprised that you would Fail rather than discuss further or consult with others, but (same as above). SO... thanks for all your hard work for the encyclopedia. You deserve kudos on a large number of points. Best regards, Ling.Nut (talk) 06:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

PS — Just as an FYI, I think the word you were looking for was "fatuous" instead of "facetious". I suppose you may also have been reaching for "specious," but that one doesn't seem to fit quite as well as "fatuous" does. later and thanks Ling.Nut (talk) 13:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Facetious: "lacking serious intent; concerned with something nonessential, amusing, or frivolous", but yours are better, indeed. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 13:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Did you see my post just above that started, "I think the problem you and I..."?
• I thought of "facile" while I was in the shower this morning, but that doesn't seem to work as well either. The only use of "facetious" I've ever seen was "cleverly amusing in tone", as given on http://www.onelook.com/?w=facetious&ls=a.
• You really are doing good work.
• Ling.Nut (talk) 00:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Nope, I missed it. I think you’re absolutely correct; our differing perceptions of the interaction caused a stark divergence early in the logical/philosophical interpretation of events. I suspect you and I would actually agree on a great many Wiki issues. It’s unfortunate Senne caused such discord.
• I’ll take your word for it. My internal monologue is a jumble of languages, so the right thing doesn't always make it out. English is definitely not the strongest.
• Thank you for the kind words. I do, by the way, genuinely appreciate that you brought your concerns to my attention. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 01:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Another FAC task

Thanks for all you've done to help lighten the load, Elcobbola. This is another thing I have to do; when an FFA comes up, I have to remember that, so that when I add it to WP:FA (if it passes), I'll remember to add the "been on main page" template, and it has to be moved at WP:FFA to the bottom of the page. I put it in red so I won't miss it if it's promoted. I also have to watch for these; some editors (e.g.; Awadewit) can shephard more than one FAC at a time, most can't, and I'll give him a choice of which to withdraw, and then if I don't hear from him, make the decision myself. You could put out those notes if you notice. Thanks again. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem at all, I'm on it. Let me know if you think of more. ;) ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 20:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Remove sub-sections whenever you see them? I just switch them to a semi-colon, which causes a bolding without the sub-section. Also remove those irritating little graphics,  Done ... grrrr ... This will all by so helpful, since I have a houseful of testosterone home for the last two weeks of March, and I'll be busy ... and travel in April ... and graduations in May ... take good care of Dwaipayanc, TS wouldn't be FA were it not for his early help when I was a clueless newbie :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Cobbola, another thing to be aware of is at User:SandyGeorgia/Glitter; timesink. By the way, Ima Hogg might make it to FAC in time for April Fools. Can you pre-check the image? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Over my head alert. I just want you to make it all good and fine, with no pain, LOL. :-))) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you know how to track down a release on this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Have time for one more? Still trying to get through my watchlist this a.m. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for all the ongoing help.[2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the Village Pump aspect is getting to be hard to keep up with. I meant the issue of immediate re-noms; in this case, it took about half an hour to deal with it, just as I was tired and trying to hit the sack. Remove from talk page, revert the fac page to the GimmeBot version, remove from WP:FAC, and explain to the nominator that they need to seek out feedback, FAC doesn't work well as peer review, if the article garnered no support, they should work to discover why ... that's why I try to promote daily, but archive less frequently ... time needed to deal with disappointed nominators. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I typed up instructions on withdraws in case you come across any. Please only do this if it's a clear case where the nominator requests withdrawal. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You read my mind! I saw your comment about hoping others would help out (don't recall where?) and had meant to sign up with the caveat that we get a shiny instruction set. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 12:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Mr. and Mrs. Iyer FAC

Thanks for your pointing out the faults in the Fair Use rationale of certain images of the article. Some have been removed. Rhe fair use rationale for Image:MrMrsIyerPoster.jpg has been expanded. Please see and comment if the image satisfies FU criteria now. Thanks. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Ham Day

Wow, look at all the cool images in the links here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Note on images

Hi -- I was interested to see the MOS images point you made at the Discovery Expedition FAC; I hadn't seen that before. As I said on the FAC, I think there's some risk of conflict between that and other MOS image requirements, though I agree it's desirable to get the image away from the heading if it can be done. I've proposed a weakening of the guideline, at WT:MOS#Suggested change to images section, and I thought you might like to comment there. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 13:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Paleolithic-style diet

Hi, I noticed that you added a banner on the the article's talk page indicating that the article will appear on the main page on March 20. Did you chose that date for a specific reason, or was it randomly selected? Anyways thanks! --Phenylalanine (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Image guru!

O image guru, what license sould I put on a Flickr image? See Antonio de Montesinos. Thanks! Ling.Nut (talk) 14:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

PS -- uh oh, the image seems to be copyrighted. I thought everything on Flickr had a free license of some sort. Ling.Nut (talk) 14:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Ima Hogg photo

I sent an inquiry to the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston where I introduced myself as a Wikipedia editor, told them about or project and our goals for the Ima Hogg article and asked about the copyright status of this image. I received a reply from a museum staff member who directed me to the "Rights and Reproductions" department and gave me a phone number to call. I'm not sure exactly what to do next... The email also included a link to the museum's general reproduction policies, listed here. The email didn't identify the photographer (even though I asked). Let me know if you have any bright ideas.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 18:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia sent me over here. Can we assume that http://www.cah.utexas.edu/exhibits/WinedaleStory/blue1/blue1b.html is out of copyright? Corvus cornix_talk 18:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, well. Thanks. Corvus cornix_talk 19:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Status update from Karanacs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

One of the pictures I wanted to use from the book is the same one that Corvus cornix linked to above. There's another that is of Miss Ima "at the turn of the century" that she had given to a friend in 1975. She signed this one "Imogene", so we may be able to get it under fair use to illustrate the fact that she called herself Imogene later in life??? Karanacs (talk) 18:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

No, there's nothing else unique about the image. Nuts. Karanacs (talk) 19:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Card

Greetings from Kitty53

Happy St. Patrick's Day! -- Kitty53 (talk) 20:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Happy St. Patrick's Day! I hope I was not interrupting you from something, but Happy St. Patrick's Day, anyway!Kitty53 (talk) 20:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Connecticut Wing Civil Air Patrol

You reviewed my article, CTWG, a while ago for FAC. I responded to your comments and haven't heard back yet - just posting here to request you look at my replies. Codharris (talk) 21:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• I've addressed your remaining concerns. Let me know what you think! Codharris (talk)` —Preceding comment was added at 01:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You've got mail

It relates to this.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Next challenge; to see if we have an image in Commons of any of the artwork Ima Hogg donated to MFAH, or if we can get any. I found some images here; I can't find a list of the works at MFAH she donated, don't know what to do next? If you and TFMWNCB put your heads together and talked to the people at MFAH, could we add another image of one of the most notable pieces of artwork she donated? Also, somewhere in my reading (I can't find it now) I came across info that Remington's Bronco Buster was a Hogg Brothers donation to MFAH, but the info on this image says differently. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

ah, ha, I see there were 20 of them ... maybe TFMWNCB can ask the MFAH people? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure I'll send my new archivist friend an email tomorrow morning; seems like a helpful lady. Cheers, The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 23:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

A lot (all?) of those images are Frederic Remington (finally, we know an author!), who died in 1909; his works would fall into PD under life of author +70 years. Commons already has a few: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Frederic_Remington. The "PERMISSION REQUIRED FOR NON EDITORIAL USAGE" is actually nonsense, per Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. copies of public domain images can not be protected. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 01:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

So The Fat Man could just find out which ones in that category are at MFAH and were from the Hoggs? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and/or we could just add images that indicate "Gift of Miss Ima Hogg", "Hogg Brothers Collection", etc. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 01:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know much about art; didn't see anything that tickled my fancy. Maybe TFM can ask MFAH what they have that is of particular interest that is in PD? If not, we can just add one of those at the end? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. MFAH might have an interesting tidbit or two; perhaps a certain piece has particular significance to Ima of which we are not currently aware. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 01:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Peale http://www.worcesterart.org/Collection/Early_American/Artists/peale_j/biography/content.html
• More here (Klee) http://www.bridgeman.co.uk/search/r_results.asp?Location=Museum+of+Fine+Arts+Houston+Texas+USA&view=2&page=13

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I contacted the archivist again this morning, as promised. I asked her which of the pieces of art (or furniture, etc.) donated by Miss Ima and her family were the most notable/important/beloved. The archivist also wants to know if the "Ima Hogg Papers" (summarized here) would be useful to us in any way. I have posted an update of my endeavors on the Hogg talk page here. Regards, The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 10:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The summary indicates "a substantial portion of the papers pertains to Ima Hogg's civic activities with the Houston School Board, Houston Symphony, and Hogg Foundation for Mental Health"; there would certainly seem to be potential for useful material there. Such a helpful archivist; she must be new (soul not yet crushed by years of toil in caverns of files?) ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 15:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Query for you here. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

OH, look! Can you do whatever we do to add them? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Connecticut Wing (again)

Elcobbola, I've taken another look at those remaining two points of opposition on CTWG. Please let me know what you think. Codharris (talk) 12:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

2005 ACC Championship Game image

I've been trying to address your comment on the FAC for the 2005 ACC Championship Game article, but haven't had any luck getting a decision or advice on what the license for that should be. Do you have any suggestions? JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay then. It's been removed. If there's no choice -- though it's a damn shame that I can't use a picture I took myself. JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you think you could take a look at the article itself? I'm trying to gather comments, but it's an uphill struggle. It's difficult to get comments on single-game college football articles, and I'd appreciate anything you'd care to contribute. Thanks. JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Completely understand. Thanks. JKBrooks85 (talk) 20:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Any comments you'd care to make at any time would be greatly appreciated. JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

If you could take a look at the article, I'd greatly appreciate it. Yours is the last opinion I'd like to get before resubmitting at FAC. JKBrooks85 (talk) 21:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've been waiting for the other folks to comment before I jumped in. I expect to get to it tomorrow evening. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 01:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. I've been working on developing 2006 ACC Championship Game in the meantime. Just need to get that one and the ACC Championship Game article done, and I'll have my first featured topic. JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I know you're busy and all, but tomorrow has come and gone. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Today. Hell or high water. If I can't find time to type, I'll scan the markup in and email it. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 12:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. You've given me a lot to work on, and I'm looking forward to digging in. JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

CC licensed flickr; can you do the "verified by"?

Elcobbola,

I found some CC licensed images on Flickr I wanna use. Are you able to do the "trusted user" thing for the license? If not, I'll try to find someone else.. thanks! Ling.Nut (talk) 09:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Treehouse of Horror V

Moved feedback to Peer review please reply there. Buc (talk) 12:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Please use the correct Peer review. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Ima FAC

Thanks -- I think I must have hit Preview instead of Save when I tried to add it to the FAC page. I appreciate you noticing :) Karanacs (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Glad to help; we can't have poor Ima sitting in limbo. ;) ЭLСОВВОLД _talk

Eva Cassidy FAC

Hi, waiting for your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Eva Cassidy. Thanks. --165.21.154.90 (talk) 02:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

HALP with Hogg

The woman from the MFAH rights and reproductions department seems willing to hand over a number of images for our use--this is potentially great news. I think she wants to talk licenses and needs the address of the Foundation and God knows what else. I don't know how to broach her email, but I think we are closing to getting a bunch of photos from the museum. I have copied the relevant portions of our correspondence here; your advice on how to proceed would be appreciated.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Responded there. Thanks again for playing liaison. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 00:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the museum will be sending me a much higher quality version of the lead Hogg portrait today. See my post here. I'm intrigued by the archivist's description "lovely sepia-toned print." Will this cause any licensing issues, because our source would no longer be a website but rather an emailed jpg file? The image itself is still in the public domain.....--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 17:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope, no issue if it's a different version of the same image. It's still coming from MFAH, so the only thing we'd need to do is remove the website footnote. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 18:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It took me long enough, but I finally uploaded the new version. It's not as high contrast as the one User:Mytwocents manipulated, but this one has a much higher resolution, and the sepia tone more accurately represents the museum's print. I've also edited the image source to indicate the image came directly from the museum. (i.e., eliminated Rice-by-way-of-MFAH language). Let me know if everything looks okay.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 10:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

To quote Anton Chigurh, "Well done!" Wikipedia owes you a Coke. I'll fire up Photoshop and fix blotches, contrast, etc. this evening. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 14:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks nice! Thanks as always, Elcobbola.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

"Miss Ima"

	Nice job on "Miss Ima"!
	To all of the excellent editors who were part of the Karanacs-led collaboration to bring Ima Hogg to featured status, it was a pleasure working with you on such a fine article about a great lady. Thank you so much for your contribution to this fun collaboration. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You've used the image with the uncertain copyright status. I'm shocked and appalled. Thanks, whip-cracker ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 03:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

uh, oh. Is that going to get me into trouble? I thought it was OK Wikiwide, but uncertain for the main page. No wonder I hate images. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It's likely to be PD, but we don't have enough information to make that determination (i.e. it shouldn't be used and should probably be deleted). I wouldn't worry, though; I'm probably the only one who would notice. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 01:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

If you think it's important, I'll have to go back and now switch them all (and there's a boatload :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not; I'm just giving you a hard time. ;) (For some reason, I thought Raul had already updated the maindate...) ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 12:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

No, he doesn't do that; I'm glad I got to beat you to it in this case (I got attached to "Miss Ima", and when she takes a beating on the main page, it's gonna tick me off). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the edit summary threw me off. It will be interesting to see what the main page is like; I don't think I've had a watch-listed article up before. I actually hope Oliver never gets up. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 16:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not cope well with mainpage day :-) Ima should take a real beating, but hopefully lots of people will be watching round the clock, since we've had so many helpers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It begins! ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 00:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

And 24 hours is a long time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Blue Iguana

I removed both pics, screw these guys if they don't know how to release their work so it's actually useable. In the meantime I have a few requests out for properly licensed photos.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that. Sorry for the hassle, too, but when Jimbo even writes an email... I don't know whether you've done this already, but I'm happy to look through Flickr for licenses that work, if you’d like. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 16:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Mike! Such language :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Avert your eyes, Sandy. This is no place for a lady. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 16:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Mummy FAC

I've removed all but the original cast image, and added a more extensive FUR. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing my concerns. For what it’s worth, I’m not as strict as I appear. A purist would likely only accept truly iconic moments (e.g. Cary Grant running from a crop duster, Gene Kelly swinging from a light pole, Demi at a pottery wheel, etc.) and, although a part of me agrees with that, I usually believe that every media article (film, tv episode, etc) should have one screenshot. Humans are visual creatures and I think there’s something, albeit perhaps indefinable, about an image’s ability to make something feel complete. There is, therefore, an odd “comprehensiveness” aspect to it. Additionally, there is an inherent illustration of cinematography, which is unique to the director and/or film; folks are paid six and seven figure salaries to impart a certain visual style, so, although I can’t always explicitly identify it, there’s some merit to the inclusion of a screenshot. Would this logic stand up to NFCC? Probably not, but I’d never raise issue with the use of a single, reasonable screenshot. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 21:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Righto. I'm going to see about finding a good image of the Mummy for special effects as per Erik's suggestions (that was the original reason for the Mummy image, but I couldn't find one which directly faced.) I may have to break out the screen capture... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

If you do include that, though, it too will have the cinematography (and would indeed probably be preferable). I would, however, likely have to object to the "cast" again, as the cinematography function would become redundant (NFCC#3A) and free images of Fraser and Weisz (Hannah is a minor figure) could be used to the same effect without the NFCC#1 violation. Per Family Guy's Spiderman, "everybody gets one". ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 22:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Any chance you're going to answer my question about Fight Club since you promised? :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I will, indeed. Real life beacons at the moment, however (clients need a report Friday). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 18:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I wasn't looking for a detailed answer, just approval of an example that David could use for The Mummy. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

MoS question

Elcobbola, I don't have time to read through this long thread at MoS until later tonight, but I was hoping you'd take a look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Images issue

SlimVirgin pointed out this site Icons that seems to be the origin of some images on Commons. Specifically This one, but I suspect there are others also. Any ideas on what to do? Ealdgyth - Talk 02:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The uploaded image is originally from this site, and is a slightly different version (lighter, different angle, etc) than the aidanharticons.com version. The origin site identifies the image as Gemeinfreiheit (public domain), which I’m inclined to believe (assuming this is several hundred years old). Although aidanharticons.com asserts “All images are copyright and can not be used for commercial purposes without permission”, they are not actually able to claim copyright per the ruling Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., as their version lacks the prerequisite originality. Long story short, no action appears needed. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 02:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

See this page also, where it is claimed it is free for use. Image:StWilfrid.jpg. The main page of the artist though, says no commercial use. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at it more closely. That's English on the icon. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, as I (perhaps too implicitly) said, "assuming this is several hundred years old". Latin would indeed be better ;) Let me check around... ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 02:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll let you and User:Durova handle it. It's in good hands (grins) SlimVirgin actually found the website, I just babbled on the Augustine FAC enough for her to go looking. Now back to my own pictures! Ealdgyth - Talk 03:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Durova already did. I suppose it would depend of whether Hart creates replicas of existing icons or whether the works are all original; folks snatching images rarely bother to change orientations, contrast, etc. to hide the copyvio, but the English does seem out of place. Ultimately, given the uncertainty, I think Durova made the right call in deleting it. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 03:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought of that. It could be that the other website took a photo of his icon where it was hanging, thus explaining the difference. I tend to agree that better to be safe than sorry. The Wilfrid one specifically says it's from Hart but free for commercial usage, which his site disclaims. This is why all my stuff that goes up on the web is watermarked rather large (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 03:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC) - Oh, and enjoy having Oliver up tomorrow! (grins) Ealdgyth - Talk 03:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm envious that you're accomplished enough as an artist/photographer for it to matter; I take lousy photos of my typewriters and my shoes (which Sandy thinks are stilettos) and cast them into PD. Oliver's going to be a blast! ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 03:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Not my fault; you were the one complaining about your shoes at work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Dictator novel

Hi! Sandy suggested I contact you for advice regarding some images in the above article, which I'm currently GA reviewing. It contains three non-free book covers, and I'm not sure whether or not their use can be justified in the article. They also lack proper FUR's at the moment, but this can be easily fixed if they belong. I'd be very grateful for your thoughts... All the best, EyeSerene^talk 09:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much, that's massively helpful. I was thinking along those lines myself, but wasn't sure if my reading of the non-free criteria was too strict. Your explanation has framed and clarified my rather wooly thoughts into words superbly, so I'll pass that on to the article editors. Your help is much appreciated! EyeSerene^talk 16:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a first

You don't see that every day on Wiki; I had to whois the IP to prove myself right (that it would resolve to Colombia or Venezuela). Sheesh, why do they care about a typewriter company? I hope you had fun today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, Oliver had sales in Argentina. I didn't know they sold that particular body part... ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 19:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Emile Lemoine FAC

I responded to your comment there. If need be, we can transfer it to en.wiki and {{PD-US}} it. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 20:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

My concern is that we don’t want to be misinforming or giving false assurance that the image is PD. Without knowing the date of first publication, we can’t make a determination. Given that the image is French, using the “American” {{PD-US}} is sort of a double-whammy. We’re not supposed to upload when we don’t know, but I'm almost inclined to invoke WP:IAR, as removing the photo would seem to be a determent. To be safe, then, I'd just use a FU license (again, to avoid claiming PD). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 14:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Kannada literature

Hi. The images you had a problem with have now been commented out. Are there any other issues you would like to bring up to improve the article.thanksDineshkannambadi (talk) 17:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Commenting out is not the optimal choice, as it could give a passing editor impetus to uncomment without considering the WP:NFCC implications. This, however, resolves my concerns. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 14:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to mention, also, to double check for weasel words; they appear to abound (e.g. “although some poets continued…”, “Some historians credit…”, “has been ascribed by some scholars…”, etc.) ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 14:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I will let Risker, the user helping me with copy edits also aware of this. Thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

FAC comment

As seen here. It has been addressed. Did you have any further concerns? Thanks for your time, Lara❤Love 04:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thus the strike. :) Otherwise perhaps double check for peacockery, e.g. "legendary comedian Bill Hicks". ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 14:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Order of the Stick

So, I've been directed to your Talk page by User:Ealdgyth during the peer review of The Order of the Stick about images. In particular, I have the following question: I've emailed the creator and asked for permission to use the images, which would naturally bypass all Fair Use considerations. Assuming that he responds to my email and agrees, how would I go about showing that on the image's page? It would likely be only an email that I would get back; is it enough for me to simply state, "The creator of these images has given permission via email"? I'd assume not, so how could I prove it?

And if permission is not forthcoming, what could I do to "shore up" the Fair Use rationale of the images already in place in order to hold up to a Feature Article nomination? I'm pretty confident about the book cover and the game box cover, but the rest seem like they could go either way if someone really wanted to fight them. --Ig8887 (talk) 18:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Jack Kemp image objection

I have clarified the text that relates to Image:Dole Kemp Time Magazine cover.jpg. I have clarified the fair usage claims for Image:Jackkemp1988brochure.gif and Image:Dolekemp1996.gif. Please reconsider your opposition or help me to further address your concerns.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 17:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to be impatient and I know you have been active today in deliberations about El Señor Presidente, but I have been working furiously today to respond to three sudden opposes that showed up at the Jack Kemp FAC. I was hoping you could take a quick look at my response to your concerns.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 02:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Going up more-or-less alone against the bulk of the FA reviewers is indeed ... time constraining. I'll do my best to respond in a couple of hours. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 14:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and Good luck.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

This is forthcoming, by the way. I did the MF building first, as it is up at FAC. I'm still pondering the Kemp image issues. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 19:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I have renominated Jack Kemp which you previously opposed. I made a very solid effort to improve its grammar and structure, which I mentioned to you previously. I also have augmented the article by adding additional quality sources. I hope for your support now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 00:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way

Has anyone thanked you lately for the great job and hard work you do? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		To Elcobbola, who is hands-down the go-to guy on Wiki for image questions, and a helpful, all-round great contributor! Thanks for all you do at FAC to help assure that the mainpage truly displays Wiki's finest work. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

NFCC 8 revisited

You were involved in this discussion, so I thought you might be interested in Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Criterion 8 objection. howcheng {chat} 21:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Ima Hogg image adjustment

Thanks for adjusting the contrast of the new, higher-resolution Ima Hogg picture. It looks so much better. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Much appreciated, Bellhalla. Always glad to help Miss Ima look her best. ;) ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 21:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The Office (U.S. TV series)

Elcobbola, would you mind checking Wikipedia:Featured article review/The Office (U.S. TV series) for image issues and leaving a note on the FAR? (When are you going to add FAR to your checklist?  :-)) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

A media article on a topic with which I'm actually familiar; say it ain't so. I'll check it over and, scary and new though it may be, I'll add FAR, too. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 14:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I've put about six hours into it; we could save it with a bit more elbow grease (the regular editors aren't very FA knowledgeable). Do you want to dig in? Search the text for <! to find all my inline queries. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look at The Office and Janet, as they've been requested of me, but I think I might bow out of FA reviewing for a bit. This, this (including article edit summary) and the ahem are too snippy and too close together chronologically to just shrug off. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 19:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

EC, everyone knows that what you do is hard and brings you under fire. You know you have my support; you know I'll defend you; I hope you know I'm trying to address this issue on a large scale. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way ... :-) I'm very unhappy about the blog attack on you: very unhappy. But ... remind me some time when I have more free time to show you the list of online and blog attacks made on me as a result of FAC/FAR work :-) I've got lots of scars, lots of lies out there in the blogosphere and on the 'net, and even a trip to ArbCom as a result. Wear your scar proudly; it's because you do a good job where no one else dares tread. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Sandy; I'll stick with it. Copyvios really can't go unchecked. I'd have to see attacks on you to believe it; you're almost civil to the point of absurdity. ;) (Although I do hear you're an income tax slacker). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 20:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ha ... if you don't know about the attacks on me that resulted from my FAC/FAR work, I shall leave you blissfully unaware ... no good ever comes from poking around around in dried mud :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I was going to ask but I see Sandy beat me to it. If you have any questions about image use in that article, talk to me because I do have some expertise there. Daniel Case (talk) 10:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Sandy's speedy, no doubt about it. I've entered thoughts at the FAR. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 14:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

EC, where does this stand? I'm trying to get things moving at the bottom of the FAR page, as the list is growing. Also, where does HRC stand? Are the images issues cleared up there ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Image help

Since your our resident image expert, would you mind taking a look a this? Is my logic flawed? Thanks :) Acer (talk) 19:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Another FAC review request

Could you take a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Janet Jackson? The article uses six non-free screenshots (from movies, TV) primarily for the purpose of "this is how the subject in question looked in the movie." That doesn't constitute fair-use does it; I don't see how they add significantly to the article. Thanks, indopug (talk) 04:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your concerns. I hope to add comments today (articles with a lot of media take me a while). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 16:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

My RfA...

Thank you...

...for your participation in my RFA, which closed with 85 supports, 2 neutrals and 1 oppose. I'm extremely grateful for all the the kind comments from so many brilliant Wikipedians I've come to respect and admire, as well as many others I've not yet had the pleasure of working with, and I'll do my best to put my shiny new mop and bucket to good use! Once again, thank you ;)
EyeSerene^talk 16:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/NeXT

I have replied to your concerns regarding the images on the NeXT article. Please reply back on that page ASAP. Thanks! — Wackymacs (talk) 20:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Bolivar image help? Plus apology

Hiya. We've been advised to seek your sage advice on a suitable image of Simón Bolívar. I wonder if you would at all be able to spare the time to help?

We've also been advised to be nice.  :) And I should say that it was only yesterday (piecing things together rather indirectly) that I realized you felt that we hadn't been nice. I apologize for that.

I think the fault was all mine, for inadvertently publicizing a blog post that the author didn't realize could become so public. Though I should say, in the author's mitigation, that I don't think she meant anything she said as an insult; rather, she was perhaps a little frustrated at aspects of the FAC process, understandably in some ways for someone who is not used to such fora.

So let me say that we do appreciate your commentary, opinions, and advice very much. We'd love it if you were able to help out in this hunt for a suitable image of the liberator. Thanks. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 23:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe in fact we feel we can cancel the search for your help and advice. The apology, however, does of course stand.  :) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Spira (Final Fantasy)

Would you look at this article and tell me which images you feel could be used? There are waaay too many, and I want to reduce down to two-three. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a good way to approach it might be to have you (as someone knowledgeable of Spira or, at least, more knowledgeable than I) sift through and remove/comment out the more obvious offenders and then have me pay a visit. I am, however, happy to tackle it as-is, too. Are there any particular images about which you're concerned or, conversely, believe are absolutely necessary? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 17:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Getting It: The psychology of est

Thanks for your comment at the WP:FAC, in response I uploaded a lower resolution image, and also reduced the display size in the article itself. Cirt (talk) 14:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

I have resolved your issues at the Michael Jackson FA, i would appreciate it if you took a further look and possibly endorse FA. Realist2 (talk) 21:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I have resolved your issues, please return. Realist2 (talk) 22:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

On a side note to this you have raised an issue about pictures. There is a guy who is obseesed with adding them, can you stop him?Realist2 (talk) 22:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The best way to approach it would be to leave a polite note on the user's page letting them know that the policy exists and suggesting that it may be best if fair use images/audio were discussed before being added. We need to AGF; they probably believe the images are helping and just aren't aware of the policy. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 00:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I dont know how to do fair use rationals so my only option is to delete. Ok ill delete that last pic. Add more advise or even support the article. ;-) Realist2 (talk) 22:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanx for going out of your way on the Thriller song even though its a subject that probably doesn't interest you in the least. Cheers. Also in a little confused about something. Ive used a biography in the article a number of times so have cleverly used the abbreviation technigue to cut down all the mess. However one reviewer sais I should give specific individual page numbers for every usage. That would mean I would have to write the source out in FULL everytime. Is this good advise? I dont think its nessary and kind of goes against the idea of the "name" thing. Can you address this issue. Realist2 (talk) 00:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's very good advice. You'll only need to write the author name and page number if you utilize notes and a bibliography section; see El Señor Presidente as an example. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 00:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you help me with that, ive never done it before and dont know hoe, im the only one that workd on the article, it cant fail over a few page numbers! Please. ;-( Realist2 (talk) 01:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really sure how I can help without a copy of the book. I suppose you could type up a "key" (e.g. ref 9a = page X, ref 9b = page Y, etc.), but that wouldn't seem to be an efficient use of our time. Second thought, let me know the page numbers for the first several references and I'll make sample edits so you can see how it's done. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 01:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

OK sounds good, ill give you the page numbers of the first 5 asap. Realist2 (talk) 01:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

OK , its "The Magic and the Madness book" currently reference 9 i believe. 1st is page 611 , 2nd is page 141. Is that enough for you to start? Realist2 (talk) 01:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Rinse and repeat. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 01:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Easy peasy. Cheers. Realist2 (talk) 01:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I did it. Bloody hell that hurt. Also i added two further pictures from wikicommons (MJ in the late 80's and his star on the hollywood walk of fame. Take a looky, what you think? Good night work or what? Realist2 (talk) 02:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi i have a bunch of pictures ABCDEFGHI. I really need some fair use rationals for some of them to use in the michael jackson and Thriller article. The ones that are most important are, the crotch grab dance pic, the picture of the doll and the pic of Jackson with lisa maria presley. Can you help me, i need good rations to get it through FA. Let me know what you can do, if anything, at my page. Cheers very much. Realist2 (talk) 07:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Im an expert on the guy and everthing important this there, the physical appearance section is rather small but there isny much to say, he had lots of surgury and he looks very different, how do you expand on that lol? A picture of him as a white guy would really help i think. The picture of the doll is for the thriller album. By the way ive done everything that everyone has asked on the MJ FA. Im waiting for some positive feedback from all. Realist2 (talk) 15:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a really good picture here it shows Jackson changings and would be very good for the physical apperance section. Could you get a fair use rational for that. Its very useful, it shows a lightening of skin colour, hair straightening with time, alterations in noise, and lips. All the faces are pointed in the same angle to make comparison as fair as possible. I think its very useful to show the reader how he has Jacked with time. Realist2 (talk) 16:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I added a picture, hope itll be ok. Realist2 (talk) 17:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Maindate

See User talk:Gimmetrow#GA in AH; maybe run backup until we're sure he's got it working? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Replaced by a machine. Signs of the times. No hay problema. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 23:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

GimmeBot isn't a machine; he's a caring, feeling, thinking bunch of ASCII characters :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Where was the caring when he gave poor Elco the boot? Now I'll have to turn to guns and religion. ;) ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 00:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

ohmigosh; provoked strange looks from my husband, who can't understand why my computer makes me laugh :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Quick fair use question

Can you look at the fair use rationale i used on Easy Jet and make sure it passes your muster before I bring the article to FAC? the horse is dead, so I can't go get a picture of him, so fair use it is. I just don't do much fair use... Ealdgyth - Talk 03:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The Muppets' Wizard of Oz

I have removed the unfair images. Is the article ready yet? Limetolime ^{talk to me • look what I did!} 18:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1960 South Vietnamese coup attempt

Pics fixed. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Age of Empires

Replied. Thanks for your work. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I've ended up adding a few more images...can you take another look please. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Depreciated vs. deprecated

Just a note on the usage of the above words… An object that has been superseded—such as an old template on Wikipedia—is deprecated, or not recommended for use, while value of an asset—such as a house or a car—is depreciated, or reduced in value over time. Keep up the good image work at FAC. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, sweet irony. I encounter EBIT and EBITDA as operational measures for use in valuation on a daily basis, so you might say I have a vague familiarity with the distinction. I do appreciate the explanation, but I assure you lazy typing and failings of MS Word -- not comprehension -- are to blame. Although Twain did have it all wrong. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 19:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hope you didn't take offense; certainly none was intended... — Bellhalla (talk) 20:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

No, no, not at all. I had a good laugh (at my own expense, mind you - certainly not yours). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 00:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar of Mayhem!!

		Barnstar of Murder, Madness, and Mayhem
		On behalf of Murder, Madness, and Mayhem, this barnstar is to thank you for your hard work and patience in motivating, mentoring, and moulding the work of student editors, and helping them to achieve excellence in research and writing. For your help with images, and insistence that we get them right. Thank you so much! On behalf of the entire class of UBC's SPAN312. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Qué agradable sorpresa! Muchas gracias. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 02:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Vorsprung durch Technik. (OK, that's about the limit of my Russian ;) .) Again, thanks! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 02:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins FA

Hello Elcobbola. How are you? I noticed that you opposed the FA nomination of Richard Dawkins because of image. You can fix that problem. Elcobbola, I and AC have worked very hard to improve the article. Please don't oppose because of some minor issues. Please reconsider your decision. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I generally oppose at three or more image-related issues - an arbitrary number, to be sure. Although the MOS issue is indeed minor, it's unfortunate that you characterize policy concerns tied directly to a FA criterion as "some minor issues". If you'd like to leave the task of remedying the concerns to me, I have no problem removing the two images and repositioning the other. Let me know whether that's indeed what you'd like me to do. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 05:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, Elcobbola, I was under stress because of the FA. That's why I made that comment. Anyway, please see the article. I have made some changes. Your comments and suggestions will be helpful. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Boys in the Sand GA

First, thank you for listing the article. As you can tell from the talk page and GAR it's been a long and sometimes frustrating process. I'm glad for the positive outcome. I have placed an article history template on the talk page; is it all right to remove the GA fail templates and the GAR outcome template or do they need to stay? Otto4711 (talk) 16:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience; if ever an article got stuck in the system... The templates are only really "needed" in the absence of article history. By all means, remove them; the less clutter the better. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 19:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

re: Image:Prambanan.jpg

Thank you for the help. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 14:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Cropped image question

I have a question for you, who are so wise in the ways of images (and accounting). I'm working on an article about a ship co-named after two notable women. There are images of both (Image:Princess Alice of Albany.jpeg and Image:Alice roosevelt color 3.jpg) on Commons that are full length portraits, and too big, in my opinion, for the ship article. If I were to crop the images to a smallish headshot and upload, how should the images be tagged? Would it be to tag them with the original tags with a note that they are cropped from the original (and provide a link to the original)? Thanks in advance. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

While I'm asking, can you tell me about whether Image:KellyvBeresford.jpg passes muster as far as tagging and such? There's another image from the same site that I'm pondering and would like to know if it would be OK. (It has the identical photo credit at the source website.) — Bellhalla (talk) 21:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd actually argue that you'd get your choice of tags (even non-PD). Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. disallows copyrighting only of exact copies of PD works, as such copies fail the threshold of originality. As your artistic input in this case would include, among others, the choice to use those particular images and the arrangement, portions and proportions thereof, I think there's a reasonable argument to be made that the resulting work is original enough to license as you see fit. That being an untested legal interpretation, however, I'd recommend either using a {{PD-self}} tag to retain PD licensing or, as you've suggested, using both original PD tags (there's precedent for this, but it seems bizarre to mix U.S. and Canadian standards). Either way should pass muster. Do indeed, however, include links to and acknowledgment of the original images (a good use for the "other versions" field - see Image:Oliver Ornamentation.jpg as an example).

Strike that, upon re-reading the derivative works definition, it seems more strict than I had remembered. Using both tags with links to the parent images and a brief explanation would be best. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 18:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I did Image:The-Princesses-Alice.jpg before I read your amended response. Would you be so kind as to take a look and see if what I did needs further clarification or explanation? Thanks. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks just fine; especially since the particular PD status of each of the parents is indicated. The amendment was merely to be certain (I still suspect my reasoning would stand up in litigation ;) ) ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 20:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The other question is tricky; the image is theoretically tagged "correctly", but do we actually know it was published before January 1, 1923? Being created ("taken") and being published are quite different legal notions. I'm uncomfortable representing an image as PD without some degree of reasonable assurance that is indeed the case. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 00:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

2005 ACC Championship Game

About a month ago, you graciously reviewed the article 2005 ACC Championship Game for me. During the past month, I've upgraded the article and incorporated your suggestions. I've just recently resubmitted the article for featured article candidacy, and I'd appreciate it if you could take another look at the article to see if it now meets your FA standards. Any comments, questions, or support would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time. JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll do my best to look at it this weekend. It's supposed to rain (even snow?), so that will no doubt keep me near a computer. You no doubt recall, however, that procrastination is a skill I have finely honed. ;) ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 00:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. You're a popular guy when it comes to FACs. I'll be taking a 12-hour train ride on Sunday, though, so if you don't get to it on Saturday, I may not be able to respond until Monday evening or Tuesday. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hate to be annoying and all, but you know ... JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I did indeed look this weekend. Once again, it's now a matter of writing up the (minor) comments. Certainly no annoyance, and I apologize for my lack of expediency (I'm allowed several months to write RL reports, so I'm afraid I've become more or less accustomed to the "glancing blows" approach). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 12:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that; I just like to stay on top of things and keep things moving. I'm very much a task-oriented person, and when I don't have a list of tasks to do, I get a little anxious. Thanks for taking the time. JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

My edit of you private page

I took the liberty of editing your private page, Elcobbola/Sandbox2, because the syntax for the template {{shortcut}} is in the process of being updated. Your implementation, which worked worded up till now, broke the new syntax. You can find more information at CAT:SHORTFIX. Actually the your page will still be reported as braking syntax but only because the shortcut does not yet exist. If you have questions please drop me a note. Best wishes. --DRoll (talk) 22:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Question re non-free/fair use image

I'm thinking of going to FAC with article Angus Lewis Macdonald, but before I do, I need to clear up copyright issues around one of the archival photos on the page, Image:Angus and princessfull.jpg. User:Ealdgyth suggested I ask your opinion. As I've explained on the image page, I have written permission to use the photo from the copyright holder, Nova Scotia Archives and Records Management, but that permission extends to Wikipedia only. I've given a fair use rationale on the image page and added a fair use tag, but I'm not sure this solves my problem. I'd be very grateful for any advice you may have for me. Many thanks. Bwark (talk) 13:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Jane Austen

Perhaps you could help out with this image? Someone keeps adding it to the Jane Austen article. I was under the impression that a photo of a trademarked item could not be in the public domain and we couldn't just add it to articles when that item was not discussed (such as this photo of a Jane Austen action figure). If you could add your expertise here, I would appreciate it. Awadewit (talk) 15:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Kannada literature in the Vijayanagara Empire

Please let me know if all the images in this article are okay to use w.r.t. license.thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 20:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Tibet during the Ming Dynasty

I have solved this issue about images you have brought up and have addressed it on the candidates page; here is my response:

As for the images in question, I have taken each and every one of them out of the article, replaced some of them, and contacted everyone who uploaded them, except for the Mongol Empire map, I didn't even bother since I found an immediate replacement (even though it is a great animated image, with absolutely no information, I don't even want to trust the person who downloaded it to begin with).

Cheers.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that and letting me know. That's a good approach to take and, obviously, by all means add them back when/if the uploaders respond. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 18:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)