User talk:Butseriouslyfolks/Archive 5

3824:

that wikipedia is an enemy whereas it has grown so huge that many people have used it for one thing or another and many would be happy to contribute what they can. I have a feeling the site he provided is the genuine root owner of the entirety of these images and if we could consolidate an agreement all together as one with them I know this could be sorted and weeks of hard work wasted if it can be cleared. What I don't want to see is other editors attmepting to wipe it out without at least trying to reach the root of it and make some effort to get hold of who they believe is the genuine owner of these images and create a stronger agreemtn which everybody including Sarvagnya can trust. Look all I'll say is that somebody owns these images, and it is highly likely that Indian media corporation which he cited does. If you can sort it with them I know hardship can be avoided

1504:

making it no longer a copyvio. This was a fair bit of work. I would be grateful if you could undelete the article so I can continue working on it. Perhaps give a little warning to the interested author and check the alleged copyvio out before deletion in future, and encourage some discussion first? Just because the article originally started as a copy-vio doesnt mean it actually is one following a rewrite. I am increasingly pissed off as having created a reasonable article on a notable subject (organisation of postgraduate dental training in the UK) in which I am an expert, I have had to spend quite some time defending it from deletion by various other wikipedians based on the recommendations of a bot and admins who havent actually seen the original article.

634:@Butseriouslyfolks - I wanted to tell you this yesterday. I am telling you now. Please dont use the tone you used with me yesterday for, you likely know next to nothing of my history or Fowler's. One of the things I do on wiki is zealously tag copyvio pics and articles and Fowler's pics will be no exception. Nor will Venu62's. Or anybody else's. Just because Venu62 or Fowler cry foul when they're caught on the wrong foot doesnt mean my actions are illegit. I've tagged dozens of copyvio pics and they have also been deleted. If Fowler's or Venu's pics happen to be among them, there's nothing I can do about it. And Fowler being a past culprit at uploading copyvios, it is, but natural, that I keep a watch over his image contribs. Thanks. 382:. In particular, he says, "While I'm explaining this, let me also point out another thing. You have uploaded some maps on wikipedia on which you credit yourself for annotating it. You can jolly well add such credits in the summary, but you are not supposed to have it on the actual picture itself because it is a watermark of sorts and watermarked pics are not allowed on wikipedia. The watermark concern apart, some would argue that it is vanity too. So take those pics down, fix them and re-upload them before somebody tags them too." Well, this is true: I have uploaded some maps (mainly from the Imperial Gazetteer of India, 1909), whose original 26 volumes I own) and I have annotated them. Here are some examples: (A) 1955:

discussed the reuse issue and the GDFL license and they wrote back with what you saw. If you're the "decider" and you read it your way, then it cannot be used, but I am certain that was not their understanding or intent. To show my good faith, I will send a copy of one of the letters to the communications office again, requesting a more specific response, but I have little hope of a response. I would ask that you restore the image, note the potential ambiguity and set a date, say 90 days, for its deletion if the ambiguity is not resolved. That would help me get their attention. In any event, I will do no more than that, and I wish to end the discussion.

2182:

explanation of why I did it because "I'm not an admin" and because "I have uploaded illegal images myself" (BetacommandBot leaves lots of love notes on my page since I downscale a lot of images for fair use and I never check if they've got proper fair use rationale, which I suppose I should start doing...). I really don't want to get in any unpleasantness with her, but I really think that would require for her to get a better understanding of the rules for image licenses, and since she won't listen to me, could I possibly bother you to briefly explain it to her, or point her in the right direction?

3291:

dancing around the questions about his edits. As you can see, he's still basing his complaints upon the quantity of his discussion, and the editors themselves (or, with his sock accusations, lack of editors) and not about the interaction with other editors. I think his defense is based on Righting Great Wrongs, but he doesn't realize he's using a firehose in the cubicle farm instead of correction fluid. Most of his present flurries of replies I can't answer, as they are attacks upon other people and I can't speak for them; I know I'm not a sock nor puppet and none of those others are mine. (

1382:. It was at least two years ago that I uploaded it, but this was a photograph of an original medal which an employee of the National Archives took and released to public domain. I'm fully prepared to give you an address to verify this and even the direct phone number of the employee who took it. This is not a stolen picture, it is legit and also very rare since very few of these medals exist anymore. I think this one can safely be put back on Knowledge. - 5054: 4833: 4638: 4249: 2868: 31: 3840:

that even if they don't own screenshots there is some validity to the claims evne if it is this media compnay who we should be dealing with. It is clear there is a close link between them and this media company - they wouldn't be able to get hold of the sheer content that they've got if otherwise- I honestly think this could be sorted and one in which Sarvagnya if he genuinely wants to help wikipedia can try to work to achieve.

4461:. The article is a review of Robert Cargill's "Virtual Qumran" film which conveys the ideas of Cargill's professor William Schniedewind, director of the "Virtual Qumran" project at UCLA (according to Golb, the film's argument is based on a chain of blatantly false assertions). Wiki editor "Jossi" reverted my changes, eliminating the linked source because according to him, the article is "self-published." 2033: 1271:, and it seems to have been recreated by being tagged with the sockpuppetry template (even though there is no evidence of wrong doing or sockpuppetry from this account). I think the appropriate course of action would be to make the account vanish (as was initially requested and performed) again before the victim of impersonation takes legal action against my former collegue, and wikipedia. 1267:

subject, who was the supervisor of a former collegue. The content relating to the page was deleted via the {db-userreq|rationale=rationale} tag after the the impersonation was discovered by said Mr Boyle who was not terribly impressed and had the former collegues employment termintaed and has threatened legal action. From my understanding this account should still be vanished under

390:. I started doing it in early 2007, when I noticed that one of the maps I had uploaded earlier had already appeared on a web site in India with wildly incorrect attribution. So I thought that I would add the name of the original publisher and date of publication (Oxford University Press, 1909) in the margins. This can be seen in example (A) Also, in the case of maps, where 2058: 1885:

received was included in the description of Image:MinnerRuthAnn.jpg, which, of course, I can no longer see as I'm quite sure someone has deleted it. I have neither the knowledge nor the authority to find or restore deleted images and would greatly appreciate it if you could do so. For my part, I will attempt to properly notify the folks at OTRS once I have the details.

1905:

Knowledge, images have to be licensed in a way that permits reuse (including commercial reuse), derivatives, etc. See WP:CSD#I3. So the image couldn't stay. If you can get them to license it under the GFDL or one of the appropriate Creative Commons licenses, I'll be happy to restore it. Just let me know. Cheers! -- But|seriously|folks 18:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

2213: 2726:

suggested, the article had really taken on a non-standard format... which is what I saw and diverted to fixup. I didn't want to edit any articles in the whole region, I just get suckered when something needs TLC. Call it an underdeveloped sense of when to run, or an over developed sense of responsibility. (Mostly, I call it

4088:

I have a question about FU images. Thought you might be able to help me. There is an actor bio article I want to improve. The actor is still alive but I have no free images of him. Can I take screenshots of him from his movies and use it in his article as fair use? Looking forward to your reply.

3919:

Really I shouldn't have given a confidential email address either, but I want this to be sorted and don't like this agreement being called a lie or whatever. We'll see what happens but I please ask everybody includig Sarvagnya to remain patient and don't pass it off until they can be contacted. Night

3855:

Thanks for that last email to him. That was the formal message I had expected from you. Thankyou for genuinely trying to get to the root of this, those issues mentioned are those in concern here. Devendra has also mailed me and said that he fully respects people on wikipedia who are protective of its

2766:

I would appreciate if the Copyright infringement notice could be removed from the entry. I have written the article originally and had it published in the Weekender (as picked up by the boot) and I also had an email sent to permissions-en@wikimedia.org on the 5th November to confirm the authorization

1890:

I too take the issue of copyright seriously and appreciate the importance of making sure the law is obeyed. I went to great lengths, in this instance, to make sure the owner of the copyright understood and gave full permission for use in Knowledge under the GDFL license. I'm also quite certain that I

1884:

Thank-you for your response. The image for which I received permission was uploaded on January 13, 2007 and was named Image:MinnerRuthAnn.jpg. The image you still see is named Minnerruthann.jpg, was uploaded September 2005, has no permission, and indeed should be deleted. The detail of the permission

525:

This has not been done, and no fair use rational has been stated for this image. Rich Burlew (the copyright owner) is very protective of his images, and does not allow the unathorised reproduction of them, so surely any use of this must state the specific fair use criteria? Ort am I missing something

394:

had added something by way of explanation to the body of the map, I added some more information, as in example (B) above. Do these additions violate Knowledge policy? If so, what do I do about them? Lastly, I'm not sure what to make of the remark about vanity. Is a little vanity such a bad thing?

196:

I couldnt care less what he's doing. He can do it in his sandbox. I tagged it a test page because thats the closest I could find on twinkle. It certainly is no wip. And if I find something that doesnt belong on mainspace, I will certainly tag it and have done so in the past also(infact tagged for

3823:

21:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC) Even if this leads us to that company he mentioned that creates practically all Bollywood images I'm certain these sites and the photographers themselves, whilst gaining money from their own sites would be glad to license images freely to wikipedia. It is always implied

3781:

None of you who have tried to make this agreement look shoddy have tried to clear it up rationally -it is base don your won observations -you weren't the ones who made the agreement. You should be speaking with the site in a professional manner and NOT try to pass it off as illegal or whatever until

3433:

Please be careful in the future in contacting people outside of Knowledge about Knowledge business. Your e-mail in this situation needlessly hurt a lot of feelings, and was based on what seems to have been an incomplete understanding of the situation. Given that OTRS was involved in the licensing of

3160:

I received the message early today, he mentions that this is a issue that has been ongoing for three years and involved a checkuser so we would need to figure out when this happened and who was involved to have a clearer panorama. I recon that a checkuser can help to establish if the acussed user is

2835:

I can't even remember if I've given you a barnstar for this reason or not... oh well, nevermind. Okay, so, I thought I'd give you this barnstar for the tireless responses to those multiple users a little while back (I can't even remember the article anymore) who accused us of being one and the same.

2369:

If someone's not going to do the controversial stuff, I will. But seriously, that block was not justified, more so, Tim should not have done that block since he was in conflict with the user at the time of the block. I personally didn't see any incivility, but that's just me. ANYWAY! Here's your

1869:

But alas, I must have made a mistake of some sort, because now it is gone, tossed in the trash heap reserved for us imperfect contributors. While I am certainly not going to go back through the many steps I took to get permission to use the image, if you could graciously restore it, I would be happy

325:

Yesterday an image that I added to top right area of the article FICS was removed. I have seen many articles with PIC on that area so I don’t think that was the problem. Also the picture is a screenshot that I took on my computer and it shows a free tools being used. So I don’t think any rights were

112:

Our article was taken down due to advertising a link to our founders on our website. I would to remove those tags and post just the information about them without links, however the article does not appear any longer. Can I recreate the page without the links, or what do I need to do now. Thanks for

3839:

I know there are some apparent deficiencies on that site which can be sniffed at, but the fact that the site has truckloads of new images by the day, and often twenty to thirty images of events or new pictures of the movie stars within hours after it happened shows that they have clear contacts and

3268:

Yep, I saw the template and the edit history. I felt the template application without any personalized message was biting the newbie. A short message like "hey we don't allow people to have business names so I had to block your account" I felt would have been nice, although admittedly it would have

2569:

Hmm. It seems to me that the continuation, “especially if the user promotes it,” implies that some “usernames that match the name of a company” are worse than others, which to me implies a judgement call. But granting for the sake of argument that no username may match the name of a company, how do

1916:

There is no question that they did so agree, as I fully understand the issue and discussed it with them at length. I thought it so stated on the description. If it did not it was my failure to be clear. Please restore the image and I will make it clear. Additionally, could you point me to a form or

1684:

be set with an expiration date. Even static IPs used for open proxies are occasionally reassigned (I set OP blocks to 5 years) or the proxy is closed. In this case it is quite clear that they are dynamic IPs on a large range. After one is blocked the user is resetting their modem to get another one

691:

An image is always copyrighted in its totality. I really dont think that saying BL only has ownership over their logo and not over the rest of the pic makes sense. I'd certainly be interested in getting to the bottom of this. Like I said, I'm in a rush right now.. can you please raise it over at

223:

Actually, I tried to fix what you did, but I am too confused. You've basically undone a lot of hard work. Can you please help me sort it out. Lands Tribunal should be a disambig pointing to different lands tribunal pages. Could you *also* bring back the material I put in which has now vanished?????

212:

Hi. I am sorry for doing a copy/paste move, but only one of my moves was a copy/paste (I made a mistake doing that) the rest were merges or changes of content. I am afraid your reverts have really confused what's there, removed material I put in and generally made the links wrong. I am putting them

3812:

Look you know Riana. She is one of the most trusted admin on here. User:Videmus Omnia who has yet has been silent also authorized it and as you know he also has a strict policy on free images and he definately wouldn't have moved an inch if he had the slightest doubt there wasn't some truth in the

2149:

When there is user who is blocked/banned who continues to create new accounts for the sole purpose of harassing other editors/admins and also sending them emails, exposing their real life names, making death threats etc, surely editors shouldn't be blocked when they use their own talk page to talk

3165:

since it appears the subject is using the project to push some kind of political agenda, the user that sent the e-mail must provide the information he claims to know in order to create a concise case, but seeing that this may have some political influence in it I would not be surprised if this is

2725:

Perhaps the block et al was going on as I wrote that??? But, that's beside the point. IMHO, Mikalai was effectively counter-baiting and exacerbating Nergaal's emotional state over something that was really NBD... I just wanted to make sure some others had some input, as Mikalai's one edit summary

1904:

OK, I see what happened. When I used the search box, it took me right to the similarly-named image. I had to paste into the URL to get the right image page. Anyhow, the problem with Image:MinnerRuthAnn.jpg was that the permission only encompassed use in her Knowledge entry. In order to be used at

1309:

discussion. I can well understand why the real Timothy Boyle wants none of this to google up in the context of a job search, I say courtesy blank/archive the lot of it. One other case I was involved in of a post-doc's name being sullied by on-wiki behaviour also wound up with a similar blanking

681:

Please think over it and raise it in front of a wider audience if need be. I have dealt with these BL images in the past, albeit in slightly different circumstances. I am in a hurry now and will be probably gone for the best part of the rest of this week.. but I'd really really be interested in

340:

Hi, I created a stub article for Floyd Medical Center which you deleted about a week ago, citing A7/G11. Would you please explain why? I don't know what G11 is, but I understand that A7 is lack of notability. I admit that the stub article didn't state why Floyd is notable, but that's why it was a

3711:

All I want is to continue editing peacefully with no threats or worries that content is going to be deleted. I've done my best to address it and having contacted the owner of Caledonian Punlishing I don't expect the amateur images which are clearly owned and confirmed by them to be deleted. Best

3651:

Right I've just speedied about 10 or so images which are questionable as they are either screenshots or promotional shots the remaining are legitimate. This site is owned by Caledonian publishing , a company worth $ 100 millions of dollars . They employ an agency of photogtaphers based in Mumbai

2181:

Hello. I'm sorry to bother you, but you seem to be the best person to go to, as you're the admin most active in the image department. I'm starting to get in a bit of a dispute with another user after I tagged some of her uploaded images as copyright violations, and she won't seem to listen to my

795:

has also come up with some very pertinent points on the image talk page. I feel that these things need to be looked at more closely. We shouldnt be in a hurry to give images a clean chit or look for arguments and loopholes to establish the copyright-freeness of images. imo, when in doubt, the

790:

are clearly cropped from the BL images. Dont you think so? That is about that. As for the question of the watermarks, it was a sticking point in another of my image taggings of the "Hathigumpha inscription"(if I remember correctly) and back then somebody had argued on the basis of the missing

4464:

Not a single word, however, in wiki's definition of "self-published sources" appears to cover such an article. Universities obviously have criteria for publishing articles by professors; it's not a blog and it's not Dr. Golb's personal webpage; the content is scientific rather than personal or

3618:

imo and shouldnt be tolerated. In short, there's one thing or the other wrong about all those images and I am calling for the deal (which User:Riana wrought after great deliberations, but now admits is "convoluted"/problematic) to be scrapped. As a result of the discussion I started on WP:AN,

3290:

Thanks for trying to keep the discussion on track. I've been pointing out his behavior in the dispute, not the content itself, or I'd have dissected the Mother's Day section's phrasing and sourcing for each clause. He had threatened to flood the article and did the same on the Talk page while

1503:

got deleted by you, which has ticked me off a little, since I was working to bring the article up to standard. I initially cut-and paste a load of text from an external website and was busy rewriting it. It no longer resembled the original text and had been substantially changed and paraphrased

3856:

content and said that is one of the reasons it has developed so well. I guess that refers to all of us. I know you are dubious still and as will Savargnya when he sees this page, but i'd like to get it cleared up between us before anybody goes down the black listing route which would be a shame

3613:

its images are CC-2 on its site, but has supposedly licensed it under CC-3 in its letter with the OTRS 3) among the hundreds of images on its site over which it claims copyright, there exist dozens of obvious cpvios like screengrabs from movies and television which imo reflects poorly on their

2821: 1513:

Thanks for the mail, have calmed down a bit now! Will post up a new article as soon as complete. Appreciate your help, and understand why you made the call to delete. If you could check in on the article in a day or so I would appreciate some feedback on wikipedia "style" and formatting. Best

1954:

OK, it looks like you win this game of "gotcha." A negative always trumps a positive. These are very busy people in the governor's office. I sent them one of the letters suggested on the link you gave. They ignored it. I called them repeatedly and finally convinced them to send "approval." We

1936:

How much broader can you get than full unqualified approval? Do they have to list every specific possible future use of the image, or just the ones you are particularly concerned about? As I said, they understood perfectly well what full "approval" on Knowledge meant, and specifically that it

1917:

template that could be sent in the future to copyright holders, one that they could simply sign and would quickly and completely satisfy all these requirements? There develops something of a game of "gotcha" with this process that becomes very unproductive for those of us who are not experts.

1873:

I know you're a responsible person and believe you're doing the right thing also, but deleting an image in this particular situation, on what must amount to some sort of technicality, strikes me as a benign sort of vandalism. At least some sort of notice would have been an expected courtesy.

1266:

Sockpuppetry tag was added to an account (user:Tim.Boyle) that did not violate sockpuppetry policy, hence should not be tagged as such. It has been indexed by search engines and is now libelous, therefore I have blanked the page. To clear the facts, this account was created to impersonate the

2165:

I agree it was a little much, though I think Kwsn was just being overzealous because of what all transpired on his talk page (which by the recent conversation there I can tell really bothered him). My own thoughts are that a simple warning on your talk page or even inserting himself in our

1180:

Hi Buddy thanks for looking into this. This issue has been a major pain for me - got hauled over to 3RR by ... guess who (hint: Conley is from NJ) and you can imagine how happy he was about that! Anyway, inexplicably this fellow attracts swarms of socks. How you enjoying the broom?

186:. He had some concerns about how the template works.. so he obviously has created his template to carry out his experimentation. Fair enough. But that belongs in his sandbox. Not on mainspace. If I remember correctly, I've had similar experiments of mine speedied in the past. 3765:

OK Devendra has responded but please please DON'T speak like you did previously. PLease try to speak to him rationally and hear his explanation in a way I would expect from an administrator and let him explain some issues which see a problem . You didn't give him a chance before

4536:

on their talk page to inform them of the discussion. I guess we're still back at the fair use rationale argument and the image page has been unprotected and tagged for deletion. My thoughts: I dream that this issue will one day be rectified :) Issues aside, enjoy your break!

3302:

No, I'm not continuing the content dispute on Callmebc's Talk page. I'm pointing out to him and readers his current behavior is repetition of what he's done before and pointing at what he's ignoring at the end of the article Talk page. I think this will be resolved soon.

4468:

To conclude, I feel that "Jossi" has been unnecessarily impolite to me in categorically declaring that this source is "self-published." He is doing this on a page created by Robert Cargill--the author of the film in question, who wrote an encyclopedia article about his

237:

OK. I think I have it right now. Can you check that all is well. What I did was split up material that was in one place and put it in more than one place. Does that show up as a c/p? How is one supposed to do that - it can't be done with a single move. Let me know.

895: 1435:. A very difficult user is edit warring and just made a statement that he/she will space out the reverts to circumvent 3RR. I'm open for advice on how to handle this, especially from someone like yourself who doesnt put up with the nonsense around this place. - 4465:

political. Clearly Golb submitted it to the Oriental Institute and they agreed to publish it. Either wiki's definition of "self-published" should be expanded to include such material, or "Jossi" should be informed that this is not a "self-published document."

3633:

All that needs in writing is to say with the exclusion of screenshots or promotional posters. The other images are valid for use. I confirmed this agreement and have spoken to the director of Caledonian publishing many times who has constantly authorized this.

1870:

to try to supply you or any other appropriate authority whatever I might have missed in my sincere effort to do the right thing. Otherwise could you possibly advise me how to find a proper image, if one provided with her explicit permission is not sufficient?

1685:

or they are reassigned on a regular basis. If it is a /16 range (and it might be bigger), the odds of them using an IP address that they have used before is about 1 in 65000. A block of a week should be more than sufficient; even 24 hours would probably work.

2721:

Was off-base (and no, I don't want him blocked—things were fine for my part), as I don't know Mikalai any better than I know you, as I answered that illusion on my answer to Nergaal. (They were edit warring on my talk as I was posting an answer... sigh.)

486:

I just added a new pic to the FICS article following your recommendations to avoid copyright violations. Please let me know if I did it right this time since I intend to keep enhancing the look of the article and I want your opinion before doing so.

3936:

Yes I'll give it to you in £50 notes!! lol! All I can say is that it is clear there is more than meets the eye to this and why this was hidden before due to contractual reasons. I sincerely hope this can be confirmed once and for all .Buenos Noches

1614:) reduced the block on 217.87.59.247 to one month and I've done the same for 217.87.61.227. If you're having trouble with a range of IPs and multiple puppets, you may want to submit a checkuser request to identify the IP and place a range block. - 1891:

so noted on the file for you and others to see. The shortcoming seems to be my personal lack of understanding of other steps evidently required to be taken in the recordation process. Your help in getting back on track would be much appreciated.

1484:

Althought I share a name with the man, I am not making an article on myself. Bill Troiano is a very well-known figure-head in the music community on Long Island and deserves recognition. Just letting you know that I am not Bill Troiano. Thanks,

3782:

you can prove your claims entirely. His responses in the past just don't fit your description of him and his contacts at all, however I agree some issues needed clearing which I believe can be sorted on a permanent basis and to consolidate it

2733:

I just won't revert unless others haven't had time to see and process a change as in this case. My count is getting unreliable, but I suspect that was only the 19th or 20th I've felt obliged to try (discounting obvious vandalisms). A little

3319:

I've restarted CSBot on my own personal server since the limit appears to be per IP. Wherebot seems sick beyond repair, though, so you might want to block it again. (I have to wait until Saturday before I can do so myself) :-)

3218:

As well, i am having some trouble in figuring out how to add socking accounts to the page for suspects (I imagine there is a process that eventually turns the suspected socks into confirmed socks, but I am not sure about that). -

143:

The account in question is a sock of a banned user, therefore all his edits are prohibited and should be reverted. Of course, some (or even all) of his edits may be useful, so if you need to revert me, feel free to do so. Thanks,

4144:? I don't object to your deletion of the image itself, especially in light of my comments on the talk, but I'd like to have a copy of my input on that talk page as I think it would be well applicable in other situations. — 326:

violated. So please could you explain me what I did wrong? My intention is to enhance the look of the article since other article like chessmaster (also a chess related article) looks a lot better thanks to the graphics. --

3623:

related articles. My impression is they're reeking of cpvios. And unfortunately, my diligence in this matter is not being appreciated by some and I am constantly being attacked on WP:ANI. Please take a look. Thanks.

630:

get deleted. So are you now going to accuse the admin who deleted it also of bad faith? And next time try to get a better 'witness' than Venu62. His opinion about me counts for about just about as much as yours does -

3619:

nearly forty images have already been speedied. At last count, there were another 130 images. Guy and Yamla also agree that the deal is problematic. While at this, can you please take a look at all the images on

1208:

who has not been around lately. Fellow has proper recourse, right? "Office actions" - which I've not read much about... If so, could you point him in the proper direction. Thanks. Oh, I've commented-out the

1228:"This account was used impersonate a real life person not involved with wikipedia, it was never used as a sockpuppet but has been tagged as one and google indexed, hence has become libelous. I have add" 726:

PS I forgot to thank you for replying and explaining that I should paraphrase the BL image captions. Somehow, I never thought of that even though I am very aware of text-related copyvios. So thanks.

3734:

be deleted if it is copyvio. The least you can do is lay low, keep a low profile and not attack people who identify copyvio and tag it for deletion. Now, run along and answer some of the questions

4908: 2226:

and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!

791:

watermark that the image wasnt BL's at all(again, if i remember correctly). I'll gather my thoughts and words about it and raise it at MCQ. I see that Fowler has already started a thread there.

928:

Can i know why TYPOlight cannot be included in wikipedia. It is a great cms. We have been using it for some time now. It has also been selected as one of the finalist for the most promising cms!

1862:

I see that you are the expert in the world of Knowledge images, and clearly I am not, but seriously I have tried to my wits end to provide a legal, appropriate and generally agreeable image of

5150: 4953: 4727: 4345: 3044: 3015: 2952: 1937:

included reuse, even commercial reuse- we discussed it. You can see that they offered no qualifiers of any sort, which they would have done had they felt the approval was in some way limited.

778:(unindent) Hi, I'm back.. but still on a limited connection. Coming to the point - about my claim that Fowler has cropped images. Well.. I need to take another look at the ones he's used on 5162: 5143: 4965: 4948: 4901: 4739: 4722: 4698: 4357: 4338: 3056: 3039: 2964: 2945: 5155: 4960: 4913: 4893: 4734: 4350: 4314: 4309: 3051: 2957: 1084: 5265: 5119: 5114: 2692:

Look at his edits...Whenever he sees Moldova/Romania he's crazy. He blocks his opponents, he reverts works, he protects pages. His first block was exactly because he was Anti-Romanian.

710:

I have now uploaded my original image to the image talk page. As you can see when I downloaded my images (Fall 2005) there wasn't any BL logo. You can check with them if you'd like.

395:

After all, by scanning these old volumes, I am stressing their spines and hinges, and to some extent decreasing their value, ... Can't a little vanity be my compensation? :) Regards,

1972:

Thank-you for your action. It is reasonable and fair. I wrote the Governor's office yesterday as promised and will follow up with a phone call in a couple of days. It is all I can do.

4920: 2741:

However! You, assumed more than could be safely inferred without checking deep enough. The one prior time I recollect contacting him I chastised him (kinda like this post! <G: -->

213:

back as I can. Can you chat with me about it before you do anything else. I am keen to do things the right way, but also keen that the material there is correct, it currently isn't.

5131: 4936: 4710: 4326: 3027: 2940: 2928: 551:

I already uploaded a lower resolution version of the babas image on the FICS article and included a fair use statement but I still get the warning on the page. What I am missing? --

3750:

I'd rather you had addressed him in a more formal and normal fashion. Now it looks like a personal attack. Do you have adequate proof that every image on his site is copywrighted?

4473:. I am concerned that "Jossi" and Robert Cargill are personal friends and that Jossi has eliminated my source simply because it's critical of Robert Cargill and Dr. Schniedewind. 1240:, which I have undone. It is my reading of this that a consensus is required to courtesy blank and that this is a rare thing. There is good reason to believe these users related: 371:

the first image with the second, but somehow in my uncaffeinated state this morning, I ended up uploading the second one independently. Question: how do I delete the first copy?

668:

image and cropped out the a half inch to one inch strip on the side thereby stripping it of its logo. Now, that amounts to Fowler modifying(without permission) a pic which BL

660:

No. I didnt say the BL gained ownership of the original image by getting their hands on the original image and watermarking it. What I said was, they have ownership over the

5138: 4941: 4715: 4333: 4001: 3032: 2150:

about what each other have been receiving and to log it in a sock puppet report? I could certainly do with some clarification because I don't think his block was justified.

2742:) for not accepting notes on his talk... He took his banner message down, end relationship. Consider yourself spanked with a wet noodle for such no-no thinking. Cheers! // 1065: 5192: 5126: 4995: 4925: 4769: 4703: 4389: 4321: 3735: 3602: 3257:

because it's iffy if that person might see info on WP:MCQ and he/she doesn't have many (or any?) edits. Remember, if you're an admin you're also an ambassador for Wiki.

3086: 3020: 2933: 363:

yesterday, but wasn't very happy with how it turned out (I had taken a picture of the original journal copy, but it was shabbily done), so I scanned it this morning as

1302: 1250: 582: 3465:

Ohh its ok. I understand that you need to know about everything and everyone and their cousin about uploading images, lol :-) I'll send the lady the entire form.

1866:

for Knowledge's many readers. I have even contacted the Governor's secretary and received direct permission to use the image submitted and have so documented it.

4126:

and on random talk pages simply because I tell them that their FU 'rationales' simply dont fly. Cant I tag copyvios without being hounded if I am not an admin?

3434:

the images, a lot of stress could have been avoided if you'd talked to Riana or another person involved with the permissions before giving us a bad public face.

3543: 1298: 523:

To the uploader: please add a fair use rationale as described on Knowledge:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information.

4611:

I am wondering about your major rv to the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory entry for copyvio. Can you tell me how the page was violating copywrite? Thanks!

3871:

No it shouldn't be broadcasted. I don't know what I can do to help get this sorted . I'm trusting you with this and I hope Sarvagnya will try to work with us

439:

Butseriously, I sent the email to OTRS as you requested, verifying that I am owner of the copyrights. In spite of the notice above, the page is still down.

5222: 5025: 4799: 4419: 3116: 2252:

Hello. I've just got your note about the images I have uploaded. I just want to let you know that I did have permission to use the images. And, its ok for

4525:

Hey there again ButSeriouslyFolks! Not that it truly matters anymore but it looks like a certain user has been stirring up trouble again. As a result, an

701:

Hmm.. I am not convinced. I will continue this conversation/raise it over there once I get back. And once again, I mean no offence to your judgement.

2560:. But I can’t tell from the name if it is a business or a woman who makes trinkets for her friends as a hobby or even a woman who collects trinkets. -- 5196: 4999: 4773: 4393: 3090: 811: 2312:

Yes, I am sure I have asked all of them. I've asked a month in advance before they gotten back to me. I hope that also helps the situation as well.

1413:

Rather than an address/phone number, it would be better to have the employee send an e-mail from his official e-mail address - this can be filed at

4174: 3614:

credibility. 4) and all the images have ugly watermarks on them and many of them have been uploaded on wiki without any cropping. Watermarks are

3561: 3521: 2076: 1328: 4457:

It's an article by historian Norman Golb, published on the University of Chicago's Oriental Institute website--see the page on which it appears:

796:

benefit of doubt should go to those who claim copyright, especially when they happen to be someone with as much credibility as BL. More later.

2382:. Expanding the requirement to include chopping down the tallest tree in the forest WITH A HERRING may be met with additional mockery and scorn. 197:

speedy something else just a couple of hours ago and it was speedied too). Whether its Fowler or anybody else who is the author is immaterial.

2587:

What is all that about? Does it mean they won't allow the images from their site to be copied? I swear, I asked permission and they approved.

2186: 845: 586: 379: 97: 4496: 4482: 682:

getting to the bottom of this. If you do raise it in an appropriate forum, ping me the link and I will take part after I get back. Thanks.

5188: 5184: 4991: 4987: 4765: 4761: 4385: 4381: 3082: 3078: 2702: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 4066:

Thanks for the support! It'll take me a day or two to get comfortable with the tools, then I can finally implement my nefarious scheme for

2738:, I think, and this may be good for 'his/her' in the long run. He just got caught not making an edit summary and recent changes patroling. 2556:

usernames are inappropriate. A block would have been appropriate if “Diane’s Jewelry” were a known company or if the user were spamming for

383: 278:. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.--- 1404:

This one too: Image:WherHonClasp.jpg. Different employee, but again a picture straight from an original taken at the National Archives. -

650:

explaining my rationale. If you think it is fair, please tag them or delete them yourself. If not, let me know why. Thanks. Regards.

2570:

you know that “Dianes Jewelry” matches the name of a company. I have never heard of a company by that name. Where do they do business? --

1454:

Hi, I hope that you are keeping well. I should like to tap your image copyright expertise. I have just userfied a couple of articles for

4563:. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 4222:. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 1597: 1583: 309:

I've added some references - could you advise whether the current version complies with verifiability and notability standards? Thanks!

5283: 5097: 4876: 4681: 4292: 2998: 2911: 972: 946: 4487:

P.s. forget about it; Jossi has now agreed that the source is not self-published. Sorry to have taken up your time if you read this.

3469: 3451: 3419: 2619: 2594: 2355: 2316: 2298: 2263: 2009: 1991: 909:

For all your hard work against copyright violations and unfree images, which helps prevent Knowledge from being in legal jeopardy.--

664:

image and they reserve all rights over it (see their copyright policy on their site). And what Fowler has done is he has taken the

578: 4004:. I decline to delete it as a copyright violation, and I provided my reasoning. Please let me know if you have any questions. -- 5298:

Why was Pervasive refusal syndrome deleted? By notice of the bot, I changed those sentences that were pure copy from the sources.

4028:

Why was Pervasive refusal syndrome deleted? By notice of the bot, I changed those sentences that were pure copy from the sources.

3902:

I also spoke to Sarvagnya. I'm trying so hard to please everybody Look I need some sleep now. I'll be giving my bank details next

2343: 2292: 5303: 4033: 3362:

Feel free to use the image in Knowledge - it would be great if you could include a link to the 4AD website on the Wiki page too.

3138: 2478: 2349:

They contacted me a month after I've asked permission, and they said it was fine to use them. I didn't save the e-mails though.

1322: 937: 4123: 1611: 4107: 4103: 573:. I had uploaded these images in January 2007 or thereabouts. I had frankly forgotten about the images until last week when 4577: 3652:

which deal primarily with the Bollywood film industry. Excluding screenshots and obvious promo photos this agreement is valid

1306: 819: 292: 3213: 2379: 415:

Thanks for your prompt replies! What you say makes a lot of sense. And thanks too for deleting the old image. Regards,

364: 128: 3605:

please. The gist of the matter is that hundreds of photos have been uploaded from a blog which 1) claims copyright over

1841:

Ahhh. Thought you were talking to me. I like that beansy, never heard of that before. Have to remember that essay. --

1417:. Or you can forward the e-mail you recieved, complete with headers - this is what I normally do with image permissions. 1310:

outcome. It would not be reasonable to refuse this request either. FWIW, the socpuppetry continues, post Punkguy182, as

469:

That's why I'd like to have it userfied. The article had a bunch of information that I can't remember but was promising.

5179: 4982: 4756: 4376: 3073: 2036: 387: 360: 4556: 4114:? I imagine its still a no-no. Correct? Would you please review the above images for "fair use"? Also the ones on 2787:(Odeo and Fireant section) and give me any advice you have on my mediation efforts? Both users have been reported to 1392:

These two as well fall under the same category. Pictures sent directly to me by an employee of the National Archives.

47: 17: 5299: 5053: 4832: 4637: 4248: 4141: 4029: 2867: 2431:

Looks like I'm not the only one who loves the late night. Roger sends his regards, I'm off for a while (aka sleep).

2552:

OK. But it seems to me that you made a bad judgement call in this case. The policy provision you point to says that

1635: 170: 157: 3997: 1432: 1234: 854: 828: 757: 733: 716: 644:

Butseriously, thanks for the understanding. With regard to the three pics in question(above), I've left a message

615: 421: 401: 253:

Actually "moving" is always difficult in any version control system. Svn and cvs never seem to get it quite right.

38: 4227: 4215: 3396: 2706: 271: 5257: 4219: 4111: 3208:

indef block would be lowered to 48 hours if he redacted the threat seems inadvisable. As the user is one of the

2639: 3483:

When he has chosen to not identify herself, I use 'he'. English uses 'he' as the gender when it is unknown. (

2783:

I *might* be interested in trying for adminship early next year so I was wondering if you could take a look at

1346: 626:

Ok. Enough of the trolling! That pic that I had nominated for deletion back then was indeed a copyvio and id

303: 3692:, not the link given above. It does look like some of the customary expert help from you would be appreciated. 2539: 3813:

claims being made. I know this can be sorted if you can also the media provider which Devendra has given you

4533: 4492: 4478: 4223: 4013: 3938: 3921: 3903: 3887: 3872: 3857: 3841: 3825: 3814: 3798: 3783: 3767: 3751: 3713: 3670: 3653: 3635: 1591: 1577: 1421: 910: 497: 4118:. Also the ones on various movie articles by the same editors. I'm sick of being hounded and attacked on 1116: 1043: 5279: 3348:"Re: 4AD feedback - General enquiry From: Rachel Cawley (rachelcawley@4ad.com) Sent:Wed 11/14/07 4:50 AM 2675:

to semi- so he can comment about a community topic ban that has been proposed for his editing. Thanks. -

1334: 1199:"blanked page - and will continue to do so (Sockpuppet tag does not belong to that family of sockpuppets)" 976: 950: 480: 3240: 2524: 1459: 1448: 180: 4099:

And what if I decide that I can circumvent it with silly FU 'rationales' like the ones on these images -

2012:

in an obvious attempt to try to stir things up agin by contacting the admin who blocked them. *sigh* ;)

2005: 1819: 1775: 1755: 1668: 1623: 1587: 1573: 1418: 1281: 1272: 744: 319: 275: 106: 849: 823: 752: 728: 711: 610: 416: 396: 1379: 5271: 2792: 2698: 2531:

you commented that one can't use a business name as a username, but I find nothing to that effect at

2474: 2466: 2008:

just this very minute... This time NotSarenne/Sarenne has created another sock puppet account called

1486: 1316: 968: 942: 877: 116: 1290: 552: 504: 488: 327: 4597: 4205: 4168: 4127: 4090: 3953: 3741: 3625: 3555: 3515: 3388:

Hello. I would like to ask for permission to use one of your images of Lisa Gerrard on Knowledge.

3167: 2820: 2070: 1605: 1530:

Thnaks for moving the page and the tip on how do it myself in the future. Much appreciated. Best.

1026: 797: 702: 693: 683: 673: 651: 635: 198: 187: 1049: 993:

Hey thanks for the advice, I never realized there was a move button on the tops of every article.

645: 120: 5202: 5005: 4779: 4571: 4526: 4488: 4474: 4399: 4005: 3588: 3435: 3253:. You should give a better explanation than just slapping a ban on Diane's Jewelry for violating 3096: 2748: 2672: 2542:

is bitey and unexplanatory. It seems to me you should have used the optional reason parameter. --

2375: 2223: 2155: 2017: 1693: 1254: 1214: 1168: 1148: 1136: 1106: 1092: 1080: 987: 286: 254: 239: 225: 214: 4451: 1301:, when other socks were editing each other's user pages, awarding barnstars etc (details in the 1008: 5307: 5287: 5237: 5035: 4814: 4620: 4601: 4582: 4545: 4515: 4434: 4231: 4195: 4181: 4153: 4130: 4093: 4078: 4056: 4047:

Why were you posting warnings about this at PUI? Any webmaster can see visitor's ip addresses.

4037: 4018: 3983: 3956: 3947: 3930: 3912: 3896: 3881: 3866: 3850: 3834: 3807: 3792: 3776: 3760: 3744: 3724: 3703: 3681: 3664: 3646: 3628: 3591: 3568: 3537: 3528: 3501: 3487: 3472: 3454: 3438: 3422: 3324: 3307: 3295: 3273: 3261: 3234: 3194: 3150: 3126: 2847: 2806: 2773: 2753: 2710: 2679: 2661: 2643: 2622: 2597: 2574: 2564: 2546: 2510: 2493: 2482: 2448: 2426: 2403: 2358: 2344:

http://cgi.ebay.com/1948-Contralto-Eula-Beal-Photo-Print-Ad_W0QQitemZ160158082029QQcmdZViewItem

2319: 2301: 2293:

http://cgi.ebay.com/1948-Contralto-Eula-Beal-Photo-Print-Ad_W0QQitemZ160158082029QQcmdZViewItem

2266: 2239: 2201: 2170: 2159: 2139: 2110: 2083: 2051: 2021: 1998: 1976: 1959: 1941: 1921: 1895: 1878: 1845: 1824: 1793: 1780: 1760: 1730: 1705: 1675: 1646: 1628: 1562: 1548: 1534: 1518: 1508: 1474: 1439: 1423: 1408: 1399: 1386: 1361: 1284: 1275: 1257: 1217: 1185: 1171: 1151: 1139: 1109: 1095: 1029: 1015: 997: 980: 954: 930: 913: 859: 833: 800: 762: 738: 721: 705: 696: 686: 676: 654: 638: 620: 555: 540: 530: 507: 491: 473: 463: 455:

Hi, I did some work on this page before it was deleted, and I'm fairly certain the group meets

443: 426: 406: 345: 330: 313: 297: 257: 242: 228: 217: 201: 190: 148: 132: 5275: 4616: 4592:

Glad to be a friend. I am relieved to hear that I am not under survellance or something. :) --

4162: 3549: 3509: 3270: 3258: 3227: 2845: 2498:

1st eMail I've sent 13/10/07 22:53, 2nd 16/10/07 15:31 and 3rd 09/11/07 12:11. The subject is

2207:

Wow, SPEEDY, I just got up to get a snack and when I come back you're already done! Thank you!

2194: 2064: 1531: 1515: 1505: 124: 4446:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:William_Schniedewind#I_have_corrected_article_to_make_it_neutral

2280:

I know she was, but I was trying to get my point across. And I do apologize for being cross.

938:

http://www.opensourcecms.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=388&Itemid=143

503:

How can I remove an image that I contributed but that is no longer in use on any article? --

5233: 4810: 4430: 2788: 2634: 1811: 1767: 1747: 1615: 1524: 1471: 1012: 874: 1025:

Whoops, that really was a silly, rookie mistake on my part. Sorry for any carnage I caused

602: 3205: 3161:

editing from the state mentioned, but the appropiate board for attending this must be the

2507: 2490: 2470: 1863: 1807: 1311: 1294: 1102: 1072: 870: 537: 527: 456: 5228:. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. 5031:. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. 4805:. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. 4425:. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. 3122:. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. 4560: 2338: 355:

Hi, I was wondering if you could help me with two other image related questions I have:

5206: 5009: 4783: 4593: 4403: 3976: 3162: 3100: 2767:

to use it on Knowledge. Is there anything else I need to do ? Thank you for your help.

2694:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Mikkalai

2676: 2441: 2419: 2396: 2229: 2132: 2103: 1601: 1559: 1436: 1414: 1405: 1396: 1383: 1358: 1205: 994: 748: 606: 594: 574: 570: 375: 342: 894: 4564: 3699: 3615: 3204:

I thought I would point out that your comment on Realsanpaku's page implied that the

2744: 2735: 2686: 2528: 2152: 2014: 1973: 1956: 1938: 1918: 1892: 1875: 1687: 1455: 1182: 1135:. Punk boy's been given time to answer the questions on his talk page and has not. -- 822:, which I downloaded from BL in Fall 2005, and which I just uploaded to Knowledge. 792: 751:

will consider retracting his remarks above about my snipping off half an inch etc.

470: 460: 279: 1600:). With the exception of open proxies, IPs are never indefinitely blocked. As such, 4612: 4538: 4532:

to the Nobel image contrary to the lengthy discussion everyone has been having. I

4507: 4188: 4146: 4115: 4048: 3990: 3484: 3339: 3304: 3292: 3254: 3220: 3142: 2837: 2532: 2253: 2236: 2219: 2198: 2167: 1995: 1842: 1790: 1727: 1672: 1643: 1639: 1210: 1128: 1088: 449: 145: 3585: 2836:

It was fun being your sock for a while. Thank you for being here on Knowledge :-)

589:

that I had downloaded from the British Library website. Although I am aware that

806:

I really have this discussion on the image talk page, but since you mentioned my

5229: 5087: 5032: 4806: 4671: 4458: 4426: 4282: 3123: 2988: 2571: 2561: 2543: 787: 786:

and it struck me that I may have got things mixed up a little bit. The ones at

783: 440: 310: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

4445: 672:(by way of adding their logo) and one over which they reserve all rights. ?? 593:

can recommend an image for deletion, I was a little surprised, if only because

5249: 4866: 4075: 3495: 3397:

http://www.4ad.com/lisagerrard/image_collections/assorted-lisa-ge-0/?display=1

3321: 2901: 2796: 2409:

I gotta stop doing late night blocks. They're always controversial it seems.

1280:

I advise archiving this sdiscussion to avoid indexing by search engines also.

1039:

Hi. You seem to have a handle on image issues. Could you look at two for me?

609:'s deletions. Anyway, can you please explain to me what I am doing wrong? 517:

Hi, you declined the speedy copy-vio on Image:RoyGreenhilt.gif, stating that

3968: 3620: 3534: 3498: 2784: 2658: 2433: 2411: 2388: 2166:

conversation to caution on the tone of it would have more than sufficed. --

2124: 2095: 1545: 2457: 1123:— because of the version copied to commons. Punkguy182 had the temerity to 2057: 3694: 2374:

This argument has been identified by one or more editors as constituting

2046: 815: 2730:... particularly when it means I skip 3-4 hours I shoulda been asleep!) 1059: 844:

When you have the time and when it is convenient, could you weigh in on

3381: 3250: 2333: 1544:

Reference your message on my talk page. What is an attribution note? --

1167:

I've seen many edits from this ISP poking about the usual articles. ---

3996:

Just in case you are not watching the page, I commented on the image (

5253: 3740:

before you get started again on another of you self-righteous rants.

1101:

Thanks for looking into this; I'm sure time will sort it all out. If

3448:

Really? So, I have to tell the lady that in order to use the image?

2770: 4327:

News and notes: Page patrolling, ArbCom age requirement, milestones

3137:

What is your justification for reverting my edits? Please read the

2795:

based on some questions they asked me. Thanks for any comments. --

2653:

Thankyou! First person to wish me happy birthday at all, real life

2378:. Please resolve this by clarifying the basis for the objection in 1470:. Perhaps you would take a look and action as appropriate, please? 1105:

can prove me wrong, fine — however I remain a wee bit skeptical. --

5221: