User talk:Rettetast/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Apparently your admin action re the Sun cover

was due discussion of the merits sometime previously? If so, could you help me access it? Thx --Justmeherenow (talk) 17:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't know of any previous discussion. You are welcome to list the image at WP:IFD. I did not delete it because I think it is not reasonably replcaceable in the context it was used, but that is just one of the ten criteria of WP:NFCC. Rettetast (talk) 18:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Overlook_hotel_1.jpg

On my talk page you wrote:

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Overlook_hotel_1.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 11:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh, what are talking about? I checked the page -- there is a description template in place with all necessary information. --Jason Palpatine (talk) 08:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

There was no rationale on the image. You've fixed it now. Thanks. Rettetast (talk)

Music video captures

I was wondering, are music video captures in music career sections allowed? A number of screen captures are in Ai Otsuka article. I've seen you remove album covers from the discography sections of a couple of musical artist articles. So are music video screen captures allowed then? Since you can't get a non-free image of a music video.. Well, I don't see the point of it in that article. --staka (Talk ・ Contributions) 23:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Definitely overuse of non-free images. Even if the images are irreplaceable they are not automatically fair use. All 10 points of WP:NFCC applies. Tagged {{non-free}}. Rettetast (talk) 23:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Signum-Nanoha.JPG

If it would not be to much trouble could you please undelete this image so that I may provide a satisfactory FUR for it. Vivio Testarossa^{Talk Who} 02:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. Rettetast (talk) 23:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stop reverting my date edits

If you disagree with my changes with respect to targets of year wikilinks for Norwegian-related issues, you really ought to show me the courtesy of adressing this as a problem before going about on your present reverting-spree. __meco (talk) 16:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Your edits clearly violates WP:DATE. We don't need easter egg links that screws up the format of the autoformating of dates. Rettetast (talk) 17:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You raise a point that I was unaware of. However, it seems you are also not fully versed with the ramifications of WP:DATE when it comes to autoformatting. It states: Do not pipe links to date elements that contain a month and a day. That means that only May 17, 1814 is sanctified in this respect. Neither May 17, 1814 or the year wikilinked by itself such as 1969 is affected by this provision. That means that several of your reverts are not in effect enforcements of WP:DATE. __meco (talk) 18:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hei igjen. Thanks for the vandal revert. You are incorrect when it comes to WP:DATE. It has a lot of details on when to link and not link dates. Years are in general not linked if they are not part of a full date because we don't want link clutter in the articles. We want the links that are relevant to the reader. 1814 is a year of great importance in norwegian history, but the article about 1814 on wikipedia does not give any information that is relevant to Norwegian history. Piped links are also discouraged because they readers should know what they are clicking on and not be directed to some easter egg that they did not ask for. Your example, May 17, [[1814 in Norway|1814]], is incorrect because users with certain date formats specified in their preferences don't get what they have set in their preferences, and the second link is an easter egg that is discouraged. The other example,[[1969 in music|1]][[1969 in poetry|9]][[1969 in Norway|6]][[1969|9]], is almost funny. If you think this is a good idea I recommend the talk page WT:DATE, but in my view this is cluttering up the wikitext and the only gain is confused readers, and if I was a new editor that noticed an error with a year in an article, and found that when I tried to fix it. I would have given up pretty fast. Rettetast (talk) 10:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There's certainly more for me to absorb here. As you have noticed I have busied myself lately with setting up a years in Norway hierarchy, and I want other pages to link to these when appropriate. __meco (talk) 11:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I see your dilemma. You should try to develop at least some of the articles, and there are places where links to these pages could be appropriate. In the article about grunnloven a lint to 1814 in Norway could be appropriate since that article should give the timeline of what happened in 1814 and other background information. Try not to use piped links though. Just say: See 1814 in Norway. Rettetast (talk) 11:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of images on Criticism of World of Warcraft

Apologies, as it seems I have missed something here when I was uploading these images for use when illustrating this article.

Firstly, I wasn't notified that the image would be speedily deleted, either on the discussion page for the article or on my own talk page. I'm not sure how I'm supposed to track these images, so if you could let me know if there was another page I should be watching that would be great.

Secondly, these images were uploaded as fair use as I couldn't locate who owned the copyright, that they had been lowered in resolution and that the people depicted were quoted in the article. If there's something further that I need to use to explain the rationale behind using these images, please let me know and I'll correct that before I upload them again.

Thirdly, I've examined WP:CSD and WP:FUC and believe that I can justify all ten poins on the non-free content criteria. Please could you let me know where I would place this argument, so that should I upload the images again, I can ensure they are exhaustively justified.

Many thanks for your help and guidance with this. Gazimoff (talk) 11:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The images was of living persons. They fail WP:NFCC#1 because a free equivalent can be created. You were notified about this on the upload screen when you selected fair use of a living person. Rettetast (talk) 11:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I think I understand. So even though I did not obtain a free equivalent, the fact that a person is alive and a free image could potentially be created means that it would automatically fail this criteria? Would you be able to make any recommendation on how I would be able to satisfy this criteria? Once again, many thanks for your help. Gazimoff (talk) 11:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, basically images of living persons are not considered fairuse on wikipedia. There are exceptions like imprisonment, or kidnappings, or when certain people hide in the mountains of Afghanistan when fair use can be justified. You could try contacting the copyright holder and get them to release the image under a free license. It is important that you don't request and get a "Yes, you can use it on wikipedia permission" since such images are deleted even faster. See WP:COPYREQ for tips. Rettetast (talk) 11:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

That's very useful. I'll look at contacting the people involved directly and seeing if it would be possible to obtain free use images for inclusion in this article, as well as possibly other articles that would benefit. You've been really helpful in giving me further insight into this area. Many thanks! Gazimoff (talk) 12:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Sholle4.gif

The deletion log for this image says that you notified me 48 hours ago that the fair use rationale for this image was "invalid." Given as I got the copyright holder to write an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org (I have a forwarded copy of the email he received acknowledging the granting of permission) and that you did not, in fact, notify me, on my talk page or anywhere else that I am aware of, I am confused as to why you would delete this image and lie about notifying me. I realize that admins and people who use Wikipedia a lot feel superior to those of us who use it on a casual basis, but perhaps rather than simply deleting images without telling people, you can help them figure out what, if anything, is wrong with their contributions so that they can be FIXED rather than simply deleted. Iamblessed (talk) 17:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The image was uploaded a a fair use image. It was of a living person, and you were instanly at the uploading page notified that such images were replaceable and would be deleted. You even disputed the assertion when you uploaded it. The image was then deleted as said. I see that the image was also uploaded at commons under CC-BY-SA-3.0. Did the copyright holder specify this license? Rettetast (talk) 10:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI, usage permission has been secured via OTRS. howcheng {chat} 19:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Great. Rettetast (talk) 19:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You DFUR on Image:AddressingNation.jpg

Can you clarify what you mean by your DFUR on Image:AddressingNation.jpg? What exactly do you mean by "fair use overuse" -- RoninBK _{T C} 13:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The article Cemal Gürsel has lots of images. There is no sufficient need for this image in the article per WP:NFCC#8. Rettetast (talk) 13:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

And it is great that you add FURs to images, but please check if the image actually pass WP:NFCC. In this edit you added a FUR to an image that fails criteria 1. Rettetast (talk) 14:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the page has lots of images, but that in and of itself isn't a NFCC criteria. The better alternative would be to prune out the images from the article, then tag the image as orphaned. That would be much less controversial.

As to the Ana Rodríguez article, I tagged it as fair use, because although as an image of the subject it could be replaceable, as a CD cover it is not. It's a gray area interpretation, but I interpreted the caption to indicate it's intended use was as a CD cover. -- RoninBK _{T C} 14:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Sbkdiysl.jpg

Could you undelete Image:Sbkdiysl.jpg? In going through the uploads of User:ChristyHuey and I believe that the images were just poorly tagged. I'd like the chance to fix them. Take a look at Image:Sophia Bush at TRL.jpg and Image:Normal 014.jpg. --evrik ^(talk) 18:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If ChristyHuey actually is the copyright holder, which I doubt, there is know way you can specify a correct license for the image. The copyright holder has to do that. I can't undelete the image since there are no evidence that it has been released under a free license. Rettetast (talk) 20:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

MaxxForce DT image

Hello sir, I would like to dispute your tagging of [1] as "replaceable". Creating a free image of equivalent quality and detail would require persuading a truck owner to take his truck out of service, taking the engine out of the bus or truck, stripping it of all hoses and wiring, and then photographing it. It is not reasonable to expect that someone would go to this trouble simply to create a "free" image of the engine. As installed in a truck or bus, the engine is almost completely obscured by hoses and vehicle structures, and such an image would be an unacceptable replacement since nearly the entire engine is not visible. The engine is too new for enough to have failed to allow photography of the engine while being repaired.

To illustrate my point, this page has two photos of the engine as installed in a school bus. The engine is barely visible. [2]

With this in mind, I would like to ask you to please reconsider your decision regarding this image. Sincerely, Nick L. Nick L. (talk) 00:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Flags icons

Hello ! Why are you removing flag icons from footballers'profiles ? Greetings Bartekos (talk) 13:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey. Flags should not be used decoratively, see WP:FLAG. This has also been discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football a numerous occasions and there are consensus that flags should not be included in the infobox. Rettetast (talk) 13:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Question on links

Hi, you said to leave a message here if I had any questions, so I thought I'd take you up on the offer! I was looking at Special:Whatlinkshere/Tommy Walsh, and it appears to include a good number of links (e.g. from Declan O'Sullivan) that are actually to Tommy Walsh (Gaelic football) and are not listed on the relevant special page for the footballer. How should this be fixed?Tameamseo (talk) 18:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The way to fix this is to replace the links that point correct the links that point to Tommy Walsh with piped links links like this [[Tommy Walsh (Gaelic football)|Tommy Walsh]]. They renders like this: Tommy Walsh, but point to Tommy Walsh (Gaelic football). Maybe it would have been a good idea to move Tommy Walsh and make a Disambiguation and fix all the incoming links. Most of the incorrect links to Tommy Walsh comes from {{Kerry Football Team}} but you seem to have fixed that links and the whatlinshere wil probably update shortly. Rettetast (talk) 22:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I just didn't realise it would take so long for the Special page to update, as there was no delay when I fixed a similar problem previously. I think Tommy Walsh the celebrity builder will have to be moved all right - it certainly doesn't seem like the primary meaning, especially going by the number of links to it and to the other articles on people called Tommy Walsh, as Wikipedia suggests. Many thanks for your help!Tameamseo (talk) 18:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Central_Rebel_Mascot.gif

I've corrected the source, licensing, and permission statement for this image. Sf46 (talk) 14:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Not spam

I am sorry if this looked like spam, it is not. As an active part of the cultural life in Bergen, I would like my additions to the article reviewed more carefully. A unique venue (on a worldly basis) for an art practice especially strong in Bergen, Lydgalleriet is one of the most interesting spaces for art exhibitions for the time being, both locally and internationally. I have contributed a bit to this article before and filled in other interesting places, please let it be there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by B3t0v1 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I stand by my action. Take it to Talk:Bergen if you want, but Lydgalleriet is not important enough to warrant inclusion in the Bergen article.

Youre a nub —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.58.153 (talk) 06:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

machinedrum.jpg

source is [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.112.149 (talk) 22:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but that is not GFDL as the image description page ays. Listed at WP:PUI. Rettetast (talk) 22:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The photo is self-made. 75.85.112.149 (talk) 00:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

So I can legitimately use it now then, or what's the deal? Thanks. 75.85.112.149 (talk) 09:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

If so it ok. Just send an e-mail to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org where you say that you are the copyright holder and that you release the image under GFDL. Rettetast (talk) 14:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

I was unware of that. Thanks for letting me know. Chaldean (talk) 01:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Re photograph of Celia Green

Copy of messages left on talk page of Celia Green, image:

In the absence of an explanation for the deletion of this image, it will most likely be uploaded again. Archelon (talk) 14:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Correct. I took the trouble to get Celia Green's permission to use this image, and to give a reasoned explanation for its use on this page. I think it would be courteous if anyone who still wishes to delete it were to take the trouble to read this page, or, if they have done so, to give an equally reasoned explanation of why they wish to do so.Ranger2006 (talk) 00:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Image_talk:Celia_Green.jpg"

May 1st Reboot

I don't understand what you want me to do. The May 1st Reboot is a Web Design global event that I am the director of. James Widegren is a friend of mine who passed on the reigns of the event to me. He originally started the event and came up with the logo. As the Director of the event I am allowed to use all materials having to do with the event to promote the event.

If you want to edit the May 1st Reboot wiki page and tell me what information needs to be plugged in then please do so.

Image:Oscar Statuette (78th Academy Awards).jpg

Hi, Rettetast! I just saw that you deleted the image of the Oscar statuette that I uploaded months ago. Please note that I spent a lot of time providing as accurate information as possible about the image's copyright status. I took the time to reply to the "no fair use rationale" notice on the image's talk page. Therefore, it would have been courteous to at least inform the uploader (me) before permanently deleting the image.

Moreover, I would really like to understand why an image of the Palme d'Or or an image of the Golden Globe or an image of the BAFTA are allowed to be used in Wikipedia, but not an image of an Oscar statuette. I know that WP:OSE is generally not a valid argument, but in this case some of the images I am pointing to have been there for nearly two years. They are used under fair use rationales that are similar to the one that was used in the deleted Oscar image. Therefore, this can only mean that: a) there is nothing wrong with using these images; or that b) these images violate copyright rules and should be deleted, but for a mysterious reason have gone totally unnoticed to other Wikipedia users (which seems pretty unlikely given that they are used in frequently visited and edited articles). I would thus greatly appreciate it if you could clarify this to me. If you confirm that these images violate copyright rules, then I will put them all up for deletion.

Finally, the previous Oscar-related discussion you pointed to suggested using one of the supposedly free Oscar pictures at Wikimedia Commons. From what I can see, all of them are either: a) photos of the giant Oscar statues standing outside the theatre where the ceremony takes place; b) Oscar icons created by Wikipedia users. Neither of them depict an authentic Oscar statuette. There is thus no free equivalent at Wikimedia Commons of the image you just deleted. Therefore, please explain to me why the image I uploaded cannot be used in Academy-Awards related articles in Wikipedia, given that such a use is expressly allowed by the copyright holder himself. Otherwise, I will simply have to re-upload the image, since Academy Awards articles currently lack any form of visual identification. Regards. BomBom (talk) 11:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The use of non-free content on wikipedia is regulated by WP:NFCC. Criteria 1 say that Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. The purpose of this image was to show what the statue looked like and as you say serve as an visual identification in the articles about the Academy Awards. This purpose could be fulfilled by one of the images on Commons. I agree that an image of an authentic Oscar statuette would be better, but this is not important enough to go away from our principle of non-free content. That is not the actual prize should be said in the image caption and that is enough to identify the prze in theese articles. I have not looked into the other for the other examples you bring up but I will do that. Rettetast (talk) 22:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Tarjei Kvamme

Hi, could you take a look at this: Tarjei Kvamme. I don't think it's Wikipedia material 84.48.201.220 (talk) 15:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow. I can't belive that one has survived for so long. Deleted on sight. Thanks for the heads up. Rettetast (talk) 16:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Life67 from Six-Day War

I saw that the Life67 image was removed by you from the Six-Day War article. It's a picture I rather like, and while I didn't upload it, I was the one who updated the depreciated Fair Use tag on it in order to comply with suggestions from another user. I was wondering if you could leave a comment on the Talk page about why the image does not fit under fair use (or if it was labeled incorrectly or something like that). I'd really like to keep it in the article as it's an historic image of the Six Day War. If it really doesn't qualify for fair use we obviously have to remove it, but I'd at least like some explanation in the talk page about why it doesn't qualify. --Datapolitical (talk) 03:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I found the discussion on Media For Deletion back in 07, and the image was still up after that. If it was determined to violate fair use back then, why was it only finally removed now. As a reference to why I think it's fair use, I found a great book on the war which talks specifically about the photo:

"Nati fell in love with Yossi before she ever met him. She was sixteen, still in high school, and all it took was just one look. But at that moment in Israel's history, the entire nation, or so she would grow to complain, was in love with Yossi — the tousled-haired soldier with the coal dark eyes and the gleaming smile in the famous photograph.

The photograph first appeared on the June 27, 1967, cover of "Life magazine. Newspapers and magazines across Israel, full of xenophobic pride for the local boy who had made good in the larger world, were quick to purchase reprint rights. Soon it was everywhere. It even had a second life as a poster; sales, especially to teenage girls, were impressively strong.

The image was clever in its directness. Twenty-two-year-old Yossi Ben Hanan, wearing tanker's overalls, a battle-scraped AK-47 assault rifle clutched in his hand, stared straight up into the camera. The soot-covered face, the strained brow beneath the fringe of haphazard curls, spoke of hard combat. Yet the grin bursting through all the weariness left no doubt: This soldier had fought and won.

But the picture's true power, and the source of its enduring fame, lie in the complex story it succinctly told. For as Yossi crooked his head up into the lens, he was cooling off from the heat of battle in the Suez Canal — water that until that day had been as Egyptian as the Nile.

This soldier's spontaneous celebration, the editors of "Life realized, captured in a single snapshot the totality of Israel's victory over the Arabs in the Six Day War. It effectively condensed all the "astounding" — this was the unrestrained yet not inaccurate adjective onthe magazine's cover — battle reports from every front."

From: http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=2-0060013990-5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Datapolitical (talk • contribs) 03:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I read up on it some more, and I agree it violates the fair use rules for magazines.--Datapolitical (talk) 07:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Images

Surely you know me by now and that I cannot possibly provide a rationale for an image of a living person which is copyrighted. Just speedy it -in fact I'll do it to save the fuss ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 21:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes I know you have to do it by the book so to speak lol. But yes if you come across a copywrighted image of a living person then I have no quarrel if you speedy them unless the actor/actress has been retired for decades and an image of them in their prime is highly appropriate and irresplaceable because they now look virtually unrecognizable. The unfortunate thing is many of these "foreign" actors are not hugely popular and there isn't really an abundance of images flowing about. Regards ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 21:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure. The only exceptions I can think of is for actors/actresses who retired from cinema in like the 1960s and an image to identify them as they are known is more appropriate than one of where they are old and haggard and unrecognizable from their prime. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 21:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC) If you come across some of the Argentine actors, please make a note though that many of the image tags are incorrect and many of the images are public domain if they are general photographs published before 1987. The oldies you can tell are PD a mile off but some may be questionable -if so feel free to ask me ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 21:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The eerie thing is with that person he had died only days before i created his article and wasn't even aware of his death. Strange coincidence isn't it ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 15:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Lunasa-group-shot.jpg

Hey. I saw you tagged this image for deletion, so I'm going to try to find a better one. Problem is that I'm not really up to speed on what images are acceptable for use in Wikipedia, and how to determine these sorts of things. I found this image on Flickr, and the CC attribution on the bottom (here) says that it's free to copy/distribute, so long as we give the photographer credit. Would this image be acceptable, and if so, how do I go about adding it? Should I upload it to Wiki directly, or go through Wiki Commons? I'll watch this page in case you want to respond here. Thanks so much for the help. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The image you link to is released under CC-BY-NC-ND(Creative Commons-Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivatives). Wikipedia does not allow images that are not allowed to use commercially and that you cant make derivatives of(cropping, color adjusting etc). In fact such images are speedily deleted under WP:CSD#I2. You can ask the uploader on commons to change the licensing and take away the NC-ND. If he agree you should upload it to Commons. Rettetast (talk) 17:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hm, okay. Is there a quick guideline that I can reference for such info like that? I've got some pictures of Lunasa that I took at a show recently; it'd be okay to upload one of those, right? Aside from copying over the Non-free use rationale template, what else would I have to add to the image? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Release the images you took under a free license such as GFDL (which your text contributions are under) or into the public domain you they can be used on wikipedia or any other wikimedia project. Free images don't need a non-free rationale but give a description of the image and say that you took it. Every other information you can give about the image is also good. See Wikipedia:Uploading images for a quick overview on what images are acceptable. That page also include links to more thorough documentation. 19:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I think I got it. Sorry to bug you again, but can you just confirm that I did this all the right way? I uploaded the image to Wiki Commons here, and then linked to it on the Lúnasa article. Is everything squared away now? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Everything seems fine now. Rettetast (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Great. Thanks so much for the help. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Image deletion

[4] this had a hangon and reasons given-the description given by you in deleting the image does not seem to cover the use of the image in a film article. Haphar (talk) 14:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The image was a close up of the actor in the movie. There was no commentary on this particular image and it did not show anything else than how the actor looks like. A free image of the actor would have bin just as good for that purpose. If an image really are illustrating a particular moment in a film that there are commentary on and illustrate something you can't explain with words an image could be ok, but not if the purpose is just illustrating like the rationale said here. Rettetast (talk) 15:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Rajus article

why did you delete all the content from this article?--70.232.175.24 (talk) 07:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The article is there. I just removed some images that were deleted. The reasons for the image deletions are in the edit summaries. Rettetast (talk) 07:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

NFimageoveruse

Yes, I wrote NFIO to distinguish it from articles that had multiple sound files or similar, plus I thought it would be good to point editors towards the relevant policy. Feel free to tweak it! Black Kite 13:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Refs

There are many already using GR that need ref section added,, so I am doing this first. It happens that this is something SB has done before. I will incorporate the new possibilities if they aren't already there when I do the main run. Rich Farmbrough, 21:09 2 April 2008 (GMT).

Encore Images

Why did you remove all the Encore images? They fall under the fair use guidelines and are significant to the article. They identified the past logos Encore has used plus its multiplex channels. Other channels have their past logos so why remove them from Encore? ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 15:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Idun and Thiazi.jpg

Please don't delete images unless you've made sure the Commons version has all the relevant information from the original. Haukur (talk) 21:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

What was missing? Rettetast (talk) 22:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The part where I try to find out who the artist was, when he died, and what book the picture was published in. Compare the version I've now undeleted with the one at the Commons: commons:Image:Idun and Thiazi.jpg. Haukur (talk) 22:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Flickr

Just a quick question, can you please tell me if Flickr RS or not? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

RS as in reliable source? Short answer no. Long answer it depends. See Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#Are IRC, MySpace, and YouTube reliable sources?. Rettetast (talk) 16:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Flickr is used as a reference in the article Rab concentration camp to support the following sentence:

“ The site has also been given explanatory memorial notices in Croatian, Slovene, English and Italian to inform visitors of the camp's history. ”

The Flickr page has a photo, but not sure how this can be considered RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it was used in this version. Now the article is modified significantly. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It is the photo that i used as a source here. I don't think I am the right person to ask about this. Rettetast (talk) 22:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Flags

There was a relevant discussion on flags at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Navboxes. Please leave some comments. Flibirigit (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Image Deletion

You deleted an image I included of the Plowright Theatre in Scunthorpe claiming it had an invalid fair use rationale and saying that I was notified of this over 48 hours ago. I would appreciate if you could let me know why the image is not usable, it comes from the theatre's official website, was marked up appropriately and was only being used on an article about the theatre, so perhaps before jumping in to delete, maybe you could have corrected it. Put it this way, if an official marketing photo of the theatre is not allowed on Wikipedia, I can point out 1000 similar pictures that have been plucked out of nowhere and still remain. Also, I was never notified about the picture not be usable or I would have done something about it and I don't appreciate the lie. Crazy-dancing (talk) 01:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Crazy-dancing. The image you uploaded was deleted because it fails wikipedias first criteria for non free content, WP:NFCC#1, since it is an image of a building and a free equivalent could be created. Images of building are the best example of images that can be replaced by free ones, and since we want to encourage creation of free content we don't allow fair use. When you uploaded the image you chose "Fair use image of an existing building" from the license selector. When you did that a warning immediately popped up below that the image was flagged dor deletion because it is assumed that such images can be replaced by free ones. The warning also gave instructions on how to dispute the assertion.

Hope this clarifies things for you. If you have any other question, feel free to ask. Rettetast (talk) 18:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

machinedrum.jpg

Please note I have contacted the artist and received his express permission for use of the image being used on his artist page. I have also e-mailed permissions-en@wikimedia.org both explaining and with proof of said agreement. Please let me know if you need anything further. Wanglechangle8 (talk) 19:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Luciano

What the heck??? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 11:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The guy had on a green jumper right? -replaceable as hes living. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 11:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It was a close up photo of the guy. Sorry to bother you about it. It's not always I check the uploader before I tag. Rettetast (talk) 11:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Blue Marlin carrying Thunder Horse.jpg

There already was the {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}} on the page. Please cancel what you have done, and think more carefully about doing it in the future. RupertMillard (Talk) 22:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion instead. Rettetast (talk) 23:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

User talk:ADPLANET

Please review some of the recent photo additions from User:ADPLANET. I suspect many are team photos which violate fair use and free content. Flibirigit (talk) 15:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

why have u contested my image

How is my image Image:Toledo Blades Team Photo 1965-66.jpg different from Image:1976 77 Firebirds.jpg? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ADPLANET (talk • contribs) 01:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Answered at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 April 13#Image:Toledo Blades Team Photo 1965-66.jpg. Rettetast (talk) 05:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Jamesfrasermustard.jpg

Hello,

I appreciate your concern.

I have been the IT person for James Fraser Mustard since 1996.

I therefore know that this picture is freely licenced, and that therefore you removed it in error.

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Randal_Oulton&redirect=no

Cheers

Randal Oulton —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randal Oulton (talk • contribs) 13:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

When you uploaded it you said it was a promophoto which is not a free license. If you provide evidence, forward an e-mail or point to a website, that it has been released under a free license or into the public domain I can undelete the image. Rettetast (talk) 13:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, bugger that for a game of soldiers. Just forget it. I'm past caring. Randal. 15 April 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randal Oulton (talk • contribs) 17:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:AvaMoore.jpg

Please explain to me in which point exactly do I fail to give the neccessary criteria so I can correct it. Thank you Zisimos (talk) 22:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The most important part of a fair use rationale is to explain why this image is important in the article you claim fair use and why it can not be replaced. See also WP:FURG

Is it better now? Zisimos (talk) 11:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I tweaked some thing on the article and I now believe it is valid for fair-use on wiki. I would really appreciate it if you could tell me if I am right so I can change the other pictures I uploaded as well. Thanks in advance.Zisimos (talk) 12:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes it look fine now. Rettetast (talk) 13:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Tuzla column.jpg

Hi. May I now remove those template? -- Bojan  18:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There i still no rationale for why the image is fair use. A rationale is not a dscription of the image. Explain what the image is meant to describe, and why it is necessary to use that image to use that image for that purpose. Rettetast (talk) 13:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:Possibly unfree Image:27976536.RMillenium07.12.JPG

Hello.. The author of the image allows use provided that credit is given. Given that you are an experienced user, might you know what the license would be? Let's update the license rather than deleting the image, considering that we already have evidence of allowed use. Thanks, --Bolonium (talk) 19:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

That license is not detailed enough. He has to allow for anyone to use it for any purpose, including derivatives and commercial use. If he has not said that he allows such use we can't assume it. Rettetast (talk) 13:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

4,000 Years old Bronze Picture in History of China

Go head with the deletion. All the bronze pictues I uploaded got the approvals from the owner and I have attached the email from the owner too, if anyone can read the history of the images page or the files. From time to time, I got deletion tags and I have explain again and again and again how and from whom I got these pictures. The type of the tags had been changed at least 3 times too along with the policy change. Despite that, finally, they were all deleted now. Happy? you won? So, the only thing I try to say is that, you can delete those pictures, but you can not detroy the real 4,000 years fine bronze piece in China, and they are still there. Please read all the deletion notifications on my talke page and continue to abuse wikipedia's deletion friendly policies, continue to distort wikipedia and continue to turn wikipdedia into a coldwar machine!

You may cheat one person during entire of his life, or you may cheat all humans for a while, but you can not cheat all human in all time.Dongwenliang (talk) 15:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Why do you come here with this rant five months after I asked for a rationale. When you uploaded the image in January 2007 the policy on non-free images was no different than it was when I tagged it. Rettetast (talk) 13:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 7th and 14th, 2008.

Sorry, it seems that the bot quit before completing its run last week. Here is the last two weeks' worth of Signpost. Ralbot (talk) 09:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 15	7 April 2008	About the Signpost

April Fools' pranks result in temporary blocks for six admins	WikiWorld: "Apples and oranges"
News and notes: 100 x 5,000, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Reviewers achieving excellence	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 16	14 April 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
Interview with the team behind one of the 2,000th featured articles	Image placeholders debated
WikiWorld: "Pet skunk"	News and notes: Board meeting, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Featured article milestone
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Non-Free Image Commentary?

Hi, I've obviously not got a full understanding of what is needed for the use of non-free images, since you are deleting them from various Starlight Express articles. Can you please explain to me why these images are being deleted, and what I need to include to stop them being removed? Thanks, Belle pullman (talk) 11:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

There need to be commentary on the image if you are going to use the. You can't just put in non-free images because its nice to have them there. You should also be aware that we only allow as little as possible of non-free content, so please include only the images that is really necessary to understand the article. Rettetast (talk) 11:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The character description pages include detailed sections on the costumes, which only makes sense in reference to images. This is about theatre, where the visuals are an essential element of the performance, and a picture tells a thousand words. There is NO free content as detailed in the tags on the pictures, as the designs are covered by copyright. Illustrations are necessary to describe these characters, and how their appearance varies from one production to the next. This information simply cannot be conveyed by words alone.

So does the text need to specifically refer to the picture, e.g. "See image on right"? Belle pullman (talk) 11:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Second Reality - Hidden Part.jpg

I updated the Second Reality - Hidden Part image permissions to reflect the changes to the other images permissions. It was honestly just a screen capture in the same vein as the others on the same page.

If keeping it in means doing mindless update work every once in a blue moon I guess take it out now, cause it's just chance I caught up in time. Flamewise (talk) 11:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

File:Letter to Russia with krokozyabry.jpg

You deleted this image because it already existed in Commons, but I can't find it anywhere. Log here. It's gone from Mojibake as well. Mind pointing it out for me? -85.240.246.105 (talk) 17:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Letter to Russia with krokozyabry.jpg. Rettetast (talk) 20:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, deletion request is in Commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Letter_to_Russia_with_krokozyabry.jpg. Thanks. -85.240.246.105 (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Morgan Jones

Well it isn't valid in his bio article we both know this but I think it is OK for the programme of which it is part of. It would look considerably worse if you removed it from there too ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 14:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes it was an oldie thats why no rationale. SHould be OK now . Regards ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 14:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Fair use rationale for Image:Montserrat_virgin.jpg

Please read the last bullet at the top of my talk page. I am not the real uploader and you should notify them. Thanks. MECU≈talk 14:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I am sure you know that it is not easy to check all talk pages for such messages. Template:Bots#Message notification opt out should now work with howchengs tool which I am using. Maybe something for you. Rettetast (talk) 14:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I invented that opt out. Howcheng isn't compliant since he hasn't made an edit in 6 months to the script: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User:Howcheng/quickimgdelete.js&action=history I know it's hard to read all those notices and such, just trying to help out so the real editor that might care would get notified. MECU≈talk 14:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah. I noticed the opt out in a notice I left on a talk page and assumed it was working wit howcheng since it was included in the notice template. I don't think it i a good thing that I am advertising for a template that I wont respect. Are there any script that are working with this feature? There isn't and should not be any bots that leave rfu messages. Rettetast (talk) 15:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, you sent me a message about the Mowat Cup image. I don't really know what to do so, if you could explain it to me that would be nice....I created the article, then decided that it would be nice to have an image of the cup there. I emailed BCAHA and asked them if they had an image of the cup that I could use for this article on Wikipedia. The image that is uploaded is the one they sent me...that is all I know, kind regards, Paul

Image:MichaelPowell.jpg

I don't know how much more I can say about it. The copyright is unknown. It has all gthe sections of the "Non-free / fair use media rationale" completed (AFAIK). Have they changed the rules again? In what way do you think that it isn't compliant and what can I do about it? -- SteveCrook (talk) 22:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but per WP:NFCC we cant use the image] if we don't know the copyright holder. Rettetast (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

i am not 100% sure about this, so I'll bring it up at WT:NFC. Rettetast (talk) 22:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this will be the final straw that will stop me contributing anything at all to Wikipedia. When I started contributing they welcomed images, with a "Fair use" rationale. Since then they've been changing the rules regularly and now it's almost impossible to get anything added because if you add it and it's eligible one week, in a month or two the rules will change and it won't be eligible any more. I'll just retire. Although I'll keep an eye on the articles I care about to make sure they're not damaged too much. Now if you people spent some time to prevent anonymous (unregistered) editors from vandalising articles, that could be worthwhile. All this nonsense about images is just a waste of everybody's time. Good bye -- SteveCrook (talk) 23:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

What are you doin'?

What's with this image removal? The image clearly has a fair use rationale and did when you removed it. I'm not sure why you're going around removing images without even looking at them but I suggest you stop doing it. Richard001 (talk) 22:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It does not have a rationale for that article. If you think you can provide one please do so. I'll check back in a few days, and remove the image again if no rationale is provided. Rettetast (talk) 22:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mel.jpg

Um...I don't know why I got a message about it becasue I didn't upload or touch that picture what so ever.--Dil (talk) 23:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Janice Dickinson logo deletion

Rather than just unilaterally deleting the image from four pages, perhaps in future you could tag the relevant talk pages with a fair use tag and/or contact the image uploader or the article's creators (in this case, me)? Otto4711 (talk) 14:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:MIGOP_LOGO.gif

I added the rationale I thought was best. The tag could be changed to non-free logo, instead of the promotional tag. Jjmillerhistorian (talk) 10:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Signing comments

Hi Rettetast, you may wish to sign your comment here. We all forget to sign when were busy! Have a nice day :-) TheProf - T / C 16:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Rettetast (talk) 17:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Milgram.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Milgram.jpg. Unfortunately, I think that you have not provided a proper rationale for using this image under "fair use". Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. Note that the image description page must include the exact name or a link to each article the image is used in and a separate rationale for each one. (If a link is used, automated processes may improperly add the related tag to the image. Please change the fair use template to refer to the exact name, if you see this warning.)

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted after seven days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 19:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Fine, delete it if you want. But it is a widely used promotional photo. I have no idea how to get the copyright information you requested. Instead of simply deleting it, though, I would request that you change the copyright template to something more appropriate if possible. I had a bunch of images deleted this way when I was away from Wikipedia for a few weeks and unable to respond. I'm quite annoyed by the process and I don't intend to do any more work with images here. Anyway, thanks for the warning. --Jcbutler (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Go ahead and look at other images I've taken from the internet and delete or modify as you see fit.

Fair Use rationale on image Image:MnF=postcard.jpg

I was looking at other possible protection for this image other than fair use, and I think that copyright protection has been forfeited because the image is so old. This is an old photograph of a college taken in 1904, making it over 100 years old. This photo is necessary to be shown for historical purposes of the college.

does the copyright change since the medium has been transported? In other words, does a 100 year old picture get copyrighted again when scanned an posted on the internet? Or is this still considered the same image, just in digital form? If I wish to pursue this route, what is the best way for me to do that? ThanksHochstetler51 (talk) 06:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Lsa_school_building.jpg

Thanks for your notice. One of my relatives runs the school and I have confirmed that the picture can be used anywhere. I myself cannot take a picture because I do not live in Kolkata, I live in Delhi. I am new to wikipedia and am not used to the systems.

Thanks Chatta —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chattasingh (talk • contribs) 12:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Image Deletion Question

Why did you delete the Karst Underwater Research logo?

15:23, 12 April 2008 Rettetast (Talk | contribs) (1,259 bytes) (Removing instance of image KUR organization logo.jpg that has been speedily deleted per (CSD I7); using TW)

Wpickel (talk) 20:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It did not have a valid rationale. Rettetast (talk) 22:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me....

It says i have a message from you in relation to edits made on the article on 'chief seattle', well i can tell you now, i certainly haven't made any edits on that page as i've never even read it before... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.77.246 (talk) 01:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Since you are editing from an IP it was probably not you. Anyway, it was in January 2007. Rettetast (talk) 22:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Mike Zarnock photo's?

May I ask why you deleted the photos of Michael Zarnock? Marty Krellman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krellman (talk • contribs) 03:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. We don't allow fair use images that can be replaced by free images. Rettetast (talk) 22:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion: Image placeholders centralized discussion

Hi. I'm sending this to you because you participated in the Centralized discussion on image placeholders that ended on 23 April.

That discussion must produce a conclusion.

We originally asked "Should the addition of this box [example right] be allowed? Does the placeholder system and graphic image need to be improved to satisfy policies and guidelines for inclusion? Is it appropriate to some kinds of biographies, but not to others?" (See introduction).

Conclusions to centralized discussions are either marked as 'policy', 'guideline', 'endorsed', 'rejected', 'no consensus', or 'no change' etc. We should now decide for this discussion.

Please read and approve or disapprove the section here: Conclusion --Kleinzach (talk) 10:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Please note this message conforms to WP:CANVASSING and has not been sent to anyone has not already participated in the centralized discussion.

I see that you've

deleted a bunch of my pictures, and I'm wondering what you know about Icelandic copyright law? Don't worry, tho, you still get to keep the Thumbs Up Award. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 21:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Under Icelandic copyright law there are a certain freedom of panorama so that you can take an image of a statue and own the copyright to the picture. Commercial use of such images are restricted though and the they are therefore not free. We have something similar in Norway, although it is even more strict. Since the images aren't free, they have to obey WP:NFCC, and that is really hard. I don't think they would pass #3a and 8 in this instance. The image was deleted because they had no rationale. Thanks for the award. It was my first. Rettetast (talk) 21:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Is wikipedia considered a commercial use? I did not think so. Not yet anyway. Is the rationale that someone else is restricted from taking the picture and using it for commercial purpose, thus it can not be here? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 14:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a commercial webpage in itself, but we are a free content project and don't allow content that can not be used commercially. Rettetast (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Disputed Fair use image

I have written a reason to keep the image here JayJ47 (talk) 11:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Image removal without satisfactory explanation for several articles. Image:P11 kasparov breakout.jpg

Please restore the image Image:P11 kasparov breakout.jpg to the articles from which you removed it unless you can provide satisfactory grounds for removal. Permission has been granted for its use from the owner. Pgr94 (talk) 15:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

This image is a non-free image that has to have a rationale for the articles it is used. See WP:NFCC. It was removed from the articles it had no rationale for. Rettetast (talk) 15:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this has been handled very professionally. It should be mentioned in the article's talk page with a time-limit and not just commented out. I think your procedure here could be improved. Pgr94 (talk) 15:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. In any case, the rationales have now been put in for the two articles in question and I've restored the images. Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Why make bureaucracy when we ca do it like this. If someone think it may be appropriate in an article they can fix it. No different from if there was a notice on the talk page before it was removed. Rettetast (talk) 15:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Judging by the number of complaints in your talk pages and archives I think it seems clear that people are being rubbed up the wrong way. It's a question of politeness. Pgr94 (talk) 15:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

This has been mentioned one time before on my talk page by one who asked why it was removed. Whats this about politeness. This is in my view the best way to do this. You have to provide a rationale if you are going to use the image. If you can't be bothered it will be removed. Rettetast (talk) 16:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

"If you can't be bothered it will be removed." I resent this comment. I went to the trouble of contacting the owner and obtaining permission. However, I was not familiar the rationale policy. You have been heavy-handed and perhaps you should re-read WP:GOODFAITH.Pgr94 (talk) 10:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Jalios_JCMS_Administration_Area_screenshot.gif

Following your notice on my talk page : I have reuploaded the screenshot and added the fair use rationale. Tell me if it's not enough. I was on holiday on could not see your message in time to prevent its deletion... maybe you should let a little more time to contributors to respond... Thanks. Olivier Jaquemet (talk) 09:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

New Project

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 06:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Friendly alternative

Since I see that you went and deleted the images from List of Kanon soundtracks, and I know fully well why you did and why its supported by WP:NFC, what would you suggest, if any, for a single image to go into the lead, as I don't believe having a single image would be in violation of WP:NFC.--十八 00:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

First, I don't know the subject so you could probably make a better decision relating to this article than me. Here is my view on our policy and this article. WP:NFC is not about the number of images. The important thing is how they are used. Since there really isn't one image that can be used to identify the subject of the article, sicne it is about different subjects, I can't see that you could justify use of any image within WP:NFC for this article. Rettetast (talk) 00:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Star Wars Gangsta Rap deletion

You listed in your deletion rationale for Star Wars Gangsta Rap that this was due to a GFDL violation - would you mind explaining exactly how that applies? Looking at the Google cache of the page, there were no lyrics from the song posted, and the article was properly sourced, along with a legitimate claim (and references) of notability. I'm asking here before taking this to DRV, because I do believe a mistake was made. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

All text on wikipedia is copyrighted by the editors, and released under the GFDL license. It is a violation of that license to copy the page without attribution to the editors. If you want it undeleted you have to ask the delteing admin or go to WP:DRV. You cannot just copy googles cache. That is a copyright violation. Rettetast (talk) 09:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I did not copy the Google cache - I used it as reference to check out the page that *was* deleted *after* you deleted it... and since YOU are the admin who deleted it, I'm asking you, why was it deleted? As far as I can see, the GFDL reasoning doesn't apply. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 05:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

This was an error on my part. Rettetast (talk) 10:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring it! TheRealFennShysa (talk) 20:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

removing flags

Hi, I understand that you have been removing flags that are next to people's names etc. But I have seen a couple of football players that have the flag next to their national team removed. As far as I am aware that is allowed. See Ben Kennedy (goalkeeper and Ben Kantarovski. Jared Wiltshire (talk) 22:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia:Mosflag#Help_the_reader_rather_than_decorate
2. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Players
3. They look ugly
4. Emphasizing nationality is not a good thing in a neutral encyclopedia
5. What good do they do

Rettetast (talk) 22:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:Franz Kneissel

Thank you. Chris (talk) 15:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Question

Hi there,

My entry Bethany Heitmanwas deleted. I understand the rules about entries about singular people, however I do feel that my entry should not be deleted. i am a writer at the top selling womens magazine in the world and have multiple articles in print each month. A lot of readers google me, and it would be nice to have wiki as part of that google search. Thank you.

Bthny1313 (talk) 15:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Bethany

Please, please, don't write about yourself. If you are truly notable someone else will write an article about you with references to reliable third pary sources. Do such exist? Rettetast (talk) 15:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:Redlink removal

I'm having the bot do it now. It should be done in a little bit.--Dycedarg ж 02:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Norway

Well most people outside Norway have no idea where thes eplaces are on a map. Use of a national locator map is 95% standard all across wikipedia. All it has it a map of a commune but it could be absolutely anywhere. Given that I have added standard infoboxes to over hundred countries on wikipedia all over the world and have received much appreciation for my work I fail so see how the change was dreadful . You're not thinking globally ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 22:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I very much agree with you, but I think this wasn't a good way to do it. Please see Template_talk:Infobox_Kommune#Implement_the_standard_Template:Infobox_Settlement. Rettetast (talk) 22:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Now are there any objections to be adding infoboxes and images to places like Ådalsbruk and Atna?? As content increases I would propose a category change for Norway reorganized by county e.g Category:Cities, towns and villages in Telemark. This way all places in a given area have a solid category structure but this can come later although there will probably be objections ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 10:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there has been objections on adding them to such articles, but please be easy on the content in the infobox. If it becomes to long and much longer than the article it does not look good. The locator map is great and the most important one. And please don't add flags to the Country field. In all the infobox would be a great addition to these articles. Rettetast (talk) 10:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I notice there is already a Category:Villages in Telemark as for all the other counties. which could be merged. I don't know why but I get the feeling that some people feel as if they "own" the articles and anybody who isn't Norwegian hasn't a right to edit them ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 10:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Dont do that Blofeld. You are doing much great work, but we want to discuss how to do somethings before we implement it. No one has dismissed your incentive, but we think we can do it in a better way and we have started a discussion about it. What more do you want. Rettetast (talk) 10:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Well its not that but I'm not prepared to help all these stubs on villages if I feel you are all going to revert my edits. Now for municipalies discussion over the Kommune box is much needed as it conflicts with what was there previously, but I fail to see how adding standard infoboxes which help the reader when there was nothing there before isn't an improvement ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 10:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh well I see you agree above. Well I can take out most of the unneeded parameters but if the infobox is longer than the one line stub it can't be helped. It is the fault of the article content not the box. @@@@

I haven't reverted any edits in this case, and did my best to avoid editwars last night which would have been counterproductive. Have anyone said that adding infoboxes is not a good idea? Rettetast (talk) 10:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Well you did say before that it wasn't an improvement but perhaps you were referring to the replacement of the Kommune box. You;re probably aware that I have been doing this for most of the countries on here and to ensure that all Norweigan settlements have a standard infobox and a strong consistent category structure it part of it ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 10:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was reffering to the Kommune infobox, The edit to Bergen popped up at my watchlist, and my first reaction was the same as you got from User:Punkmorten. Four images in a row was overkill it thought it could be done better and therefore suggested changes to the kommune infoboxe. I think we are pretty much on line here Blofeld, but it will save a lot of work if we change the kommune infobox, since you don't have to edit a those 450 articles. I know about your work. I have been running after you and marked your new articles as patrolled. Take a look at my patrol log. There are also all those damn flags I have been removing:-) Rettetast (talk) 10:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Fitting the COA and map alongside each other is exactly what I would have suggested. Your example is exactly how I would like it to look nice job!. Add photograph panorama it would be perfect. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 17:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Already done. Check out below. Rettetast (talk) 18:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Has progress been made towards changing the old format yet? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 21:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 2nd and 9th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 18	2 May 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
Wikimedia Board to expand, restructure	Arbitrator leaves Wikipedia
Bot approvals group, checkuser nominations briefly held on RfA	WikiWorld: "World domination"
News and notes: Board elections, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Did You Know ...	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 19	9 May 2008	About the Signpost

Sister Projects Interview: Wikiversity	WikiWorld: "They Might Be Giants"
News and notes: Board elections, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Featured content from schools and universities	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

T:DYKT#Articles created/expanded on May 3

Hi! They need verification for a DYK candidate (Osmund Faremo) with Norwegian references. Could you help? Punkmorten (talk) 07:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the verification, and thanks for finding the image! I will try to be present at the Bislett Games, hopefully getting a picture of Jays' face. With that in place, I think WP:FAC is the way to go; do you agree? Punkmorten (talk) 18:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Flags

Hi. Sorry for the flags, I didn't know. (Caiaffa (talk) 14:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC))

NP. Rettetast (talk) 14:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)