User talk:AFigureOfBlue/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Pool of Radiance

nominated for GA. :) BOZ (talk) 15:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Cool; I'll help out wherever I can during the review. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you know how to supply a reduce for File:Pool of radiance area map.png in case it comes up? BOZ (talk) 22:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I just went ahead and did it. :) –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! :) BOZ (talk) 12:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Malik Ambar

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Pictures related to Malik Ambar. Because you closed a deletion discussion for some of these images, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 02:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Image Deletion belgacom logos

Hi there! I've added copyright tags to following images you nominated for deletion: Image:Bgc_belgacom.png,Image:Bgc_telindus.png and Image:Bgc_proximus.png. they should be okay now? Thanks. Samgreenwich (talk) 07:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks good; thanks. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Photos stade Farhat hached

Hi i have upload photos which made with my own camera! But you want delete them! Please tell me what can i do to let them! Unluckyly i dont know how todo in this case.

Thanks Vernito —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vernito (talk • contribs)

The message that I left you on your talk page should have all the information that you need. Just do what it says, following the links in it as appropriate, and everything should be good. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleted photo Etyork.jpg

Your bot has deleted a photo for which a perfectly valid public domain rationale exists under the law of the State of Florida. This was done without advance warning or notice, contrary to Wiki protocols (the articles and related talk pages are on my "watch" list). Please restore the photo page and I will post the proper public domain rationale (see below). This photo was from the archives of the University of Florida, an agency of the State of Florida, and is subject to specific public domain rules under the laws of the state of Florida. Here is the public domain rationale, as posted by the University of Florida archivist on other photos related to the university:

"This work was created by a government unit of the state of Florida and is in the public domain under Florida law. Florida's Constitution and its statutes do not permit public records to be copyrighted unless the legislature specifically states they can be. This file is part of the "public record made or received in connection with the official business of any public body, officer, or employee of the state, or persons acting on their behalf, [which includes the work of] the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government and each agency or department created thereunder; counties, municipalities, and districts; and each constitutional officer, board, and commission, or entity created pursuant to [Florida] law or [its] Constitution" (Florida Constitution, § 24) such as a work made or received pursuant to law or ordinance or in connection with the transaction of official business by any state, county, district, or other unit of government created or established by law of the State of Florida (definition of public work at Fla. Stat. § 119.011(11)), and does not fall into any of the various categories of works for which the legislature has specifically permitted copyright to be claimed (see, e.g., "§ 24.105(10), Fla. Stat. (2003) [authorizing the Department of the Lottery to hold copyrights]; § 601.101, Fla. Stat. (2003) [permitting the Department of Citrus to hold legal title to copyrights]; § 1004.23, Fla. Stat. (2002) [authorizing universities to secure copyrights in certain works], § 119.084 [permitting agencies to hold copyright for data processing software the agencies have created]). It is consequently in the public domain according to court interpretation of the Florida Constitution, Article I, § 24(a) and Florida Statutes, § 119.01. See Microdecisions, Inc. v. Skinner, 889 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (Findlaw)"

The foregoing paragraph may or may not have been included on the image page that you deleted----we cannot tell because you deleted the image page and no history remains.

Thank you for your cooperation in resolving this matter. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I will restore the image conditionally. Based on discussion at User talk:Dirtlawyer1#Etyork.jpg and User talk:Carnildo#Deleted photo Etyork.jpg, I am going to request further input on the legal issues in this from media copyright questions. I'm not an expert in copyright law, and know essentially nothing about Florida's public domain rules, but based on whaty Carnildo said the image might not actually be public domain. I'll restore the image so that all participants in the discussion may look at it together, but I'll delete it again if consensus is that the image isn't public domain. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, sir, for the "conditional restoration" of the E.T. York photo. I understand your position that a valid copyright rationale is needed. I have alerted my senior editors on WikiProject University of Florida to this issue. I have not checked, but I suspect that we will have a similar problem with other photos that have been released by the university archivist. I would like to see if we can't get a global solution and properly document all of them to your satisfaction and then upload the whole kit and caboodle to WikiCommons. We really do want to comply with Wiki protocols, but we ask for a fair hearing under the applicable state copyright law applicable in Florida. Hopefully, we can work this out in the next 7 days. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know of you feel you can join in this AN discussion, but...

You deleted one of the files uploaded by Bottracker (talk · contribs), who I blocked for copyright violations and personal attacks but mainly to get him to enter into a dialogue which he was refusing to do, just deleting all the notices. 2 other Admins declined an unblock request, a 3rd blocked his user page and mentioned that his username was problematic, and now he's been unblocked and given a 'sincere apology' and that his block wasn't justified. Enough to make me just ignore copyvio in the future if this is how it gets treated. The discussion (which I think should be on ANI) is here. Dougweller (talk) 09:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about this; I'd actually seen the discussion, but hadn't realized that I had deleted one of his copyvios (I go through so many in a day that I can't really keep track of who uploaded each one). That having been said, I would prefer not to get further involved in this discussion... I try to stay away from anything related to blocks, article deletion, and general AN drama. If there is some specific point that you'd like me to comment one, feel free to ask, but I really don't want to get involved in "general discussion". I trust that a solid consensus will be found with or without my input. Regardless of the result of the discussion, please don't ignore copyvios! This seems to have just been a couple of mistakes (really just one or two users' mistakes as to why the block was issued). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem, Black Kite seems to have contacted the unblocking Admin and explained that there really were copyright violations, so the unblocking Admin has revised his unblock message and made it clear that I wasn't at fault. I'm just glad I noticed it though, any discussion about reversing a block should involve notifying the original person who made the block. Dougweller (talk) 05:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Since you do this a lot

Since your own header say you do this a lot, you obviously have self-appointed yourself to be the Wikipedia police. As a contributor who is carefully following the rules and is posting accurate, sourced information, constant nagging by--I'll say people like you--is a hinderance to the content of Wikipedia. I feel like a one-armed paperhanger trying to chase down the latest idiotic bot-like unnecessary inclusion into content I, or other people have contributed. At least I am paying attention to protect the content I have contributed. Much of these insertion are irrational and non-sensical, made either by a bot that can't understand the content or by a human being that does not. If your intent is well founded, that is not apparent. Too much valuable information has already been deleted by the censorship gestapo of which you are a part. Before you click another attack on legitimate information (or your case, a legitimate picture). Stop. Think. Look at the content and its importance to worldwide knowledge. Back off. Deletion is not the only answer. Trackinfo (talk) 20:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Since I assume that this discussion was brought up because of File:BonnanoHamptoncrop.jpg, I'd like to explain why I nominated the image for deletion. In this case, there wasn't any information on where the image came from. A large number of images which use {{Multilicense replacing placeholder}} are actually taken not by the uploader but from some random website, which brings with it copyright problems because such images are tagged as being free. In the case of this image, you just hadn't specified where you got it from... if you took it, if you found it on a website where it had those licenses, if you scanned it out of a book and it was a copyvio... I just couldn't tell. And, therefore, the image's license couldn't be verified. I see that you have now cleaned up the image... I'm going to make a few tweaks and modifications to it now, but it certainly shouldn't be deleted with the added information.

I'm really sorry that you feel this way about what I do on Wikipedia. Like you, I'm just trying to help make it a more useful resource. There is no "one way" to do that... content contributions, typo fixing, reference finding, copyvio hunting, etc., are all helping the wiki. No matter which of those you follow, there will be some controversy and some people will disagree with what you do. That's the simple fact of having such a giant community. We're all working together towards one common goal, but how we help to reach the goal and how we look at others' attempts can be very different. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

License/permission issues: "File:Bernie Machen in 2008.jpg"

Drilnoth----As the shepherd for the university president articles within WikiProject University of Florida, I monitor those pages and noticed your flagging of this image for 7-day deletion. I have contacted the photographer and uploader (same person) by telephone to alert him to the issue. He is a University of Florida undergraduate (see name identified in the permission template on the image page), and has uploaded a number of his university-related photographs to Wikipedia. He has confirmed that they are his original works. He will be contacting you directly to resolve any issues you may have regarding the form of copyright permission/release. I would be grateful if you would take the time to explain your issue and how he may correct it in accordance with Wiki copyright protocols. He's the sort of image uploader we want to keep----he's good with a digital camera and he's willing to release his uploaded images unconditionally. We should help him all we can. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay; see, I couldn't tell that "Harrison Diamond / The Independent Florida Alligator" was Nikonmadness. Since you say that they are one and the same, I'll assume good faith and remove the deletion tag. Thank you for the clarification on this point. There's not need for him to contact me or anything. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Drilnoth, I appreciate your "good faith" offer to remove the tag. However, if you can't make the connection as an experienced Wiki copyright cop, other Wiki copyright enforcers are likely to draw the same conclusion as you. Why don't we just flag it as "contested" (or other appropriate Wiki copyright template) for the time being. When Nikonmadness contacts you, please tell him exactly how you would like it presented. He has the potential to be a very significant photograph contributor to our project, and we might as well help him do things the right way. Nikonmadness and you can create the proper pattern for others on our project to follow. Thank you, once again, for your assistance in this matter. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but since you provided the connection I think that it will make sense to most everyone now. The problem was that it hadn't associated "Harrison Diamond" with "Nikonmadness"; now it does. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, sir, what's the proper way to do it? Sign it with your real name and Wiki user name? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Just "I (User:Username) created this work entirely myself" is usually good. The real name isn't required and can cause confusion. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 23:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Drilnoth. I will relay this to Nikonmadness by outside e-mail, and I will include this thread to make it easy on him. I will also save this thread to my talk page archive to share with others in the future. I would like to standardize our license/permission/fair use/public domain language within our UF project so we don't have to spend so darn much time dealing with image issues. I was recruited to write key articles, not to be a Wikilawyer. I get enough of that at my day job. LOL Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 24 August 2009

• News and notes: $500,000 grant, Wikimania, Wikipedia Loves Art winners
• Wikipedia in the news: Health care coverage, 3 million articles, inkblots, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Ravenloft

Hey, Mr. Archives-Dude: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ravenloft_(module)&curid=9863423&diff=307543132&oldid=307512928 BOZ (talk) 15:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I turned up some interesting stuff there. :) BOZ (talk) 19:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... I'll try and archive those later today before they disappear. Thanks for the note! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Cool! For easy reference, the Wired.com link is in Against the Giants, Danger at Dunwater, In Search of the Unknown, The Ghost Tower of Inverness, The Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan, The Lost City (Dungeons & Dragons), The Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh, and White Plume Mountain. Tomb of Horrors also has a link, but that link is dead; our goal is to find out where it went! BOZ (talk) 16:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey there! ;) BOZ (talk) 20:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Dang, this fell off my watchlist. I won't have much time today, but anticipate that I'll be able to do them tomorrow. Really. ;) –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Remind. :) BOZ (talk) 12:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Starting work on this now. :) I'll post the results at WT:DND for ease of reference as needed. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done, now just adding the archive links to various articles. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Great, thanks! :) BOZ (talk) 19:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Third time is the charm! :) BOZ (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Awesome! I'll pitch in wherever I can. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Future templates

I dunno if there'll be consensus to remove the templates with a bot, but in case there will be, I've created a list of all the templates and the categories they use. Thought it might be helpful. :) --Conti|✉ 09:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Your assistance please...

I didn't mean to be confusing. As I wrote to the first admin to delete File:Hazrat Ali, Afghan politician.jpg, I did pose my question first on the commons village pump.

I uploaded the image as fair use. And I subsequently listed it for discussion, because I was hoping for opinions on whether the two images I uploaded to the commons a year later: File:General Ali and his Afghan fighters, November 2001.jpg and File:General Ali and his Afghan fighters, November 2001 b.jpg should be considered replacements for File:Hazrat Ali, Afghan politician.jpg. They are in the public domain, and they are of much better resolution. The problem with them is that the source doesn't clearly identify the subject as Hazrat Ali, rather it identifies him as "General Ali".

The subject, in my subjective judgment, looks like the grainy picture File:Hazrat Ali, Afghan politician.jpg. But, since he is not explicitly identified as Hazrat Ali, I was concerned that replacing the first image for which I previously claimed fair use is open to a criticism of original research.

I have no problem replacing File:Hazrat Ali, Afghan politician.jpg with one of the PD images -- provided other contributors went on record as agreeing that all three pictures were of the same individual. On the other hand, if no other contributors are confident that all three pictures are of the same individual, then I think the initial fair use justification remains valid, because then the two PD images could not then be regarded as replacements.

Can I ask whether you are confident that all three images are of the same individual?

If you aren't confident, what would you recommend as the next step?

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 17:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... well, here's my feeling on this. First, no, I'm not positive that all the images show the same person... I'd be inclined to believe that they are, but I can't be sure. The next step in this would probably be to post something at Wikipedia:Content noticeboard asking about the situation; that might bring some more eyes in to look at it. Personally, I'm not sure if even using File:Hazrat Ali, Afghan politician.jpg makes sense because of its über-low quality... it can't enhance the article too much with the pixely resolution that it has, but I guess that a low-quality picture is better than none. Anyway, I'm really not sure what to do about this (please understand that I deleted the image only because it had been sitting at FFD for so long, not as a G7). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I asked for input as you suggested. Could I trouble you to let me know the URL I listed as the source of the image? I uploaded some similarly low-res images, which were challenged a months or so ago. After a bit of discussion, the contributor who challenged their fair use asked me why I hadn't claimed PD. I hadn't recognized the site as a DoD site. But the challenger said it was. It wasn't the Naval War College. But it was another college run by the DoD, with DoD students and faculty. So I changed the claim to PD, and uploaded them to the commons. It may be that this similar picture was also a PD image, and I just hadn't recognized it.

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

http://www.nps.edu/programs/ccs/Docs/Executive%20Summaries/Laghman_Provincial_Overview_CCS.pdf –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Yup, that is it. NPS is the Naval Postgraduate School. So I think this too is a PD image after all. Geo Swan (talk) 19:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Well that would resolve the whole thing quite nicely. Shall I restore the image? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes please. I think I will amend my request at the content noticeboard, and still seek some more opinions as to whether the general Ali images should be used instead. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 19:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done; I'll let you add the correct tags, etc., since you are more familiar with the image in question than I am. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done thanks again. Geo Swan (talk) 19:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Protected future templates

I've been making my way through the future templates and came across a few protected ones, so I decided to take you up on your offer at the deprecation discussion. The protected ones I've found so far are:

• Template:Future election
• Template:Future election candidate
• Template:Future election in the United States
• Template:Future television

The change is simple. Just paste the following code above the existing first line. See Template:Future game if you have any doubt about how it should look.

<noinclude>{{ombox|image=[[Image:Symbol opinion vote.svg|40px]]|text=The template has been deprecated (see [[Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Deprecating "Future" templates|discussion]]) and is in the process of being removed from Wikipedia articles. '''Do not use this template'''.}}</noinclude><includeonly><center><small>''The template below has been deprecated (see [[Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Deprecating "Future" templates|discussion]]), and will soon be replaced automatically with the corresponding category.''</small></center></includeonly>

Thanks, I appreciate it. Equazcion (talk) 22:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

They were all done by User:Shereth (I actually got into an edit conflict on one of them! :) ). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Dammit, he beat us :) Thanks anyway though. Equazcion (talk) 22:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Please restore the link to http://www.d20pfsrd.com

Regarding [1] –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

If fan sites are discouraged, please tell me why the following links are allowed to remain:

Extended content

http://www.d20srd.org The Hypertext d20 SRD - Fan built and maintained SRD for the 3.5 game system. http://www.behemoth3.com/sword/ SwoRD - Fan site that appears to be dead. http://www.d20resources.com d20 Resources - Fan built and maintained with multiple obsolete SRDs. http://dmreference.com/SRD DMReference.com - Fan built and maintained SRD for the 3.5 game system. http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/home.html - Fan built and maintained SRD for the 3.5 game system. http://www.12tomidnight.com/d20modernsrd/Home.php - Fan built and maintained SRD for the d20 Modern game sytem. http://dndsrd.net/ dndsrd.net - Fan built and maintained SRD for the 3.5 game system. http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/System_Reference_Document Fan built and maintained SRD for the 3.5 game system. http://dnd.wikia.com Fan built and maintained SRD for the 3.5 game system. http://www.andargor.com/ Fan built and maintained SRD for the 3.5 game system including Microsoft Windows help files.

yet my site,

• http://www.d20pfsrd.com/ Fan built and maintained SRD for the Pathfinder game system.

...is determined to be "not appropriate" because "there already is one to the official PRD"

The link to the official PRD was added by someone else to replace mine. When I edited the page again I kept the link to the official PRD as well as restored mine. In honesty, the PRD is not even a "System Reference Document" technically, it is a "Pathfinder Reference Document" hence it being called a PRD and not an SRD. Either way, Wizards of the Coast released an official SRD years ago yet there is no link to it in this section yet there are links to multiple other fan created and maintained SRD sites.

"and fan sites are generally discouraged"

If that is the case then why are all of the above sites still linked? Each and every one of them is a "fan site" and is not associated with the "official" sites or SRD's for their associated game systems in any way.

Please explain this change more clearly to me for I fail to see how my site is different from any of the above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jreyst (talk • contribs) 07:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not Drilnoth, but I noticed this and have nothing better to do :) I just wanted to say that whether or not fan sites are discouraged doesn't really matter, as you shouldn't be placing links to your own site in Wikipedia articles (even if it's just to restore them after they were removed). See WP:EL#ADV. Equazcion (talk) 08:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay; first, what Equazicon said. Linking to your own website is a conflict of interest and could be considered spam. However, as to why the other links are allowed to remain: They aren't, actually. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS... I just hadn't thought to check for other fan site links when I reverted your addition. They're gone now. I've put some of your post in a collapsebox to save space; no content has been changed. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I have a few more questions. Please indulge me...

• Self-linking: Ok, so if a friend of mine added the link that would be ok? Or, what if someone who visited my site and liked it added the link? Is that acceptable? I can see how self-linking might be a no-no of there was a commercial/profit motive involved but neither is the case here. I genuinely felt that, given that my site is a System Reference Document on a site about System Reference Documents, it seemed appropriate. I have never spammed other articles and honestly felt this was both an appropriate and potentially helpful link to add to the article, specifically for fans of the Pathfinder game. By restricting the links section to only include the "official" PRD (which again, technically is not a "System Reference Document" but is instead a "Pathfinder Reference Document"). By including links to fan-made and maintained System Reference Documents you promote choice and options instead of promoting information coming from only one source.

• What is the threshold for determining "popularity" ie, how many links are required to point to a site for the site to be officially "popular"? While d20srd.org is certainly a popular website, it is an SRD to a now obsolete game system and is, as far as I can tell, no longer even being maintained. How many links do I need to have to my site for it to be considered "popular"? I have over a thousand visitors a day routinely so, while not terribly popular in the overall big picture of the internet, within the roleplaying game world I would suggest that is fairly popular.

Thanks, not trying to be a pain though.–Jreyst (talk contribs)

I understand. Anyway, on the self-linking, there may be no commercial involvement, but there are still issues. For example, inserting the link is a conflict of interest... you're still involved with the project. Your friend could technically add the link, but it would probably be reverted to (because they edit was done through a form of sock puppetry). Typically, users of a website but who have no other connection to the site should be adding the links. My feeling is that the official PRD can be included because it is obvious to anyone reading the two documents that the Pathfinder Reference Document and the System Reference Document serve essentially the same purpose. Just because it doesn't have "System" in its name shouldn't disqualify it. I understand that you haven't spammed other articles, but that really doesn't have a bearing on this discussion, and I fully believe that you made the addition in good faith; it would be an easy mistake to make. Also, I too am a fan of Pathfinder (3.5 Thrives!), which is actually why I noticed that the link was added, but linking to fan sites just isn't a generally good idea, no matter how high-quality or useful they are. Some exceptions are made in the cases of largish wikis (e.g., Wookiepedia), and some smaller fan wikis which contain more content than Wikipedia does, and the links can also be added if their popularity is proven by references to it by reliable sources.

Now that I'm looking back on it, I think that it might have been a mistake on my part to leave d20srd.org in the article for the very reason that, short of reliable sources, there is no measurement of popularity which is really accepted by Wikipedia (see WP:GHITS, for example). I think that I'm actually going to remove the link.

My apologies if any of this is confusing; Wikipedia's policies with respect to conflicts of interest, especially with external links, are complicated. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Triple Crown

Your majesty, it gives me great pleasure to bestow the Triple Crown upon Drilnoth for your D&Dish contributions in the areas of WP:DYK, WP:GA, and WP:FA. Well done :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks! 'Tis much appreciated. I We are most honored. :) –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Great find!

I decided to give it a try, and it worked! I figured I'd take a shot in the dark and look at White Dwarf's review of the Monster Manual, and lo and behold I got a quick blurb for the poor persucted mimic and several other creatures! :) I'm going to have a look at their review of the Fiend Folio and Monster Manual II to see what other creatures I can add a quick independent reference to. :) BOZ (talk) 00:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Awesome! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion and poll on reviewer usergroup criteria

You may be interested in a discussion and poll I've started to decide the criteria that will be used for promoting users to the reviewer group at Wikipedia talk:Reviewers#New discussion and poll: reviewer criteria - please put your comments there. AndrewRT(Talk) 17:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Gadget/proposals

I noticed your postings on this page, and several WP:Article Rescue Squadron members speak very highly of you. I have a question if these gadgets could be made and approved, and whether they are even feasible.

1. A tool which lists the wikilinks in the first pargraph (since these links are often the most relevant to an article) of an article up for deletion.

   An editor could then check a box for those wikilinks to post a neutral notification of the AFD on the talk page of these wikilinked articles, and

   then put a notification on the AFD of the notifications like this:

   Note: This debate has been included on the PAGE page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion.

2. A tool which rolls over an AFD listing on WP:AFDT, for example, and gives the number of news articles on google.

Ikip (talk) 15:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... the first of these would certainly be possible with JavaScript, but I don't really see the benefit. Shouldn't WikiProject pages be notified, not article talk pages? The second one would probably need a real bot. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

thank you for your time. Ikip (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Rhônexpress

[2] –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, We have the autorisation to use this image. Thank you Lulu97417 (talk) 17:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The image is non-free, and therefore must pass all of the non-free content criteria, one of which is that it can't be used in a template. If you have permission for the work to be released under a Wikipedia-compatible free license, and confirm permission as described at this page, then it can be kept in the template, but otherwise it is an obvious violation of Wikipedia policy. I have reverted your revert; please confirm permission on this before readding the image. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:RFBOT

Your recent bot approvals request has been approved. Please see the request page for details. Kingpin¹³ (talk) 01:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Empty rerfernces being assigned a name

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Animal_psychopathology&diff=308588608&oldid=277571639 third chunk down . Rich Farmbrough, 06:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC).

That would mostly be a bug in AWB... but really, it's a bug with the article (why does it have empty references?). I think that this is so rare an occurence that it is nothing to worry about, and does show problems with an article, not the coding itself. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know AWB could add ref names? [Well! So it does!) I am doing some work extending SmackBot's skill at fixing broken refs (most require stuff you can't do with reg-exes though) and replacing &ltref>\s*&ltref> is an easy hit. Oh, I guess that an editor marked the place where he was going to put the refs, then got shot in a failed jewellery heist. Rich Farmbrough, 18:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC).

Icewind Dale II

Hello, Drilnoth. I posted a request for plot references on the Icewind Dale II talk page, and was told that you might be able to help. I'm currently rewriting the Icewind Dale II article, and need references for the plot section. Unfortunately, I don't have access to the game right now. However, I discovered another way to get references. The manual says that if you hit CTRL-A while on the journal page for Icewind Dale II, the contents of the journal are downloaded to a text file. The text file is located in the /mpsave directory of Icewind Dale II, in the "folder of the last saved or last loaded save game." If you know anyone with a save at the end of the game, or if you have one yourself, I would really appreciate it if you could post the contents of that text file on the Icewind Dale II talk page. Also, since the journal is going to be pretty big, it probably be best if you hid it with <!-- and -->. Thanks for your time. 70.106.205.159 (talk) 22:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I've responded at the article talk page. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Template list - beta software

Per the discussion, I think {{Beta software}} should be added to your list of future templates in Conti's userspace (I'm assuming that's how the bot determines which templates to remove). Equazcion (talk) 19:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I have to tell it what templates to remove manually; I'm going to get that template, even though it isn't on the list. Thanks for the reminder! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Didn't mean to pester, just making sure :) Equazcion (talk) 19:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

PS, and this is a just a suggestion, but since Conti's list is referenced in the RFBA as sort of the definitive list of templates the bot will be removing, it might be prudent to add the Beta software template to that list anyway, just to avoid anyone possibly crying foul afterward. I'll leave that up to you though. Equazcion (talk) 19:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Bot check

One other thing: I clicked around some random diffs just to check the bot's work, and noticed this diff. The article contains a future template, but bot didn't remove it, and instead just performed some general fixes. I don't know if the bot is meant to return to the article later to perform the removal or what, but I just wanted to make you aware of this in case it's a problem. Equazcion (talk) 20:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, dang. Forgot to check one option. I'll go through them manually. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

recent "no source" notices

It would seem that you have tagged a few images as having no source, when the uploader has claimed to be the source and has licensed these images freely. Some examples I have found so far are as follows: [3] [4] [5] If you do not believe that the uploader is the author, then you should nominate these files for deletion, and not tag them for speedy deletion. Thanks -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 00:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The image's don't have an explicit source, in my opinion. Many users will upload images taken from Some Random Website™ and apply a "self" copyright tag. If an image doesn't explicitly state a source and has no metadata (a relatively more common sign of copyvios) as in the first image that you linked to, then I feel suspicious about it. For images with metadata, I tag as no source based on the metadata present if applicable, or assume good faith. However, re-looking at the images that you linked to, I'll agree that they should be kept (I'd been doing a deletion-blitz at the time going through Category:Images of people replacing placeholders, and may have been careless; I'll be sure to go slower and take my time more in the future with those and nominate at FFD/PUF if the source seems at all plausible). Many of the images in that category lack a valid source, so I felt that flooding FFD/PUF would be kind of disruptive and drown out other discussions. As I said, though, I'll go ahead and use the discussion route for unsure images, and only speedy if the source seems obviously wrong (read: image uploaded from Some Random Website™.) My apologies for this. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

RE: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval#Brunobot

Hey man,

I have a questions about your comment. Is Infobox Officeholder the ONLY false positive you know of? I could not find any others on the Wikiproject's page. I removed all the pages that use that template from the list i will work from (arround 3000) and i tested it, so far, i havent seen any significant problems. Theres no use for me making the same mistakes that you did when you tried this, so I would value your input. Thanks Tim1357 (talk) 01:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I've responded at the BRFA to make sure that all of the discussion is fairly well-centralized. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Good Article collaboration.svg

Can you make a FA star version? Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure; I don't have any more time tonight, but I should be able to work on this tomorrow. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I shouldn't need it for a month or so. I was thinking the little people might look good gold? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Ooh... that's a good idea. Quick question: Would you prefer the base image to be File:Symbol star FA gold.svg (in the same pattern as the image you linked to above), or the more "common" FA star File:Featured article star.svg? I can do either of them, or both if wanted. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 12:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess I was thinking the normal one. Whatever you think is best, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay; can do. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 31 August 2009

• Flagged protection and patrolled revisions: Misleading media storm over flagged revisions
• Flagged protection background: An extended look at how we got to flagged protection and patrolled revisions
• Wikimania: Report on Wikimania 2009
• News and notes: $2 million grant, new board members
• Wikipedia in the news: WikiTrust, Azerbaijan-Armenia edit wars
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 16:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Reverts

Oh yes, it was in accident in that I thought it was one of those annoying messages about photo licensing. I didn't really read it to be honest, and I apologize. After reading it, yes, they are my work, and they should be PD-self. Thanks! Again, very sorry. -- Earl Andrew - talk 23:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand; thanks for clarifying this for me. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 23:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

License migration

Hi Drilnoth, at Commons we emptied out Category:License migration candidates, but because Category:Wikipedia license migration candidates is not empty yet, images keep showing up in that category. Do you happen to know if anyone is actually working on the license migration now here at enwp? I noticed your bot, but it seems to have stopped. multichill (talk) 21:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Not anyone to my knowledge... my bot did most everything that I think it really can, because AutoWikiBrowser can't detect the date of upload, which is needed in order to migrate a lot of images. :/ Would your bot be able to work here? Maybe that would be able to clear out the category. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a shame no one is working on it here. MGA73 and me did a large part (probably almost everything) of the whole migration at Commons. I did a query at the toolserver for a specific subset and than we ran a (pywikipedia) bot to work on these images. This is a pretty solid strategy which can applied here too. I have to see what mga73 thinks about it, multichill (talk) 22:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay; I'd like to do more, but it's pointless to spend time on it manually, IMO, when pywikipedia can do so much of it. I just don't have toolserver access/don't know how to code Python. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

If Multichill helps with lists then I would be happy to help. Just needs to be sure that my bot will not be blocked. It has bot flag but not for migration :-) --MGA73 (talk) 18:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that a BRFA for this would be approved within a few days... I wouldn't suggest that you just start making the edits without approval. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Did Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MGA73bot 2 so lets see what happens. --MGA73 (talk) 18:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I joined the party at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BotMultichill 4. multichill (talk) 21:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Changing "fact" template to "citation needed"

I was wondering if it is useful for your bot to make an edit like this. It appears that all it did there was switch the fact template to a citation needed template. Because the fact template redirects to citation needed, aren't these edits better when something else is getting changed as well?--Rockfang (talk) 01:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You are correct; unfortunately, I don't see a way to tell AWB to only make that change if other things are also being modified. I'll post at WP:AWB/FR about this... my apologies; this shouldn't be happening too often right now anyway. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: File source problem with File:Walking frame.jpg and File:Walking cane.jpg

File Copyright problem

Hello my good old friend, hope you remember the time we drunk, we danced, as the king watched helplessly. the amazing this is, we never forgot to defend knowledge. thanks for bringing it to my attention about the above images, i let you down...poor me... i ve now improved on the raised questions. please check, and let me know if i need to do more. i rest the case and return for a drink....12:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freshymail (talk • contribs)

Okay... I could use some context as to the wording of your comment here, but let us not worry about that for now. :) Anyway, the problems with the images still haven't been fully addressed. Specifically, as publicity images, they both need a detailed fair-use rationale; although legally they are OK (I think; IANAL), Wikipedia policy requires these detailed rationales because one of Wikipedia's five pillars is that it is free content, and non-free images (such as these) should be kept to a minimum. Specifically, you need to explain how the image meets every one of the non-free content criteria. I don't really think that this is possible with the given images, but I've been surprised before. :) Specifically, there are two points: First, criterion 1 isn't met because if you took a picture of the objects, rather than taking one from a website, then they would be free, rather than fair use, images. Second, criterion 8 isn't met, IMO, because there are already pictures of mobility aids in the article; why are fair use images of other types really needed? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks User:Drilnoth for the good explaination. I will see if i can take a photography of the images i need, I will replace them as soon as possible, or you may delete them. Thanks

defending knowledge can be difficult sometimes'. Thank you. 22:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freshymail (talk • contribs)

Future deprecation RFC

Are you sure starting over is the best way to go? There was already a large discussion. Could we perhaps uncollapse the original discussion, move the RFC there, and merge the two? We could also move the "long discussion" to the talk page. Asking everyone to repeat their comments seems unnecessary and imposing, and sort of unlikely to happen in their entirety. Equazcion (talk) 04:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I really don't know how to get a good discussion going. Perhaps merging the two would be a good idea; I'm just confuzzled by this whole situation. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• I think that the templates that have had contents cleared out should simply go before Wikipedia:TfD in groups of five or ten, and that is the simple and athoritative next step, until they come up for review a week or two later. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 13:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Curious...

I'm curious why the templates couldn't be re-added via bot. Couldn't you use its contribs list from when the templates were removed? Equazcion (talk) 02:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

That might be possible, but it wouldn't be perfect... specifically, template parameters wouldn't be included in the re-added templates, and all the templates would go at the top of the article, not a section or anything. :/ –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Just curious, thanks. Equazcion (talk) 03:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Picture of Samartha

Hello ! I've made an entry for Stanley Jedidiah Samartha many months ago. I wonder if you could search and send a picture of him. Better still if you can upload a profile picture.--117.195.206.79 (talk) 08:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Unfortunately, I could not find a free image online with a Wikipedia-compatible license. If you can find an image, you could follow the procedure outlined at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission in order to request that the image be released under a Wikipedia-compatible free license. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

re: Bug in resize tool

Sorry that I placed my first response in a sort of weird spot. I must not have been paying much attention. The setting I'm referring to can be found by opening the IE8 options, going to the security tab, and clicking custom level. It should be down near the bottom of the scroll. RandomStringOfCharacters (talk) 17:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The images will be downloaded to whatever directory the program is in, and deleted after a successful upload. I'm doing a sort of roundabout way of getting that field filled out automatically. As a security measure MS decided not to allow access to it through DOM, so I was sending paste messages to fill it from the clipboard. It seems not to work on Win7 (the same problem you're having) either, so maybe there's been a recent security update that I don't have on all my computers that is breaking my work around. I'll look into it. RandomStringOfCharacters (talk) 18:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay; thanks. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Check the google code page. There's a new version up. I found a different (and more reliable) way to upload the new image versions. Though you probably won't know the difference (since you never saw the previous version in full), it's also quite a bit faster! Let me know how it works out. RandomStringOfCharacters (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Does it just hang there? There should be a pause for 5-10 seconds as the file is uploaded. The grey screen is normal for that period of time. RandomStringOfCharacters (talk) 19:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, new version again. I ran into this problem on my laptop. It was a mistake on my part, where I incorrectly made the download package. Should work fine now. If not, let me know. RandomStringOfCharacters (talk) 20:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Yay! Now that it seems like more people are starting to use it, I might have to design some sort of queue system so that overlap doesn't happen. Have fun! RandomStringOfCharacters (talk) 21:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Category question

Hey, do you understand why Category:Pakistani Sunni Muslims doesn't appear as a subcategory of Category:Pakistani Muslims even though it has the category? Thanks Hekerui (talk) 18:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It is in the parent category, actually. It's confusing because in a category, subcats and non-category pages are alphabetized together and then, when you look at a page of the category, it just takes the first 200 pages on the list to show. So, because Category:Pakistani Sunni Muslims has a sort key of "Sunni", it appears on the same page in Category:Pakistani Muslims as other "Su"s, in this case, page 2. Hope that helps! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Oooh! I understand the movitation but on Commons everything is on the first page (to a certain point), which I like better. Thank you! Hekerui (talk) 19:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Ayup; it is confuzzling. :) I didn't know that Commons had a better way of doing it. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair use currency images

Hi I am unsure about the rules, but why has the photo of the Japanese period occupation money [File:Batu lintang camp dollars.jpg] been reduced to such a resolution that they are as good as useless as details can't be made out - such as the bunch of bananas that gave the currency their slang name? Other images, such as [File:Malaysia_1st_10ringgit_back.jpg] this one of an old banknote seem to be acceptable at high resolution so I'm not sure why the wartime ones aren't. Maybe I chose the wrong copyright status template? The licensing and rationale for the ringgit page is pretty much the case for the Batu Lintang one. I'm confused. Jasper33 (talk) 16:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:NFCC, non-free images should be as low resolution as is reasonable. In the case of other images, such as File:Malaysia 1st 10ringgit back.jpg, we just haven't gotten to them yet... I've now tagged that image for resizing. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Perhaps in this case I did make the image too small, because there are multiple bills pictured. How's this: I'll revert the size change, but when I next work on image resizing I'll make it smaller, but not as small as it is now? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see - I thought maybe the ringgit had slipped through the net - but obviously not! I like the sound of your proposal, thanks. Jasper33 (talk) 17:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia license migration candidates

Seems that a bot can't do much more now. Last 252 images in Category:Wikipedia license migration candidates are not really images - only text. Should be deleted when it is checked that all info is on Commons. I moved the last images to Category:Wikipedia license migration needs review. Unless someone gets a good idea the 2.903 files needs to be checked manually. --MGA73 (talk) 22:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Awesome! That went fast. I may have time to look at some of the files manually and/or delete the pseudo-images. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

That would be great! Just do a quick check to see if any information should be copied to Commons before you delete. No need to delete useful info. --MGA73 (talk) 22:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Naturally. :) –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

AAlerts/News

I reverted you. I think you were under the impression that all of that page would be transcluded to the each WikiProject's Article Alerts. In fact, only the most recent of each type of item is transcluded (only the latest edition of the signpost, for example). The rest in placed between <noinclude></noinclude> tags, meaning that they are only visible if you are on the Wikipedia:Article alerts/News page. Stuff is kept for a month, so if you see things older than a month, feel free to remove it. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 21:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah; okay. It had looked really confusing and some of the news seemed like it was getting old. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Mr. Image Guy

I was once, and probably will be again, an amateur genealogist for my family tree. When visiting cemeteries, I often took snapshots of the front gate just for the heck of it. I have a lot of relatives buried in Acacia Park Cemetery, Chicago (grandfather, four great-grandparents, great-aunt, two great-great grandparents, one uncle) and so I just happen to have a couple of decent images there. If I upload one or both, could you help me set up a proper FUR for an image I created? :) All the other cemeteries I have pics of either have no article, or already have better images than what I've got, so this is the only one I'm going to concern myself with. BOZ (talk) 23:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

It's probably a free image. Unless it has statues or other art, and was created in the last 100 (or 70 or whatever) years, it's copyright has expired, or it never had one. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much what Peregrine Fisher said. If the images have any statues or designs that aren't de minimus, then a FUR would be needed, but otherwise you can tag the image under whatever free license you'd like. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 00:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good - I just uploaded a couple images, but not sure which one I want to use just yet. If I missed something in the FUR, could you let me know? I've never really worked with actual free images before. ;) BOZ (talk) 00:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Acacia11.jpg is probably non-free, since their logo is a big part of the image. File:Acacia1.jpg is probably free. Dril hopefully knows the correct tags off the top of his head. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

If the one with the logo is non-free, I'll just use the other one (which depicts a much older sign, likely past copyright). I pasted both on the page to see how they looked, so I can revert if I'm going with the other one. BOZ (talk) 01:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Okay; I'd agree with Peregrine Fisher (again :) ) in that File:Acacia11.jpg is non-free; I'll get to that one in a minute. File:Acacia1.jpg can probably be considered a free image. Since you took the picture, there are a few options for image licensing. First would be to use {{PD-self}}, which allows anybody to use the image for any purpose without attribution or anything else. More commonly, {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} can be used to license the image the same way as text edits to Wikipedia... the image can be used in any way, as long as the author is attributed and derivative works are released under the same license. I'd recommend choosing one of those two tags, although there are others at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Free licenses.

The other image is a bit trickier. The first question is, do you know when the sign was built? If it's old enough, it could be public domain. Assuming that it isn't PD, however, here's what I would probably do: First, the image needs a non-free copyright tag {{Non-free logo}}, presumably) and a rationale (easily created with {{Logo fur}}) for the sign. The rest of the image, which you hold the copyright to, would need to be tagged the same way as with the other image. Basically, some of the image is free and some of it isn't free. :/ Just make sure that it is clear in the text that the non-free tag applies to the sign itself only.

Does that all make sense? :) –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) Ayup, I'd probably go with the older one if that works. It avoids more headaches. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Kinda relevant, but File:Coca-Cola logo.svg is free. Too bad that cemetery uses a picture of a tree in its sign. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

That image was created before 1923, which automatically makes it PD in the United States. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Probably an acacia? ;) I'll go with #1 over #11, since that sounds way simpler. That neon sign is definitely vintage; I can't say whether it's older than say 1940, but it may well be. The sign in the newer image is likely very modern; I can't say I recall for certain, but I don't think it was there in my 2000 visit, and I probably took a picture of it because it was new. I'll give a try setting up a FUR on the one I want to keep, and then you can have a look and see if I did it right. :) BOZ (talk) 01:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that a FUR is needed on File:Acacia1.jpg, just a free license tag. The logo is probably de minimus, and also is just a string of characters in a simple typeface (thus, {{PD-textlogo}}). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

LOL - you're right, I'm so used to dealing with non-free images that I didn't even think about how only non-free images need a "fair use rationale". :) How does that look now? BOZ (talk) 01:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Heh...

I cleaned up the description a little; it should be good to go! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Great, thanks! You guys were a big help. BOZ (talk) 01:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject interview

Ya see that? :) BOZ (talk) 21:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Ayup. :) Very well done; that really sums up what I knew of the origins, and filled in quite a bit, too. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It's up, if you haven't seen it! BOZ (talk) 04:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Drilbot and citations

Drilbot just came along and changed a book title from italics to Roman. In citation styles it says that book titles in complete citations are often given in italics. Therefore, does it not stand to reason that, book titles should be given in italics when included on their own? ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 19:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

It was still in italics... On Wikipedia, using '' is equivalent to tags, but it is more readable and shorter on the page. If you look at the bot's revision, you'll see that the book title was still displayed in italics. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes, sorry! My mistake. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 20:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

It's okay; I understand that it could seem confusing. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Rollback request

Hey there, I'm posting here to request for rollback status. My application is at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback#User:Addihockey10 Thanks! --Addihockey ^(t/c) 22:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Granted; I left a note at your talk page. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Size problems

Note: Continuing from help request at [6] –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not that, I use that background to save energy (hurray!). It's the fact the the text is tiny, try comparing the recent changes text to my scroll bar and task bar, level 1 headers are about 12 font size. This just happened at random, please help! --Addihockey ^(t/c) 01:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Yay! The View>Zoom>Reset thing worked. I owe you one! --Addihockey ^(t/c) 01:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it only affected Wikipedia, every other website worked (Including the french Wikipedia!) Strange... --Addihockey ^(t/c) 01:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Technical issue

The problem is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Comics and animation. A bit of discussion at [User_talk:Peregrine_Fisher#Cats_for_deletion]] and User talk:Cbl62. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't know of any way to fix this at this time short of moving the discussion to its own page. :/ I think that section transclusion has been brought up before and is probably somewhere on the developer to-do list, but it probably isn't very high on it. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

re:Dazzle

Sure, go ahead. I'm looking forward to it :). BTW, anther thought I had, if it's not too difficult, would it be possible to stop the "prod" tab showing up on deleted pages? Best, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done; the tab shouldn't show up on nonexistent pages now. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Great, thanks - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

PD-text image

I noticed you deleted File:Tulane shield web.png as it did not have a fair use rationale. I believe this image consists entirely of simple geometric shapes and text and is therefore ineligible for copyright, therefore no fair use rationale was ever needed in the first place. Could you be so kind as to restore this image? Even if you believe I am in error, please restore the image and immediately renominate them for deletion if you feel I am in error at WP:FFD. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done; I plan to renominate the image at FFD because I don't think that it is simple enough, but I see your reasoning and have restored it in the meantime. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Much appreciated (quite cordial too!). Thanks. — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

HI....

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

Hi, I just learned you are expert in identifying false Images(in different terms), I wish to learn How can i identify the right image, uploading it, & describe it along with reporting false images..Thanks.( Abu Torsam 07:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)).

Hello! When you're uploading images or working on improving their descriptions, you should probably follow the suggesstions at Wikipedia:Uploading images, with regards to source, licensing, filenames, etc.. If you plan on reporting problematic images, you should understand that page fully, as well as read the basics of Wikipedia:Guide to image deletion; then you can use a tool like TWINKLE in order to easily report images. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou very much for your kind guidance, i hope to learn it soon, & looking forward for more guidance in future.( Abu Torsam 18:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)).

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 September 2009

• From the editor: Call for opinion pieces
• News and notes: Footnotes updated, WMF office and jobs, Strategic Planning and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wales everywhere, participation statistics, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Video games
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Templates future

In light of the closure of the centralized discussion, Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Deprecating "Future" templates, I regret to say, if any TfD arguments arise for a particular "future" template, it's probably desirable to insist that the template to be used is the generic (and already deleted) {{future}} template, which is malleable for all purposes. Otherwise, we're on the path to template proliferation again.
Yellowdesk (talk) 03:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that if any of the templates is to be kept, it would be that one; but the template can always be restored. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, AFigureOfBlue. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Translation

Regarding [7] –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You can also ask me to assist you with that, I like to think I'm better than the old Google :) I think the wording you used is not so clear, perhaps you should change it to something like "GameStar considers the character development on par with the core Neverwinter Nights 2 game, with the dialogues surpassing it at times" (or something more formal). I guess you purposefully chose this part to highlight the comparison with NWN2, but in case you want another more general statement why not include this from the bottom line instead: "GameStar recommended the game despite perceived weaknesses in looks, humor, and mission quality due to its strength in storytelling". Hekerui (talk) 22:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Aha! I would tend to agree with you. Thanks for the translation; I think that I'll use some of that. Thank you! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Webcitation

Note: Regarding [8]. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I just remembered I had also had problems with webcitation once, and I switched to freezepage.com Hekerui (talk) 20:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... thanks. I think that it works now that I rearchived it, but I'll keep that in mind. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009

• Opinion essay: White Barbarian
• Localisation improvements: LocalisationUpdate has gone live
• Office hours: Sue Gardner answers questions from community
• News and notes: Vibber resigns, Staff office hours, Flagged Revs, new research and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Stunting of growth, Polanski protected and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• WikiProject report: WikiProject National Register of Historic Places
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

confusing date formats

FYI, I tried to work some of your thinking regarding date formats into a re-work of the proposal that appears below the comment of supporter # 21.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedied image

Hi, I notice that File:Alan_Bond_22-02-2004.jpg was deleted under CSD F4, having been tagged as {{di-no source}}. My question is, the licensing tag used in that case ({{Multilicense replacing placeholder}}) states in it "I, the author of this work". Is that not a source (because I'm pretty sure self-made is acceptable as a source). I actually have nothing to do with this image apart from it being on page I worked on, but I'm just curious. Best wishes, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

A lot of images tagged with that template are actually copyvios... many users who don't know about actual copyright stuff use the template after seeing that they can upload an image to replace a "placeholder" image. In this case, I believe that this was probably a copyvio for a number of reasons: First, the image is of web-resolution (small, so it is more likely to have come from a website than an image of larger size). Additionally, it has no explicit source (this can be a sign of users who don't fully understand Wikipedia's copyright policies), probably lacked metadata (which are usually present on images taken by the uploader, unless it was later edited with some software; however, I can't confirm that it lacked metadata without undeleting the image), and the appearance of the image would seem to indicate that it was part of a professional-ish "group shot". See Category:Images of people replacing placeholders for a list of images similar to this one in license status, many of which are copyvios, as well as Wikipedia:Image placeholders#How it worked (second to last point) which says that "So far the majority of uploads have been copyright violations." –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm

Interesting. BOZ (talk) 19:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Grosse Point Light and Chicago Harbor Light

The bot performed very satisfactorily on the former. Nice job. Please do the latter. Thank you. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 12:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC) Stan

Okay; can do. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Message

Hello, AFigureOfBlue. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/D&D.
Message added 04:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Image tagging

Moonriddengirl suggested I talk to you about image tagging because this is an area of interest to you. Here is what I posted on her talk page: "Since the copyvio purge started, I've been tagging so many images in the last month or so and all I am only dealing with new and recent uploads. I keep being asked essentially the same sort of questions, so I wrote an IfD faqs-type page to reduce the issue (I hope) based on User:Jonny-mt/CSD which I actually have usurped for myself too but refined for images." Besides needing a new image, would you kindly review it for me to see if if fits the bill or if I have missed anything obvious or if you think something needs changing. She suggested one small changes that I have added and of course I will be happy if other can use it when complete. TIA ww2censor (talk) 03:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems good to me. I didn't read the whole thing, but looked at a number of different areas. Mind if I link to it also? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course you can link to it but please be aware there is a link that opens a new talk page section for my talk page at the bottom in the "now so what? section. If there any way to code that so the "clicking here" brings them to your talk page then, indeed, otherwise copy it to your own user space. I may do a small revision in the next 24 hours as someone just indicated a slight error in my thinking on F9. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 22:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Good point; hadn't noticed that. Maybe then I'll just copy your copy and then modify my copy so it better reflects my views, if they differ from yours, and to make that link better suit my userspace. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 23:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to modify my page if it improves matters or clarifies anything. You are welcome. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 23:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

California Maps

Hi, I noticed you closed several FFDs I started for LA based maps. Would it be possible to delete similar sets of images for Oakland, San Francisco, and San Jose California. I had hoped to delete those files by bundling into AFDs without clogging FFD. The discussions can be found at Oakland, San Francisco, and San Jose. They are also all but one of the images in Category:California maps. -Optigan13 (talk) 05:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Can do; I'll add it to my to-do list. I take it the one not to be deleted is File:Southern California.png? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and yes, the so cal.png was the exception, and that was largely because the person who initially added the category reverted me when I put a db-f8 tag on the page. -Optigan13 (talk) 05:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused too

^^^

???

— BQZip01 — ^talk 14:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Unsure ...

(Just in case I convey the wrong impression, let me first emphasise that, as far as I'm concerned, this is "no big deal". It's just that something has happened which is contrary to my expectations, and I feel I need a better understanding of "the rules".)

I'm unsure of the process. Being an admin, I expect you know it in your sleep! So I also expect that you can explain it to me?

You deleted these 4 images:

• (Deletion log); 11:02 . . Drilnoth (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:Regimental band.jpg" (G8: Page dependent on a deleted or nonexistent page)
• (Deletion log); 11:02 . . Drilnoth (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:Padget Thomas Barracks.jpg" (G8: Page dependent on a deleted or nonexistent page)
• (Deletion log); 11:02 . . Drilnoth (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:Marion Square Citadel.jpg" (G8: Page dependent on a deleted or nonexistent page)
• (Deletion log); 11:02 . . Drilnoth (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:Citadel Campus.jpg" (G8: Page dependent on a deleted or nonexistent page)

Wikipedia:CSD#G8 says:
G8. Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page,
such as ... image pages without a corresponding image; ... This excludes any page that is useful to the project, and in particular: ... image pages ... for images that exist on Wikimedia Commons.

So does that mean you deleted them because, once-upon-a-time they DID appear on a page, and now they don't? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Question

There are many hundreds of images (perhaps even thousands?) that are "not used". Why did you delete these four? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Request

I'm afraid I can't remember just quite what these photos depicted. I had in mind to use some images. I'm not sure if this set includes any of the ones I had in mind, (because I can no longer see them!)
If you restore them, I can have a look, and then flag-for-deletion the ones I'm not interested in, and use the ones I am interested in. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Further discussion

Simply put, there were no images at those pages. They were listed at Wikipedia:Database reports/File description pages without an associated file; the pages consisted entirely of a single category (Category:Images of The Citadel (military college)). There was no image associated with the page, and no other page content. I don't just delete orphaned images without an FFD or somesuch first unless WP:CSD#F5 is applicable. However, categorizing nonexistent images seems... well... pointless. And there also isn't any image on Commons with that same name. I'll restore them if you want proof. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Just a little confused. Thanks for the explanation. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

"Simply put, there were no images at those pages." - Oh. That wasn't what I expected as a reply. Well, that certainly explains why you deleted them using G8, and renders my follow-on questions "not applicable".

"I don't just delete orphaned images without an FFD or somesuch first unless WP:CSD#F5 is applicable." - I have no reason to expect that you do.

(By FFD, I'm guessing you are referring to Wikipedia:Files for deletion?)

"However, categorizing nonexistent images seems... well... pointless." - Yes indeed! But now we get to the interesting bit. When I categorised the 6 images into Category:Images of The Citadel (military college) on 19 April 2009 (example) there were, six images. Some time between then and now, four of those six images "disappeared" somehow. I find that puzzling. As all six images are on my watchlist, and I had not received any messages about them until yesterday, that creates a second puzzle.

As you have deleted them, I can't examine the histories.

Are you able to examine the histories and determine what happened between 19 April 2009 and yesterday?

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I think I'm getting some idea of what's happened.

Looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Citadel%2C_The_Military_College_of_South_Carolina&action=history, we see

20 Sept 2009

• (cur) (prev) 04:48, 20 September 2009 CommonsDelinker (Talk | contribs) m (32,455 bytes) (Removing "Marion_Square_Citadel.jpg", it has been deleted from Commons by Nilfanion because: In category Unknown as of 30 August 2009; no source.) (undo)
• (cur) (prev) 04:43, 20 September 2009 CommonsDelinker (Talk | contribs) m (32,543 bytes) (Removing "Citadel_Campus.jpg", it has been deleted from Commons by Nilfanion because: In category Unknown as of 30 August 2009; no source.) (undo)
• (cur) (prev) 04:37, 20 September 2009 CommonsDelinker (Talk | contribs) m (32,635 bytes) (Removing "Dogs_at_home.jpg", it has been deleted from Commons by Nilfanion because: In category Unknown as of 30 August 2009; no source.) (undo)

7 July 2009

• 08:06, 7 July 2009 BrokenSphere (Talk | contribs) (46,853 bytes) (→Gallery of The Citadel: remove; all images already linked to on Commons) (undo)

What do you advise as the easiest/quickest/least-effort-for-all method to restore all of the pictures that have been deleted?

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. It seems a large number of photos have been deleted

Refer http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Citadel,_The_Military_College_of_South_Carolina&oldid=298694103

• 
  Old Marion Square
• 
  Original Citadel Barracks on Marion Square
• Current interior of the Old Citadel
  Current interior of the Old Citadel
• Arsenal Academy (was part of the Citadel prior to being burned down by General Sherman in 1865) now South Carolina Governors mansion
  Arsenal Academy (was part of the Citadel prior to being burned down by General Sherman in 1865) now South Carolina Governors mansion
• Main administrative building, Bond Hall.
  Main administrative building, Bond Hall.
• Bond Hall
  Bond Hall
• 
  Summerall Chapel.
• Summerall Chapel Stain Glass.
  Summerall Chapel Stain Glass.
• Citadel Color Guard in Salt and Pepper Uniforms during parade.
  Citadel Color Guard in Salt and Pepper Uniforms during parade.
• Regimental Staff during Full Dress Parade.
  Regimental Staff during Full Dress Parade.
• Bond Volunteers performing as new Summerall Guards.
  Bond Volunteers performing as new Summerall Guards.
• The Corps of Cadets Regimental Pipe Band.
  The Corps of Cadets Regimental Pipe Band.
• Regimental Band Officer
  Regimental Band Officer
• Dress White Parade March Out
  Dress White Parade March Out
• Dress White Parade Officers
  Dress White Parade Officers
• Dress White Parade at Present Arms.
  Dress White Parade at Present Arms.
• Marching in summer leave uniform to a football game.
  Marching in summer leave uniform to a football game.
• Citadel Beach House of the Isle of Palms.
  Citadel Beach House of the Isle of Palms.
• Winning the Silver Shako over Virginia Military Institute in football.
  Winning the Silver Shako over Virginia Military Institute in football.

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I can't really help you from here. The image pages on Wikipedia only had one edit in their history—your adding the category to them (which, BTW, shouldn't typically be done... images on Commons should be categorized there, not here, but that's besides the point). I am not an admin on Commons so I can't look at the images and figure out what should be done. I would recommend asking User:Nilfanion on Commons about the images, since he deleted them there; you can link back to this discussion if you'd like. Unless the images are restored, I see no point to restoring the pages here with only their categories but no associated image; discuss this with Nilfanion, and maybe some conclusion can be reached. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a good plan. Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

"Unless the images are restored, I see no point to restoring the pages here with only their categories but no associated image" - I agree. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009

• New talk pages: LiquidThreads in Beta
• Sockpuppet scandal: The Law affair
• News and notes: Article Incubator, Wikipedians take Manhattan, new features in testing, and much more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia used by UN, strange AFDs, iPhone reality
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• WikiProject report: New developments at the Military history WikiProject
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion : CSE Logo

Hi, the image CSE_logo.jpg has been removed by you sometime back. File:CSE logo.jpg. This is the official logo of the Department of Computer Science & Engineering, University of Moratuwa, Sri Lanka http://www.cse.mrt.ac.lk/, so I believe it is in the public domain and can be used in the wiki page User:Namals/Dept. of Computer Science & Engineering, University of Moratuwa. Glad if you can provide some clarification on this. Thanks

Namals (talk) 15:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The WPVG Newsletter (Q3 2009)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 2, No. 5 — 3rd Quarter, 2009
Previous issue | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q3 2009, the project has:

• 126 Featured Articles
• 33 Featured Lists
• 16 Featured Topics

• 29 A-Class Articles
• 339 Good Articles
• 3 Good Topics

---

Content

• Changes to Featured and Good content
• News items and announcements

• Feature: Video game FA maintenance
• Featured editor: Kung Fu Man

---

Project Navigation

• VG Project Main pages

  • Main project – talk
  • Project category – talk
  • Portal – talk

  VG Project Departments

  • Assessment – talk
  • Cleanup – talk
  • Peer review – talk

   

  • Reference library – talk
  • Newsletter – talk
  • Video game images – talk

To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

• Newsletter delivery by xenobot 04:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Bot job for future templates

Hi, it has been more than 14 days now since the RFC at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Deprecating "Future" templates was closed. Could your bot start the job again removing the templates? Garion96 (talk) 07:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Ayup; I'll start that latter today. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I already deleted the ones you orphaned. Garion96 (talk) 09:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, just wondering when the bot is going to go further with it's job. Since we're almost there now. :) Garion96 (talk) 13:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe Drilnoth only runs the bot when he can sit and watch it. He doesn't let it go constantly. Next time he's on, I'm sure it'll make another run. Equazcion (talk) 13:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to run it some more later today; as Equazcion said, I only run it when I'm "around". I don't nessecarily sit and watch it, but I want to be able to respond swiftly to bug reports and the like. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense, and thanks for doing it. I guess I simply am impatient, we are so close but still too far (to do it manually anyway). :) Garion96 (talk) 16:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

File:HeflinOKdiary03.jpg

You recently sent me a message about the image file I uploaded. I appreciate you help and info, but frankly I still don't have a clue. It was taken from Heflin's paper in American Speech. It is my understanding the page image was sent to him. As I stated below, I think it fall under fair use. I would appreciate anything you could do to make it street legal.

Thanks for your help.

JPFay (talk) 23:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok O.K. Okay :) ... I have one quick question and then I may be able to determine the proper licensing; I'm pretty sure that it is public domain due to its age (the diary was from 1815). However, just to be sure, may I ask where this image was located? Did you find it on a website, scan it out of a book, or what? Once I know that, I think that I should be able to clarify this particular image's licensing. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

No! Not Ok O.K. Okay :)

Should be: Ok O.K. Okeh :)

I meant to give you all this info in the first place, but I'm afraid I am pretty new at (and frankly still struggling with) Wiki routines. But I really want to get them down. Anyway, here's the info:

It's taken from Heflin, Woodford A. (1941) "'O. K.', But What Do We Know about It?". American Speech, 16 (2), 90.

I spent quite a bit of time on it and I think image is included here under Wikipedia fair use image guidelines. It is an image of iconic status or historical importance and the subject of critical and scholarly commentary (is it ever!). It not an image of an extended passage of legible text but rather is a 3 line detail taken from a full page image of the diary. The American Speech editor called it the locus classicus of any discussion of the expression "OK."

Hey, thanks again for your help. I really appreciate it. JPFay (talk) 11:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so it is definitely a scan of the book, and the image in the book is itself a direct copy of the diary entry? In that case, the image is public domain, not fair use. I've retagged the image as such and removed the deletion tags; if my assessment here is incorrect, please let me know. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It is a page image of the 1815 diary entry. To my knowledge, no one has ever claimed copyright of the 1815 diary, which would have expired long ago anyway.

The page image was not included in the 1938 published book. I downloaded it from an 1941 issue in the the journal archives of American Speech. The image was sent to the author of the 1941 journal paper about the diary, and there is certainly no suggestion that its owner intended to transfer copyright to that author or publication.

If it is indeed in public domain (and what happened to it in 1941 is irrelevant), that would be terrific. Wouldn't have to tiptoe around with what constituted fair use.

Thanks again for your efforts.

JPFay (talk) 11:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep; sounds like it is public domain to me. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Some general questions

You said in a previous message if I had any questions to ask you. Maybe you didn't know what you were getting yourself into.

First, should I be editing an existing section, i.e., the section on Choctaw etymology, when I message you or create a new section like this one?

How can I find out what you did regarding making the page image street legal? I realize there is an enormous amount of documentation on everything about Wiki, but I find it often contradictory and mostly overwhelming. I think the most pertinent info for me, instead of all the documentation, is just "What did you do?" Or more to the point, what should I do next time?

Do you have any suggestions about who might be interested in looking at my Choctaw etymology material and helping me get it posted? I am thinking I will start posting it a little bit at a time next week, but would certainly appreciate some help.

JPFay (talk) 12:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Usually, if you're starting a new "topic" on a talk page, it is good to click the "new section" button and leave the new message that way, although it doesn't really matter how you add the new section as long as you include a header.

I updated the Image description page for File:HeflinOKdiary03.jpg with the public domain-related information; you can view it on the image page. Every image has an associated page that works the same way as an article page in how it is edited, and that is where information such as a license is located for images.

Basically, when you upload an image, there should be a few boxes and a drop-down list on the image upload page. By filling in the information requested and choosing the correct license from the list, all the information will be ready to go.

The members of WikiProject Etymology may be interested in looking at your draft article. I'm not sure how active the project is, and it only seems to have a few members, but that would probably be the best place to stop. If there's no response in a few days, then its parent's (WikiProject Linguistics) members may be able to help. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Inquiry

What were you doing with Template:Law unref, and where was that discussed? Debresser (talk) 00:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Please also notice that your edits to the template were summarily reverted and the sharp reaction at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#Template:Law_unref. Debresser (talk) 00:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to be bold; the template was essentially unused and it didn't look like anyone was actively using it. Many cleanup templates are used on a number of articles, and it seems pointless to have one with such a small, specialized scope. It's the same situation as this, except I nominated the template for deletion, not the category. And then when I went to use Twinkle to nominate it for deletion, it sent it to RFD instead of TFD, which would have been better. The change wasn't discussed but: It was used on only two articles, seems to have too narrow a scope to be used much more widely, and there was an obvious parent template. These project-specific cleanup templates all seem kind of silly too me because it is moving even more self-reference stuff into the mainspace, by linking to WikiProjects and not just policies and the like. I guess I'll take it to TFD and see if there is more consensus. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you overstepped boldness here. And in view of the reaction I mentioned above, I think a Tfd would be an exercise in futility. Debresser (talk) 01:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hate to butt in. Once someone's talk page is in my watchlist, I get nosey. For what it's worth, I don't think a TfD would be futile. That template seems entirely useless to me. The reaction at RfD was in response to the redirection without discussion. A TfD would address that concern, by being that discussion. Equazcion (talk) 01:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that is essentially the same though. But you don't have to rely on my opinion. Nominate it, if you want. Just drop a notice at Wikipedia:WikiProject Law, and let me now as well, if you'd be so kind. Debresser (talk) 02:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay; see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 October 9#Template:Law unref. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for leaving a message on my userpage - that put my mind at rest. I have been informed it was to do with a Wikipedia in Mirandese - I had never even heard of that language! ACEOREVIVED (talk) 22:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

• From the editor: Perspectives from other projects
• Special story: Memorial and Collaboration
• Bing search: Bing launches Wikipedia search
• News and notes: New WMF hire, new stats, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: IOC sues over Creative Commons license, Wikipedia at Yale, and more
• Dispatches: Sounds
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Tropical cyclones
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Wizards pictures

Why did you delete these three images (Max Russo.jpg, Justin Russo.jpg, and Alex Russo.jpg) before there was any conclusion on the discussion? I gave evidence that the images as they were used, fit precedent as demonstrated on several other articles. I said that the images should be considered non-replaceable and no one responded to me before they were deleted. Pigby (talk) 15:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Past consensus in similar discussions has been that images such as these fail WP:NFCC. (I don't have a link right now, because they'd all be archived at WP:FFD in one of the hundreds of pages). Additionally, deletion discussions are not votes; I read all of the comments and decided upon an outcome. In this case, the two "delete" comments were more grounded in policy than the one "keep" comment. Per WP:WAX, pointing to other articles as precedence is frowned upon; it is likely that the images you mentioned should also be nominated for deletion, but nobody has gotten around to it. I also agree with the nominator that the images should be deleted in this case; had I said "delete" in the discussion rather than closing it, I feel sure that the admin who did close the discussion would have also deleted the images, especially with one additional argument for deletion. Anyway, the images are replacable, IMO... when the character and the actor/actress look the same, there are only exceptional cases where saying "Person X portrayed character Y" is going to be less informative to the reader than "Person X portraying character Y". If you still feel that the images should not have been deleted, feel free to start a deletion review. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Westgate

Hey there.. I don't blame you if you totally hate me for my nitpicky opposition at the Westgate FAC. How about this — give me a week or so, see if there are other things you need to fix, and holler at me.. I'll do a thorough copyedit. I would like to see it get featured, and I'm willing to put in some time for finetuning the text. But I need a little time to take care of IRL stuff. Scartol • Tok 22:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Really? Thanks! I don't really have anything more to add right now, so whenever you have time would be great. Thanks again! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I need your help

I'm editing an article about my department in Paraguay that is the Misiones Department. I'm having a problem with the infobox. Hope you can check it and help me. Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcetw (talk • contribs) 05:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks like User:TAnthony fixed it. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

AN/I accidental rollback

I dropped my mouse on my keyboard. I tried to undo it but you (thankfully) beat me to it. Please accept my apologies, and if you find it necessary to remove my rollback, I understand. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 22:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand... things like that happen; I just couldn't tell if it was an intentional revert or what. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing it and not sending me to the cooler. :-) I'll try to figure out exactly how that happened and not repeat it. Thanks again. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 22:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:Future public transportation

Hi, in case you are going further with the template removal. The only future category which has the template is Category:Future public transportation in the United States. Almost all the articles in there have the template. The other country categories I already did, this one was just too large to do manually. I couldn't do it with autowikibrowser for some reason, couldn't keep logged in. Garion96 (talk) 17:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Right; I'll fire the bot up momentarily. Anyway, changes to MediaWiki a few weeks ago broke basic AWB... you need to use the most recent SVN snapshot (there should be a notice at the top of WP:AWB about it). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. So that was the reason, I will download the snapshot. I thought it was because I was working on a computer with only IE6. (don't ask :). Garion96 (talk) 17:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done :) –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Image deletion?

You deleted File:SpmLosCarlosCoy.jpg, what what the free use violation? I never saw that it had been tagged, or even where it came from. Sephiroth storm (talk) 08:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

It was tagged as being replaceable by a free image of the person pictured, with a fair use image being unnecessary. I agreed with this assessment (and the current FUR was an über-generic one which didn't have any explanation as to why the image couldn't be replaced), and since there were no objections on the file description page or talk page, I deleted it. If you feel that you can give a good explanation for why the image can't be replaced, let me know and I'll restore it. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I was unaware it was even a fair use image, I had never looked at the page, it didnt look promotional or anything. *sighs* one more loss for wikipedia. Sephiroth storm (talk) 04:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

DrilBot date amendment query

Hi, DrilBot recently performed this edit; surely the form should have been "July 7, 1977" with comma? If I were to be really pedantic I'd say "7 July 1977" was correct, because Steve Hillage is British; but I don't expect a bot to recognise that. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... indeed. I will contact the AWB coders about this. Thanks for the note! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Automatic backlog

A tag has been placed on Template:Automatic backlog requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes ({{transclusionless}}).

Thanks. RL0919 (talk) 12:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

G7'd; sorry, I just hadn't cleaned that up earlier. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit link bunching

Hi Drilnoth- I saw your input in the archived discussion of whether to move the section edit links (Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_49). I was surprised to see there were people against the idea of fixing the problem, and I can't believe there was no consensus. This is something I've struggled with often (see my tragic attempts on Lyonand Mont Saint-Michel). Have you heard of any new move to fix the problem? Eric ^talk 23:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I have not heard anything further on this; if you haven't, you can enable a gadget in your preferences to move the edit links inline with the header (which both fixes the problem and, IMO, works better and is more intuitive). I think it may be worthwhile to start another discussion on moving the links at some point, maybe in early 2010... giving it a little more time. Also, I take it that you have seen {{FixBunching}}? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks a million! Somehow I've never looked at those gadgets, or else there are a lot more than when I started out. The one to focus the cursor in the search bar brings up something I've always wanted: to have the cursor focus in the section name field when you hit 'new section' on a talk page. I wonder if that's do-able? Yes, I've used FixBunching a lot, but I think I was trying to use it beyond its powers on the above articles. It seems not to work when the elements are separated by text, or maybe it doesn't work across multiple sections? Thanks again. Eric ^talk 17:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	For having your bot remove all these future templates, dealing with a difficult RFC, and for being nagged by someone who wanted to remove all of them fast. :) Garion96 (talk) 21:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! :) It's much appreciated. (and if you have any other requests that an AWB bot should be able to do, let me know!) –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem and will let you know! Garion96 (talk) 12:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for Autoreviewer right

I'd like to request the autoreviewer right on my account. I wasn't able to find any process for it, so I'm assuming I can request it from an admin. I'd like the right so that any pages I create won't add to the burden of new page patrol. I've never vandalized anything in my ~4 year career. Let me know of any concerns you might have. Thanks! Equazcion (talk) 00:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems, reasonable, so  Done. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated :) Equazcion (talk) 16:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Clanchief

I see you have posted to his Talk page before - and he has not responded to me there. His uploads are still not tagged. He has done a great deal of good work around Worcester, Western Cape, but I am unfamiliar with the image for deletion process - perhaps you can talk some sense to him ? Wizzy…☎ 12:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note; I'll see what I can do. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit on Amstaff page

Thanks for your edit made on the Amstaff article. I know a lot about the breed and breed history but I'm not a native English speaker. I also made an edit on the American Pit Bull Terrier article under the History section. It was reverted due the "neutrality" but my edits was mainly from official sources like United Kennel Club and American Dog Breeders Association's home page. Can you look at the article if it's really neutral or not?? Thank you very much. k84m97 (talk) 18:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I would recommend discussing this issue with HelloAnnyong at their talk page, since s/he is who actually undid your edit... maybe they'd have a more complete explanation for the revert. Although the tone and style of what you added could use some work, it wouldn't be anything that a quick copyedit couldn't fix. However, to make sure that I'm not missing anything, discussing with the reverter is probably a good course of action. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

THANKS, my edit wasn't finished, this is why it needed future work.k84m97 (talk) 18:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

RFD

Regarding Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 October 20 –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi - I've posted my thoughts on the template redirects you put up for discussion. Can I make one suggestion - since I suspect the comments and arguments will be the same for all of them can we group them together for a single discussion? I am happy to make the change and do the grouping - but wanted your approval first. Thanks.  7  01:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems reasonable; go ahead. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009

• News and notes: WikiReader, Meetup in Pakistan, Audit committee elections, and more
• In the news: Sanger controversy reignited, Limbaugh libelled, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:BeggarPrince-3rdrun.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:BeggarPrince-3rdrun.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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? feydey (talk) 11:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

That's the problem with resizing images; the original uploader doesn't get these. Anyway, this particular issue was really easy to fix with {{video game cover fur}}, so  Done. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Bioresource response

I understand your logic, and I will take the photo off until futher copyright info is discoved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexOVRLORD (talk • contribs) 18:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

ANAT AMI-100 and ANATWALKER image removal

Please revert the changes to the images you removed on [WP:Self-reconfiguring modular robotics] before he history in recent changes goes away, i didn't find the right classification and thats the closest i could come up with. It is clearly not a logo, they are picutres of the robots that are made by the comapany but other people are not permitted to use pictures of Robotics Desgin's robots without prior consent from the company, excluding media. Please classify i correctly and then put the pictures back wwith the hstory thing, becaue i would take a while to get them back onlne, those were high qualiy pictures showing the innovaive architecture of the arm , the modules it is composed of, and the configurations they can be in to form different robots for different applications. If i am supposed to change it myself or if there is any problm whatsoever with this images being put back on wikipedia, please inform me at wikipedia or at helloman911777 at hotmail dot com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiansteve (talk • contribs) 04:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to restore these images so that you can fix their descriptions, but first I want to ask: Will you be able to explain for each image why it passes the non-free content criteria, using a fair-use rationale? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Im not sure if i will be able to fill ou everything properly today, bu this is the best i can do now, ill have my legal eam draft up new explanations for you if this doesnt pass. The anat ami-100 picture is the only presented means of identifing the robot as such. It is displayed outside wikipedia in EP&T magazine, a popular Canadian electronics magazine. Not including he image would be detrimental to the readers understanding, and this picture allows them to see ANAT modules configured in a snake robot, namely the ANAT AMI-100 which was the fist ANAT robot made, alhough it was under the name ANAT robot initially. I have full authorization from the company to use these pictures as i see fit, and wikipeida has Robotics Design's permission to display these pictures on their online encyclopedia. Others cannot resure his photo exculding clients that own it, and only under certian circumstances. This picture must remain non-free in order to protect our patents (if you have this robot and did not purchase it from us, then it is clearly a patent violation of Robotics Design's U and H shaped modules. We would also not want companies to use our producs as a means to promote theirs. An ANAT AMI-100 is studied in the ETS university, and these pictures were added in an effort to further support education.

The picture of he ANAT modules follows along the same lines, it serves to show the two modules which an infinie number of robots (or a single robot that performs infinite tasks) can be formed from. This enchances the reader's educational experience, and as such, full autorization for this picutre to be used in whole or in part, forr until such a im as Robotics Design decides to remove it, or replace it with a picture that will induce a more in depth educational experience.

The ANATWALKER could be removed as the preceeding pictures display adequate information, but in the configuration of a walking robot modules and their architecture are easier to identify, and serves as a second example of robots that can be formed from these modules, which will help the reader to start seeing a patern... full auorization for wikipedia to use the image is granted same as the others, but not everyone else.

If there are any further statements to be made that i can make myself or otherwise, please inform me immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiansteve (talk • contribs) 20:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi- thanks for the info. Now, just so that this is out of the way, are you affiliated with the company who makes the modules/robots? If so, editing articles related to the company and its products is a conflict of interest which, in most circumstances, isn't allowed on Wikipedia (in order to preserve the neutral point of view that is needed by an encyclopedia). Anyway, one other question: what articles were/will these pictures be used on? The rationales that you give may be strong enough depending on the article, but in other articles that probably wouldn't work. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I have had extensive conversations with wikipeida volunteers and staff about my affiliation to Robotics Design, i am well versed in the rules regarding this, and i assure my posts will remain entirely factual and will be written in a neutral point of view. If this will create warnings and problems i can have univeriy students write it, but all the information i present is verifiable in the United States patent documents i linked to the discussion page, and everything will become much easier if i do i. I am currently working on a major revision of the Self-reconfigruing modular robotics page, and do need to take care of his bfore i continue, so please put the pictures back, they are of real modular robots that are actually sold and used, not just invented and researched, and this encyclopedic content does improve the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiansteve (talk • contribs) 00:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay... based on the content of that article as-is, I really doubt that these fair use images are needed in the article. If free images, like File:G3dock.jpg, can be taken of the robots then that would be perfectly fine, but the use of non-free images seems to fail non-free content criteria 1 and 8. If you would like further discussion on this matter, I can restore the images and take them to files for deletion so that their non-free status can be discussed. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I am unaware of the extent of you knowledge into robotics, but suffice it to say that these images firstly do not violate section 8 of the fair use page because it is absoloutely imerative to see the modules in their original form, and forming any robot in order to completely appreciate the innovation behind this robot and the technology you genereated. The picture you showed me is of a robot by Mark Yim that is not nor will ever be marketed in whole or in part or in any way, shape or form, and it is impossible to compare the two. These products are sold under the Robotics Design name, they not stagnating in a research lab, and as such is it important for some sort of copywrite or fair use agreement to be in place on these pictures as Robotics Design can not allow other comapnies to promote their producs using ours, or create any such problem that could be simply solved by such an agreement. The images must remain on the page and be licenced to wikipdia to display on its website, but not for use elsewhere without the prior consent of Robotics Design Inc. A studnet using the picture in a research paper about exising robotic systems does not concern the company as long as it is referenced, but a fair use agreement is necessary to make it impossible for "accidents" to happen. I hope you can understand and help me ou here, ever since i begun trying to share my knowledge of robotics with wikipedia ive been met with noting but resistance and have spent far more time explaining myself than actually posting. Id like to ask you respectfully as a wikipedia volunteer (i am not being paid to talk with anyone or post on wikipedia at all) trying to improve an article, revert the changes, and licence the images as fair use or the most apropriae classificaion. Any infomation you may need i will be more than happy to provide. Canadiansteve (talk) 03:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me dropping in but I have had a couple of conversations with Canadiansteve (example) and I noticed the above and would like to offer my opinions. The whole purpose of Wikipedia is to present encyclopedic information with reliable sources. If no free images of your robots are available, I strongly suggest that no images should appear. Drilnoth will be able to inform us both about the details, but my suggestion is that we should not illustrate a robotics article with an unfree image. The "fair use" condition relates, for example, to using a copyrighted book cover for a low-resolution illustration as in this image which is used in this article. Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit and distribute. For limited exceptions, see WP:Non-free content. Johnuniq (talk) 09:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for repeating the purpose of wikipedia to me johniq, i always look forward to hearing about it. These pictures follow that purpose however, i just don't want other companies using our products to promote theirs. No problem though, instead of a high quality image i am uploading a small low resolution picture of the ANATWALKER. While companies won't be able to use that one without looking unprofessional, but wont be as precise as the big high quality pictures. The picture is licensed as free content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiansteve (talk • contribs) 18:42, 21 October 2009

Previously, the images had been tagged as non-free... if you own the copyright to them, you may release them under a free license, in which case there shouldn't be any problem. However, your post above mentioned that use elsewhere would require the consent of Robotics Design Inc.... which would mean that the images had to non-free. As part of Wikipedia's goal of providing freely-licensed content, the use of non-free images is very greatly restricted. Why do we need images of these particular robots/modules, when we already have free images of other robots? Anyway, the requirements greatly depend on what article the images are being used in... I think I asked this earlier, but what articles were you planning to use the images in? That should help us to determine whether or not they are appropriate for Wikipedia. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)