User talk:Iamunknown

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sean-Jin (talk | contribs) at 08:50, 5 May 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

archives: 1 2 3 u space :-\

Wikipedia:Non-free content & "network" logos on repeater stations

Hello. I agree we have a quandary with the multiple use of non-free content. But, it looks like you are trying to enforce Wikipedia:Non-free content as a strict policy. It is a guideline - not a policy. It is impossible to enforce the TV logo multi-use on some limited networks such as many religious broadcasters and many shop-at-home type networks that use the different stations as mere repeaters of the identical signal if we have a separate article for each station. [a good argument for an exception to the guideline] ... But let's assume for the sake of argument that it is a policy that is set in stone. Is the logical step to delete the logo image? Probably not. It seems the practical step is to merge all of the smaller articles into one (with appropriate redirects) larger, inclusive article. That would be the ideal way of both eliminating your only issue: multiple uses of the same image - without resorting to the deletion of a logo. Of course, doing that would be tedious and boring work - but that's how Wikipedia was built: slowly with many people pitching in and doing the tedious and boring work of fixing, overhauling and building - rather than deleting. Davodd 12:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If by going around to various network logos and tagging them with {{Fair use disputed}} I give off the impression that I am enforcing Wikipedia:Non-free content, I apologise. The document is not policy and there are many varied interpretations of how strict or how liberal it is regarding the use of non-free content on Wikipedia. I personally do not think that the logos should be used in any more cases than the original network; others, including you, may disagree. There is, to my knowledge, no consensus regarding their use; this is the environment that we are working in and the enviornment I am currently tagging such non-free images in. I would like to think that, if a discussion occurs, consensus would support my actions, but I do not know if that would be the case. You may consider raising a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content, though I am not sure how active it would be; currently discussions there are rather stagnant. What I do know is necessary per any interpretation, whether strict or liberal, of Wikipedia:Non-free content, however, is a separate fair use rationale for each use of non-free content per WP:NFCC#10; for some logos this would entail 20 or more fair use rationales. I am not sure what your original question was, so I am not sure if I answered it appropriately; feel free to ask any further questions. --Iamunknown 02:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiGnosis

Followup: Checkuser has identified WikiGnosis as a sockpuppet of User:MyWikiBiz, a user indefinitely banned from the project for persistent legal intimidation. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thank you for the update. --Iamunknown 00:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better source request for Image:Versosartellmill.jpg

I did not find the image in question from a URL, it was emailed to me by request from a human resources manager at the pictured paper mill. How would I go about citing that? Thanks in advance.--Daveswagon 00:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think if you just mention that it will be fine. I'll modify the image description page. --Iamunknown 00:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's great news!

Thanks for the update, and your contributions.--PericlesofAthens 01:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3ABN and GLC network logos

I have added the necessary fair-use rationale text to Image:3abn_logo.jpg and Image:GodsLearningChannel.jpg. These images are logos for religious television networks, and are intended for use in the articles about the networks and affiliated stations. Please review the rationale provided for these images, and let me know if you need any more information. --AlexDW 01:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the update. I appreciate the prose format of your fair use rationales, but I would suggest that you format it as a list; that is, to my knowledge, how most fair use rationales are formatted. Note also that, according to Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria (specifically criterion #10), a separate fair use rationale must be provided for each use of the non-free content. For a limited use of non-free content this is, of course, not burdensome; for the number of uses of Image:3abn logo.jpg, this is burdensome. I do not normally tag non-free images that maintain no non-free fair use rationale, but when I came across some of the network television logos, I realized that they should at least be tagged particularly because they had so many uses. My recommendation, which is not universally accepted and, as far as I currently know, is not condoned by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Television Stations, is to remove the logo from the affiliate stations and then provide a solid fair use rationale for the article regarding the main channel. In whichever case you pursue, the non-free logo will need a separate fair use rationale for each use. --Iamunknown 02:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the images from all of the articles for the affiliated stations. The logos are now only being used in the articles for their respective networks. Additionally, I have formatted the fair-use rationale as a list. I hope that this will be enough to justify the use of these images. Thank you for bringing this issue to my attention, and giving me time to work out a solution. --AlexDW 16:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, I like it! (And those are good rationales for logos, maybe I'll use them as examples now.  :-D) Thanks for being nice about it. I'll remove the {{non-free use disputed}} templates from those two images now. --Iamunknown 02:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad that this little issue seems to be resolved. I've not been editing "full time" for several months now, so I was a little shocked about this. After reading WP:FUC and the TV stations project discussion archives, I've come to the conclusion that this is probably for the best. The remaining WP:TVS editors will probably come around eventually.
The text came as a suggestion from A Man In Black, who seems to have given up editing a while ago. It is quite similar to the text that was in {{Tvlogo}}; that template has since been redirected to something a bit different. Nevertheless, it will probably be a good template to use on the other logo pages, after the usage of said logos has been cut to the bare minimum. --AlexDW 03:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to have you back.  :-) --Iamunknown 03:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 April 30

Hehe, okay. ;) Yonatan talk 08:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

pronunciation

....and there I as trying to think, "Why La-moon-unknown??" until it suddenly clicked......cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 09:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! :-D Cheers, Iamunknown 10:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Is there any particular reason you randomly went into my talk page and reverted it? There is no policy on keeping everything on your talk page forever, so please don't do that again. Bluefield 11:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, why post the indefinite block on the front page? Such random things to do. Bluefield 11:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was going through a list and, upon second examination, I really messed up. I apologise. --Iamunknown 12:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My wikibreak

Thanks for the welcome back. I had intended to be away longer, but things in the real world that I was expecting to blow up and become problamatic did not go so bad. Plus, this place is just so addicting! :-) --User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 16:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image Deletion

Just wondering why the image, Image:WTNR Tower.jpg is tagged for deletion. It's got a copyright release in it. Thanks, Curran (talk) 21:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Curran, I originally tagged the image for deletion because the copyright notice at the bottom of the page http://www.broadcast.net/~sbe102/towers/wtnr.html said, "All pictures are copyrighted by Tom Bosscher, 2005 But, they may be used without prior approval provided Tom Bosscher is given credit for the photograph(s)." If you have prior approval of Tom Bosscher, would you send that approval to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org? --Iamunknown 02:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, unfortunately, I don't have permission. If you look here, I added the tag on the picture that gave him credit. Would that fit his copyright stipulation? Thanks, Curran (talk) 16:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, they removed that tag. Sorry to bother you. Anyway, thanks for the help. Cheers, Curran (talk)
Nah, you didn't bother me. You could try contacting the photograph and asking him to release the photographs under the GFDL. That would be the ideal solution. --Iamunknown 17:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rosencomet

You wrote on Fred Bauder's talk page re: my request

"How do you expect that Fred shall help? --Iamunknown 16:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)"

Well, I guess if I knew what can be done in such a circumstance, I wouldn't have to ask him. But he is an arbitrator, and therefor knows better than I what the proper action is to be taken when an editor enters a case requesting feedback on a question like "is this a good proposal", and instead of commenting on the question posts a string of attacks, insults, and uncivil language against one of the other editors who did provide feedback. Perhaps as an arbitrator he could caution this individual against such behavior, and it would carry more weight than the words of a simple editor (one did try, but was rebuffed). Perhaps he could even get the insults stricken from the text of the case as irrelevant and inappropriate to the conversation. Maybe there's some other appropriate thing to do; I don't know. Maybe just advise me as to how to deal with such unprovoked bad behavior. Rosencomet 15:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a reply at Fred's page. I'll post a separate one here (I hadn't seen it until now; been avoiding my talk page and all :-P). Calton is a valuable contributor; he or she also can be unpleasant. I don't really know what to do with contributors like that. An RfC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Calton, was formed but the general consensus was, for better or worse, "We don't care". My advice is to not feed the flames. Talking with Calton on his or her talk page may help, but you gotta be in a calm mind to do it. Short of that, unless you wish pursue arbitration, I don't know what. I personally have had good interactions with Calton, but I know plenty of good-faith editors including yourself that haven't. Sorry for not being of any help.  :\ --Iamunknown 02:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CHROSE

hey lamunknown, could you fix that guys page. i accidently messed it up, -Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chrose (talk • contribs) 02:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Sure thing. I posted a couple of comments on your talk page. Wanna continue discussion there? --Iamunknown 02:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I was really worried

I also deleted [Image:HORSE.gif] --Chrose 02:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing saga with Forchtenberg images

Hi BuzzWoof here Thank you for the first sane and understandable piece of communication out of wiki! I now understand. Ok the way it is with the Forchtenberg images is that the mayor who donated the pictures basically does not give a owl's hoot who uses the images, where, whether they sell them or edit them. That is what I would consider "free" use but obviously this site has a different angle on things. Question: how must I tag the images to basically open them up for use anywhere. If you have time, which you probably don't, you can do this too (though I guess I must do it as I submitted them). If after all this it's not possible to "free" them up officially would I have to drive up there and take the damned pictures myself? (and you know what, with the instructions online I'd be none the wiser how to label them either!) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BuzzWoof (talk • contribs) 11:48, May 2, 2007 (UTC)

You could ask the mayor if (1) he or she is the copyright owner of the images (which is different than the "owner" of the images) and, if so, (2) if he or she would be willing to release the photographs under the GNU Free Documentation License. Alternatively, if you decide to take photographs of Forchtenberg, I would encourage you to license them under the GFDL. When uploading the photographs, you would select the item from the drop-down menu that says, "GFDL (self made -for things that are entirely your own work)".
This is unrelated, but you may sign your comments by typing four tildes after your final comments (~~~~); this will expand into your signature and the time when you commented. If you have any further questions about the images, I'll be glad to ask. --Iamunknown 17:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Random Acts of Kindnedd Barnstar

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
I know it was over a month ago, but thank you for telling me about image tagging.

--Andrew4793 t c 20:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note! I'm glad that I could help. I noticed the tags while monitoring Category:Articles that include images for deletion. Let me know if you need anything. I'll see if I can help. --Iamunknown 06:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Iamunknown, I saw your comments about deleting the "Smithsonian" tag altogether, as it is misleading. I also found this couple of sentences on the "Smithsonian" tag's talk page to be interesting as well:

I have just read an e-mail from Mr. Ed Venzke, webmaster of Smithsonian Institution's GVP website. All photos made by SI employees are without restriction, as they are US Government employees. Authors and source just should be credited. Regardz - Darwinek 23:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Smithsonian"

In light of the images just needing an author and a source credited, what should be done for license tags in replacing "Smithsonian"?

Yours truly, --PericlesofAthens 21:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note at Darwinek (talk · contribs) talk page about the claim; I have assumed that images hosted by the Smithsonian Institute are non-free, but I may be incorrect. About the remaining images, if the assertion that they are non-free is true, many may need to be deleted, as the subjects could be freely licensed by a willing Wikipedian visiting the Smithsonian Institute. The gallery of images from the Smithsonian institute currently at Song Dynasty and Freer Gallery of Art, in particular, will need to be orphaned and deleted. That was the original basis of my concern at the Song Dynasty FAC. --Iamunknown 06:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Comment from User:Iamunknown

lulz, so many reverts. WP:RFPP? --Iamunknown 01:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't think I've seen persistent vandalism from multiple users on any individual page at a sufficient level that would warrant semi-protection. If I've missed anything, my apologies – Gurch 01:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smithsonian template

Hello. I have forwarded that mail to e-mail address you provided. Its subject is Fwd: RE: GVP Website. Hope it would help. Cheers. - Darwinek 07:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NFC criteria

Thanks so much for your contributions to the new version. Tony 22:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope they help. I edited it a bit more; I do think that we need to keep the historic order of the criteria, so I tried to fiddle with that; the result isn't too pleasing, but it works. --Iamunknown 00:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer

Glad you liked it! :-) I think you're the first person to have noticed... --YFB ¿ 01:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Tamás Kádár

Tamás, what are Image:Vitorlas.jpg, Image:Nyar2.jpg and Image:Osz.jpg pictures of? --Iamunknown 01:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

These are my paintings. But I deleted from my user:page, because somebody didn't like User:Tamás Kádár page..--Tamás Kádár 15:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:OKIBEACH.jpg - Please dont delete

Hi there, please dont delete this image! It is one of the only decent pictures of an Okinawa beack on Wikipedia.

I have added the credit to Danny Choo who took this picture. Besides being a personal friend of mine he clearly states his creative commons licence on everyone of his pages at : http://www.dannychoo.com/slide/eng/japan/2984/photo/Okinawa+Photo/

Thanks.--Sean-Jin 08:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iamunknown&oldid=128391987"