User talk:Quadell/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
This archive page covers comments 301-350, from roughly February 11, 2005 to March 5, 2005.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Thanks!

I'd given up twice before on that map because the original was illegible, it's nice to know it was worth the trouble! iMeowbot~Mw 03:23, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Image China, Mao (2).jpg

This photo is taken in 1949, so it has been in the public domain by Chinese Copyright, as same as in Germany, a non-artistic photograph is in the public domain if it was first published more than 50 years ago in China and Taiwan. So this image is OK to use in wikipedia. --Mosesofmason 06:27, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You can find PRC copyright law here(in chinese), see the verse 3, clause 21, it says:

第二十一条　公民的作品，其发表权、本法第十条第一款第（五）项至第
（十七）项规定的权利的保护期为作者终生及其死亡后五十年，截止于作
者死亡后第五十年的十二月三十一日；如果是合作作品，截止于最后死亡
的作者死亡后第五十年的十二月三十一日。
法人或者其他组织的作品、著作权（署名权除外）由法人或者其他组织享
有的职务作品，其发表权、本法第十条第一款第（五）项至第（十七）项
规定的权利的保护期为五十年，截止于作品首次发表后第五十年的十二月
三十一日，但作品自创作完成后五十年内未发表的，本法不再保护。
电影作品和以类似摄制电影的方法创作的作品、摄影作品，其发表权、本
法第十条第一款第（五）项至第（十七）项规定的权利的保护期为五十年，
截止于作品首次发表后第五十年的十二月三十一日，但作品自创作完成后
五十年内未发表的，本法不再保护。

you can find similar prescriptions in ROC copyright law. By the way, zh:User talk:Shizhao is very professional on copyright issues, maybe you can ask him for more information. Due to he is on his vacation now, so try this some days later :) --Mosesofmason 15:37, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I notice that the current English Wikipedia notice about copyright of China is not accurate. Not all copyright expires after 50 years. If you read carefully the original legal verse says those materials whose copyright belong to an organization(eg government, news agency, etc) will have their copyrights expired on Dec 31 of the 50th year of publication; however if the copyright belongs to an individual, it expires 50 years after the death of the copyright holder; if the copyright belongs to a group of individuals, it expires 50 years after the death of the last copyright holder. And for those works that is not published within 50 years of creation, it will not copyrighted.--Formulax 08:40, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dining philosophers

I fixed the dining philosophers image. Thanks! --bdesham 13:47, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

fairuse by non-uploader?

Hi. Regarding Image:Empson.jpg, I am confused by your tagging of the image as Fair Use. AFAIK, there is no information on its source, and fair use was not claimed by the original uploader, as is described in Template:Fairuse. It is still unverified IMO. Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo 20:08, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Quadell, thanks for your reply. I appreciate your reasons for considering the image fair use and agree they are valid. Would you consider adding a list of reasons to the image page in the future when adding a fair use tag? It would clarify the status of the images, in my opinion. Also, since the source of the image is still unknown and uncredited, I think use of the "unverified" tag or perhaps a new "unknownsource" tag is still appropriate, in addition to the fairuse tag. Your thoughts? Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo 20:41, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

FYI, I have created the Template:Unknownsource tag. --ChrisRuvolo 01:43, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

WP:IFD abbreviations

Just wondering what the tags "OR", "CV", and "OB" at WP:IFD mean. Thanks, hydnjo talk 03:35, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for you response. I thought CV might be CopyVio but couldn't figure out ORphaned or OBsolete. hydnjo talk 20:38, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Geez, thanks for the kind words

I just found this gem on the D.520 image page...

Looks like Maury Markowitz is bad news, so far as copyright is concerned. It seems he uploaded around 100 images, tagging none of them. Most of them are copyvios, although a few are (purely by coincidence) public domain. He's had a lot of messages on his talk page about these, but he hasn't yet dealt with them. He's also a sysop now. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 17:19, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

You know, this is so insulting I don't even know where to begin. You come right out and call me "bad news" in what is effectively a public forum, then go on to explain your reasons in what is a highly disingenuous string of "facts".

I didn't tag the images because the tags didn't exist when I uploaded them. You fail to note that many of the images in question were posted over two years ago - yes, that's before tagging. You seem to insinuate that I do all of this deliberately, and the only ones that are in the public domain are by accident. I fail to see how this could be a problem, but it certainly reads like you're complaining about this "pure coincience". Once again you bend reality by forgetting to note that everything I have posted recently ("recent" as in over a year) is clearly attributed. You go on to claim I'm not doing anything about it even after "a lot of messages on his talk page", but it seems your definition of "a lot" is "four", on my page of some 50-100 messages spread over 12 pages. Nor do you note that even at the time you were posting this missive, I was already into the process of tagging them and had been for over a week. Then, to top it all off, you leave a "warning" for all your fellow wikipedian; beware, he's a sysop now. Oh no! What nefarious activities will I get involved in next? Spelling mistakes?!?

Frankly I think you've gone too far. Asking me to tag or remove is one thing, calling me names before asking (check the edit times) is another entirely. I pretty much dropped everything to do the tagging after being asked, only getting back to articles recently. And then, today, I find this. Editing is an important task, and I don't begrudge your work, but I don't see any call for these sorts of comments as part of the process.

I think I deserve an apology.

Maury 15:08, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Image:Hammer.jpg

Hi Quadell,

You don't happen to be an admin at the Commons, do you? I noticed your note at Image:Hammer.jpg. The image history you're referring to is that the "resized and compressed version" got uploaded at Commons:Image:Hammer.jpg as the initial, obsolete version. I think the right way to fix the problem would be to delete that initial version. (Lossy compression is evil anyway, and making it more lossy is even worse.)

dbenbenn | talk 05:51, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Image:bakert.jpg

Re: Image:bakert.jpg - that was from back when i belived publicity stills were copyright-free - User:Jtdirl had told me they were. It looked more like a screenshot because id put it through Adobe Photoshop to try and improve the quality for online presentation. PMA 10:57, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Greatfully accepted

Maury 15:13, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dr. Who image

The site i got the photos from - http://drwhotht.phenominet.com/ - concentrates more on Doctor Who publicity stills than screenshots (and has separate sub-sections for them) and that's why i figured it was a publicity still - i ran it through Photoshop to fix the gamma levels etc (as you can see looking through some of the past history versions on Wiki). Also the ones i uploaded for William Hartnell and Patrick Troughton definately are colour publicity stills as their eras were made and broadcast in black and white. PMA 21:08, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Removal of goatse IFD vote

Quadell, I placed a comment on the IFD talk page regarding your removal of the goatse image vote. I would appreciate your response there. Thanks, Duk 19:04, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jack and Jill favors

If we may, can we call on your good graces again to fix the duplication of our article Hôtel Ritz Paris. Thanks. JillandJack 22:33, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Another possible favour. We created: Catergory:French Dancers but the "d" should not be capitalized? Would you know how to fix this, too? Thanks again. JillandJack

Iraqi insurgency page move

Please vote to support the move from Iraqi resistance → Iraqi insurgency at Wikipedia:Requested_moves. Thanks! ObsidianOrder 13:10, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Czech copyright

Photograph goes to public domain in Czech Republic

70 years after author's death or
70 years after the first publishing, if the author is anonymous or pseudonymous (and unknown) or
70 years after creation, if author is anonymous or pseudonymous (and unknown) and photograph was not published in the period 70 years after the creation.

You can check translation of the law.

Buddhabrot

Uploaded. :-) Evercat 21:29, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Greek Gyros Image

Thanks for the comment. I licenced the image of Gyros article under GFDL. What the image describes can be met even to the last village of Greece and it wouldn't be reasonable for an image like that to have a copyright. So the only think I can do is to copyleft it.

Thorough? More like lazy!

Firing off a few emails is sooo much less work than drawing! In a couple cases, ticked-off contributors reverted back to their own images and finally tagged, that's why I'm on this "be really sure it's unknown" kick 8) iMeowbot~Mw

re: Alfred Wegener

Thanks. Your images helped the article a lot. I've had this on my list of things to do for a while (the fuzzy list in my head:) and the NPOV note on the talk page prompted an off the top of the head rewrite last night. Hope I didn't make any serious errors -- need to do a bit more -- someday. -Vsmith 13:40, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So you did not leave!

After seeing that note on Sep 11 discussion about your leaving because you felt that terrorist should have been included in the title, I got concerned. I'm glad you came back (believe it or not)

Arno 04:50, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I read your reply. While it is unfortunate that you and I disagree on whether terrorist should be in the title of THAT article, I acknowledge my error in assessing that conversation of Nov 11, 2004 (I do read too quickly at times), well, have a nice day. Arno 09:34, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Anthere's images

It's strange that you tagged Image:Echinops.jpg as GFDL but Image:Cosmos tubulaire.jpg got deleted, though both of these were marked by Anthere as "Courtesy of Ginette". Any idea who/what is Ginette? I presume all these images:

marked as "Courtesy of Ginette" would have identical copyright status. -- Paddu 12:35, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Radical lawyers

Could we ask another favour? We think that the "Category:Radical lawyers" is POV and improper labelling for Wikipedia. Would you do the technical thing to post it to the vote for deletion in our user name? Thank you. JillandJack 16:19, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Image Tags

Hi, just wanted to ask you a question concerning image tags, since it seems you're a sort of ringleader with this project. When an image has a note that says the author posted it, what tag do we affix? Do we use a GFDL, or a public domain tag, or even something else? Thanks, and looking forward to helping you with the project, Bratsche 14:30, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There are several templates you can use. You insert them into the description of the image by using {{ followed by the template name. If there are parameters to the template you use a vertical bar |, followed by each parameter separated by another vertical bar, and so on. Finally you close the template reference with }}. There is a complete list at Wikipedia:Template_messages/Image_namespace. Some examples are {{PD-User|username}} which indicates that user username chooses to make the image public domain; {{copyrightedFreeUse}} means it is copyrighted but permits free use; {{GFDL}} means it was released under the GNU Free Distribution License. I generally release my images public domain as I don't care, they are usually commonplace and I don't expect anyone to seriously make any money off of them.

Paul Robinson Rfc1394 05:19, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Commons:Image:NutritionFacts broccoli cooked.png

Hi Quadell,

Did you notice that Commons:Image:NutritionFacts broccoli cooked.png got nominated for deletion there? Just letting you know. dbenbenn | talk 05:44, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hopefully it won't be needed, but table formatting is worked out at User:IMeowbot/nutrition if the image licensing causes future problems. Making into to template might be more of a problem, but again, hopefully we won't need to do it at all! --iMeowbot~Mw 17:09, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Krakatoa

Hi, I see you've re-added the line about the rate of growth of Anak Krakatau. I'd removed that when I reworded the last bit of that paragraph because I couldn't find any source for it, and it seemed a little unclear anyway - presumably that's an average rate, but does it refer to overall since the island first appeared, or a particular eruptive episode, or what? Can you clarify that at all? Thanks - Worldtraveller 15:34, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Black Rhino

I must have believed the image was usable at the time, but I can't trace it, even by doing a Google search - I thought it was on a site with a lot of eclipse pics jimfbleak 20:19, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Goober

Hi Quadell. Recently you added to Kongo language the little factoid that the English word 'goober' comes from a Kikongo word. I'm wondering what the Kikongo word is. Care to add your source as well? Regards, — mark ✎ 15:55, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing! — mark ✎ 16:52, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Monday Garden pics

Hi Quadell - thanks; that's good news. Shall I change 'Copyright free use' tags to 'GFDL' on any I run across, or would you rather I checked with you first?
One small point to watch for on her pics, she doesn't use botanical terminology too carefully, I've spotted a few mis-applications of terms (e.g. 'flowers' on a spruce pic; conifers are not flowering plants and don't have flowers, they're cones; conversely 'cones' on a birch; birches are flowering plants and don't have cones, they're catkins) - MPF 15:00, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Errant image tagger?

Hi. I helped a lot on the first round of the image tagging project. Unfortunately I've been toooo busy to help lately. But there's possibly an issue with one of the taggers currently working on the project I wanted to bring to your attention, since you're so involved with it.

The description page for an image I posted some time ago showed up in my watchlist today, so I checked it out. Turns out that a previous vandal had removed my {{GFDL}} tag along with the source info. That change went unnoticed by me, so it landed in the latest list of untagged images. Today's change was Woohookitty putting a {{PD}} tag on it. Of course, as creator of the image I know for a fact that it is not public domain, and don't see how Woohookitty could have labeled it as such – {{unverified}}, perhaps, but not {{pd}}.

Woohookitty is listed on the untagged images project page. I looked at this user's contributions, and [s]he is busy tagging away. But it looks to me like that user is being way too free with {{pd}}. I know for a fact that [s]he tagged my image {{pd}} without cause (didn't even query my user talk page), and others look suspicious, too. I also see [s]he has tagged images {{unknown}} that should have {{gfdl}} (Image:Laferteairshow001.jpg), {{unverified}} that should have {{coatofarms}} (Image:Villegaignon-crest.gif), and other problems.

I left a note on the user's talk page about my map image in particular. I don't know if you or someone else would want to review this user's tagging contributions and try to educate the user on how to do a better job. I'd attempt this myself, but, as I said, I'm too busy to contemplate getting into a back-and-forth with someone or going through and retagging all the images [s]he has touched.

Thanks for all your great work on this important project and the related image projects! -- Kbh3rd 05:15, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Image Tags for Mannlicher images by wterrell

Hello. I received your note in my talk page that some images that I posted need to have the copyright tags updated for them. I do not know how to attach the copyright tags to images so I will ask that you will do this for me.

I have listed the images below. They are images of pistols that belong to me and I am the photographer of these pistols. My name is Wesley Terrell. The images were created in 2003. I do not know what type of copyright needs to be attached to these images, but I suppose that "copyright" would be appropriate or "permission".

Mannlicher images that currently don't have image copyright tags.

images you wondered about by nesnad

You asked about two images User:Nesnad gifted the English version of wikipedia with. The images you asked about were:

Although I don't have time right now to search down all the locations on Japanese wikipedia, I can assure you that they came from the Japanese wikipedia under different sections that I found while surfing there. I thought they would benefit the English page I added them to. For example, this is one of the pictures, under a different heading, but dealing with the information in the English page. Please do not worry. Thanks for your concern. http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%BF%A0%E7%8A%AC%E3%83%8F%E3%83%81%E5%85%AC

Wikipedia's new Look!?!?!

Hi, Quadell.

What is up with the Wikipedia's new look? I liked the old look WAY Better!

J. Michael Reiter, jmr User:Michael_Reiter:Talk

Gears and Such

Hey, I think the gears image I uploaded does have a transparent background. At least it looks transparent to me! Also, please excuse my semi-absence from wikipedia. The most recent slowness has really prevented me from doing anything worth while. --MaxPower 15:16, 2005 Feb 28 (UTC)

Ruger 10/22 image

I took that picture of my own rifles, specifically for the Wiki entry. I suppose technically that makes it fall under the GNU Free Documentation License. Feel free to tag it with the most permissive license available. scot 17:14, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Image:Cosmos_tubulaire.jpg

You deleted Image:Cosmos_tubulaire.jpg on 10 Feb 2005:

(deletion log): 21:59, 10 Feb 2005 Quadell deleted Image:Cosmos tubulaire.jpg (Unverified orphan, listed on IfD since Feb 2)

(edit at WP:IfD): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion&diff=10142741&oldid=10140650

However, it was not an orphan; both User:Anthere/PictFlower and User:Koyaanis Qatsi/flowers for spirit referred to it. Also, nobody seems to have contacted User:Anthere before deleting the image (which she uploaded). User talk:Anthere clearly states that all her images are GFDL unless stated otherwise (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anthere&diff=8503579&oldid=8503559). Unsurprisingly, Anthere is upset about the image being deleted (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28miscellaneous%29&diff=prev&oldid=10644991 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Untagged_images&diff=next&oldid=10648299). Fortunately, I was able to find a copy of the image on a mirror site, and I have uploaded it again. —AlanBarrett 19:39, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have replied on Anthere's talk page. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 20:31, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

I notice that Anthere's attention was brought to the lack of tags on the images deleted, on the 26th January [1], so it is not as if she had no indication whatsoever that all was not well. It is a shame she did not act in that advice, and a shame, too, that she did not mention this when commenting on the deletion. Meanwhile this'll slow down the unverified orphans which you list on a daily basis on IFD. Still. There you go. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Elf's alt.sex FAQ materials are now under GFDL

You wrote: "I've looked around talk:penis, but I can't find how the GFDL issue was resolved. Is the image released under the GFDL?"

From Talk:Penis (archive 1)

I found Elf's current address and emailed him. Here's the reply:

The original asfaq was placed under a Creative Commons license, but it has been a long time since I did any work on any of the FAQ materials. ... I think at this point I would be comfortable putting the work under the GFDL, yes.

So the copyright issue is now solved. Hooray! --Card 19 Nov 2003

Image:Hartley osc.jpg

Hi Omegatron. You volunteered to handle electrical schematics on Wikipedia:Image recreation requests. I've got one for you: Image:Hartley osc.jpg. Also, Image:Heat Coil.JPG is somewhat related, although I'm not sure if it's your cup of tea or not. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 14:54, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

I'll do them. - Omegatron 18:41, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

One done. First version lost when I tried to save it and stupid memory stick screwed my computer. It didn't lock up; it didn't crash; it didn't burn. The computer just shut off when I plugged it in. That is NOT cool... Don't use software from simpletech. Other one I can't do with klunky, so it will wait 'til later.- Omegatron 19:31, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Go images

Just wanted give you a friendly reminder about those Go images. . . if you're still willing. Your previous ones look great! – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 01:12, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

If you look at rules of Go you'll see I'm almost done. dbenbenn | talk 02:15, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Syd Barrett

The article history suggests you moved the quotes to Wikiquote. However Wikiquote seems to show that you (or someone) only ever pasted one of the many that appeared in the Wikipedia article. Would you like to reinstate them in one place or the other? I feel they are valuable AND I spent a lot of time digging around for some of them. It's very annoying to see that material mislaid. --bodnotbod 04:43, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Just saying "hello"...

Greetings! I'm about to apply for membership in my local Meeting, and I just wanted to encourage you in your seeking...and to thank you for all of your great work around here. See also this list at Meta.

Peace, BCorr|Брайен 17:36, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

On deleting orphans

A thing that troubles me is the deletion of orphan images. I've never found satisfactory policy on it; and now we have the commons into which we could, if we were kind, dump verified orphans. We know we have to alert the uploader to the likely deletion of anything ... so is the leading us towards a pratice of:

If unverified orphan, alert user, if no response, move to delete
If verified orphan, move to Commons?

I'd hate to think we were unnecessarily throwing anything away. I think I'm just thinking out loud on this one. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Image:1901.jpg

Hi Quadell — (stepping out of the discussion on Image Sleuthing as it's just about the image, not policy) you listed the image in the end at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. As far as I had understood, this was for listing images who's copyright status was not assertained. On that page, it says to list things at WP:CP if its source is known and it cannot be used by Wikipedia under any license or under the fair use doctrine. I would have thought that that had been confirmed through out sleuthing. I'm confused as to why the image shouldn't just go to WP:CP — we know the source, we've seen the copyright statement on the website, and we can hardly claim fair use.
Anyway, the Image Sleuthing project is a great idea and I'm already having fun with it. — Asbestos | Talk 23:41, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Image:Holden ma map.png

Yes, I made that (and some other ones: Princeton, Northborough, etc: look at my contribs list) using an old PDF map of Masscahusetts put out by the MA Secretary of State's office [2], which makes the original PD and my coloring didn't change anything. It's not a very good map, because my PDF was a few years old and I found out later that the online map had been updated to have much more accurate boundaries, but I never redid it. It would be nice if someone could automate the process, since it would be great to have boundary maps for all the towns in the state. -Rjyanco 00:12, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hey

I just wanted to drop you a note to say hi. I saw you're the other person to debate Jag123's recent project for metatags. I'm curious from your user page, how does one go from Buddhism to being a Quaker? Thanks. --Spinboy 03:25, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wow, okay, that's really neat. I was raised Christian too, but way more pacifist, and since I'm gay, I didn't share their beliefs. I became pagan because I'm also very spiritual, and believe in a higher being, but from that, have more general concepts that never really fit anywhere. I've had people tell me I should be buddhist, but I didn't like how some of them say there's no higher being, because that didn't fit with my beliefs. --Spinboy 17:24, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

images

Hi. I dont know what symbol to put in the images. It is not a PD, they are copyrighted and can be used along with credits to IPPAR. --- Pedro 20:13, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Image:Los Angeles skyline daytime 2.jpg

Hi Quadell. I've had an enquiry about the above image (via the Foundation mail). I see you tagged it as PD - did you find the source at all? Thanks for any help -- sannse (talk) 20:22, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Quadell, it does look someewhat unclear, I've replied in my usual vague fashion ;) -- sannse (talk) 17:16, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Image Sleuthing

FYI, I've added a link to WP:IS from Template:Active Wiki Fixup Projects. If you want to keep IS more select, then, err, reverting is your friend. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Hello - I was just wondering if you had a quick way to create signatures like the one you have for Image Sleuthing with superscripts like: Nrbelex ^{(talk) (Fun)} 17:00, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks - that's exactly what I meant. Nrbelex 00:13, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Deleted image Usagi.jpg

Hello,

I noticed that you deleted the image Usagi.jpg, and the link from the article Furry. I've looked through the deletion logs, and I can see that you spend a lot of time working on image deletions; I appreciate that. However, it was rather disruptive to have the image deleted without an explanation; I originally thought "deleted image" in the edit summary meant "I have deleted this image", rather than "I'm removing a link to an image which was deleted". You might want to consider a default summary like "Removing image which was deleted, see WP:PUI" or something, though I know it's longer.

Several people on Talk:Furry attempted to discuss the image's removal. You may want to leave a note for them.

The big thing, though, is that according to the deletion log, I see that the image was listed on WP:PUI, and according to WP:PUI, the links on the article were supposed to be updated, to warn us that the image needed information about its source. This was not done. We didn't know anything was happening until the image disappeared. Since this deletion was "out-of-process", would you be willing to restore it without going through the official undeletion requests (Wikipedia:Undeletion)?

Thanks; I know this was just a mix-up.

-- Creidieki 05:55, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The people on Talk:Furry were indeed "pretty upset", and I think that that was quite reasonable. An image that our article uses was deleted, in violation of policy, with no warning to us, and no explanation. Now we are being told that the image cannot be restored. I think it is hardly fair to tell us that notice was posted on a page somewhere in the Wikipedia hierarchy; I certainly had not known to look there. I find the lack of an apology from either you or User:Infrogmation (who moved the page into the 15-30 days column without changing the links on the Furry article) to be disturbing.

I'm also very worried when you say that there is no way to undelete images. This is a clear case of a deletion happening against policy. I know that Wikipedia makes various Database Dumps of its images; has the image been deleted from these? -- Creidieki 19:05, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my last post was somewhat hostile. To be honest, the policy on WP:PUI seems somewhat vague on whose responsibility it is to make certain that images are removed from articles 15 days before deletion. I would imagine that the article should initially be changed when the article is moved from "less than 15 days" to "15 to 30 days"; that was done by User:Infrogmation in this case, which is why I contacted him as well. I would also think that, when deleting the image, the administrator should check to make sure that the image is not still being used by any articles.

I acknowledge that neither of those requirements are written, and I think that neither you nor Infrogmation explicitly violated policy. But the deletion of the image still happened in a way contrary to policy. WP:PUI indicates that the people watching an article should have fifteen days of warning before images used by the article are deleted. I, and others, had the Furry article on our watchlists, but the first we knew of this licensing dispute was that the image had been deleted. Since this image deletion affects the Furry article strongly, and apparently irrevocably, notice should have been posted on the article.

If a warning had been posted on the article, I would have attempted to find licensing information for the image. I have no idea whether I would have succeeded, because I do not have a copy of the image now.

Recent posts on the wikitech mailing list indicate that deleted images can often be found on Wikipedia mirrors, and that developers can restore images from backup if all else fails. I'm probably going to look on the mirrors, to try to get a copy of the image, and see whether I can find licensing information. Would you be able to provide me with the image description text, and the username of the uploader? (Wikipedia:Undeletion indicates that that's possible).

Thanks, and sorry for all of the bother, -- Creidieki 00:20, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

image copyright status

-- wterrell

Concerning the images that you asked about: they are from a book Mannlicher Rifles and Pistols, by Walter H.B. Smith, The Military Service Publishing Company, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 1947. All of these pics in the book are from manufacturer instruction manuals and literature dating from 1896-1901. The text of my entry concerning these two pistols list the source as the book by Smith.

Here is a list of the images:

The images

is from a Beretta pistol owners manual and are free for distribution by the manufacturer.

The image

Image:With tactical.jpg

is an image of a pistol and tactical light owned by me.

Versos mojado

Why did you delete Media:VersosdelMojado.ogg from samples of music from the United States? Tuf-Kat 04:34, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Image sleuthing

Thanks! This image sleuthing is a lot of fun. Foobaz·✐ 05:23, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)