User talk:MECU

	NOTICE:
	If I marked an image of yours and you do not oppose the deletion, you do not need to notify me. If I marked the image as replaceable fair use, you need to follow the directions on the tag to dispute it. Providing your dispute here will not help you; though notifying me that you are disputing the tag will be appreciated.

This is the talk page for talking to, with or about me - MECU

Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page. The easiest way to do this is by clicking the + on the navigation bar above. In addition, I request you be complete and descriptive in your comments. Do not assume I know what you are talking about. Providing links to both the subject and any relevant policies are encouraged. If you do not need a reply, please state as such. Do not edit any other users comments. Most of all, be polite, even if you feel I have not been polite to you.

Please respect Talk page guidelines & Wikiquette

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 6 days are automatically archived to User talk:Mecu/Archive/Archive-May2025. Sections without timestamps are not archived. You may see all archived pages at [1].

Archives
June 2006 – July 2006 August 2006 August-November 2006 December 2006 January 2007

Dan Knott Image

You mind telling me how to put the file source for this image? User:Killswitch Engage [2] I got the image here. What do you think?

"Hello"

Dear Mecu,

"Hello!"

This "hello" was brought to you by,

Users: Psdubow and Cocoaguy

This is a copyrighted "hello" and can not be used by others or redistributed without the express-written consent of both of these users.

If you have any questions or comments about this "hello", please feel free to post a message on Psdubow's and/or Cocoaguy's talk page.

Editor Review

Good morning (GMT); I notice that you have no reviews at your editor review, and I plan to review you soon. If you do want a review from me, give me a nudge at my talk page in a few hours and I'll get back to you as soon as possible.

Cheers and regards,
Anthonycfc (talk • email • tools) 11:19, Thursday December 28 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singil Station

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singil Station was closed as keep, but I personally agree with merging/redirecting them. How about starting a new guideline on such things similar to WP:LOCAL? —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-31 06:34Z

Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks

Hey, thanks for stopping by Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. It looks like you're a little confused about the template syntax. The sample parameter should only be the URL of a page using Wikipedia content. You don't need to paste in the actual content. The URL parameter in turn should be only the main URL of the mirror. See Template:Mirror for more info. Thanks again. Superm401 - Talk 10:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

TicketCity is clearly still using Wikipedia content. For example, the "COLORADO AVALANCHE TEAM HISTORY:" section of http://www.ticketcity.com/Sports-Tickets/Hockey-Tickets/NHL-Tickets/NHL-Western-Conference-Tickets/NHL-Northwest-Division-Tickets/Colorado-Avalanche-Tickets.html is from Colorado_Avalanche#Franchise_history. You cited this page yourself originally. Superm401 - Talk 05:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Image help

Hey, Mecu. I need to replace the fair-use image on Adrian L. Peterson and I found one on flickr, but after reading the image copyright section, I'm not sure it would be considered "Free." Can you please check it out and let me know if its usable? The image is at [3]. Thanks. z4ns4tsu\^talk 20:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks like NMajdan already found one and I just hadn't seen it yet. Thanks for your help. z4ns4tsu\^talk 20:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, well it looks like the one I uploaded may have to be deleted. The photographer changed the license on my after I notified him that I used it on Wikipedia. He even said it was ok to use but he still changed the license. I notified him of the issue, so we'll see if it stays. I may notify the photographer of that picture cause it is really good.--NMajdan•talk 21:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

That's the thing, how do I prove that the image was a CC license when I uploaded it if he has changed it? You can see the photo here and where I said I used the same license he used and then he said "it will be fine." Then he changed it.--NMajdan•talk 22:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Aha! He changed it back. Now how to I go about getting it "verified" in case he changes it again?--NMajdan•talk 22:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

So, get this, the guy changed his license on flickr! I uploaded several good images on Commons of Peterson, Kevin R. Wilson, Bob Stoops, and some others. Check out the commons:University of Oklahoma#People in athletics for the image. Also, there is commons:Image:Tyrone Willingham.jpg.↔NMajdan•talk 04:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Response to adoption questions

It took me a while to answer because I wanted to give it some thought. You asked really good questions because they caused me to stop and reflect on exactly why I joined. I want my association with Wikipedia to be a long one so I would like to be careful and considerate about how I grow into the community. I've been exploring and found that there is lot to do as a member, just about all of which isn't obvious to the unregistered user. Quite honestly, I'm a bit (understatement) overwhelmed by the scope of the work that needs to be done. I can see that the scope will easily grow as Wikipedia continues to develop. So, to answer your questions:

What I want to get out of adoption? I'd like to learn how to participate well in the community - how to contribute in such a way that reduces the overall scope of work and increases the value of Wikipedia.

What I want to accomplish here at Wikipedia? I would like to eventually become a researcher and help with editing and refining the more challenging problem articles. Maybe I will even introduce a few. Practically though, I should start with something like correcting punctuation, grammar, spelling, links, etc. Can you recommend a good place to look to find simple edits of that type?

What I like to do here on Wikipedia? Read!! The articles I have been interested in are well written and linked. I hadn't yet come across many that require help.

What are my problems at Wikipedia? I haven't yet encountered any.

The first thing I've done is correct the problem I created on your page. It is now just a title. Is there a way to link to a specific page section (similar to # in HTML A tabs)?

Thanks again for working with me. I'll be sure to ask for help and also for review of edits that I do. I'll be sure to change them first in my sandbox. LtlKty 21:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC) ^talk

Reference to Buffalo Soldier photograph

In reference to the Buffalo Soldier photograph http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Saddle_and_accessories.JPG you can find the source: http://www.sas.upenn.edu/African_Studies/Smithsonian_GIFS/BUFLO1_19209.gif I've already added the source in the image.
--Signaleer 06:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Nomination of Image:Rebecca Twigley - Brownlow.jpg for deletion

You tagged w:Image:Rebecca Twigley - Brownlow.jpg for deletion, claiming that it was as replaceable fair use image. The image already had a detailed fair use rationale, which explained why the image is irreplaceable with a free use image. Could you please explain on the talk page why you believe the existing rationale is invalid? Tntnnbltn 08:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I knew the image was likely to be questioned, which is why I made sure the fair use rationale was up to scratch. I don't know if it'd be possible to get a photo of the dress; a newspaper article I read said they were thinking of featuring it on a public display, but I don't know if this actually went ahead or not. I'll look into it. --Tntnnbltn 14:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Safe_conduct.jpg

"Thanks for uploading Image:Safe_conduct.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then you need to specify who owns the copyright, please." Is this text and licensing - Original scan of military leaflet

insufficient for you? Or do you mean the jpeg file? I imported and scanned the original. And I came by the original the hard way, I carried a bag of those all through Vietnam while in the employ of the United States Government.

Luxomni 17:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

RfA

H. I was wondering if you had given any thought to becoming an admin. You certainly seemed qualified having seen you around. If yu're interested, let me know and I can create the RfA nomination.--Wizardman 23:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I had sent something to Wizardman, so his talk was on my watchlist. When I saw your thing about running for RFA, I was startles the you weren't an admin already! Just a little advice, though they may make an exception for someone with your contributions, many people oppose or go neutral for not a long time on the project (about < 1 year). --TeckWiz^Talk Contribs_@ 00:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyright notice

User talk: FactChkr has removed the Image copyright notice you had left himremoved Image copyright notice you had placed on his/her page and has been reverted.Just thought you would like to know.--  Planetary Chaos  Talk to me  18:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Your deletions in Minneapolis, Minnesota

Mecu, I have addressed your edits to Minneapolis, Minnesota in the Village Pump (assistance). Sorry I am not able to discuss your edits in multiple places. -Susanlesch 18:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Mecu/br.js

Thanks for the railway station edit. I tried to install your BR tool; pasted the code into my monobook.js, bypassed the cache ... bounced the browser ... cannot see the BR link near watch. Any advice? thanks --Tagishsimon (talk)

Nope, still nothing. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Yup, I'd sussed the need to edit ... still no joy. Happy to be your guinea-pig, equally happy if you want to drop the subject. I just thought I'd zap the BRs in the rest of the railway station articles. (Of course, you have that facility ;) --Tagishsimon (talk)

Bingo! And tested on UK railway stations - Y. Thanks. I'll get on & put it to use.

Good advice - will follow

Thanks for the advice. Guess you noticed the article I pasted in my sandbox. It also appears to need references to the Wiktionary. Somewhere, I saw an article about setting up accounts on all sister projects. I'll use that and get started...--LtlKty 00:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC) (talk)

Image:JesseVentura.jpg

When I uploaded this image, Jesse Ventura was Governor of Minnesota. The State website stated somewhere, that content is in the public domain. However, it would take too much time for me to try to find that statement again as the website is quite vast. In addition, I believe this image has been tweaked and modified many times since I uploaded it. So do what you want with this image. --Dennis Fernkes 01:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Image:Reservation_in_IIT.PNG

Hi,

I have no objection to the deletion. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 06:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

WPCFB Talk Page

Saw you switched the shortcut around. I don't know how it looks on your monitor, but on monitors with 1024x768 resolution (such as my work machine I do most of my work on), it does not look good: [4]. Its always best to see what your changes will look like on this resolution as it is the most popular resolution of current monitors. I just thought I'd let you know as you can take whatever action you feel necessary.--NMajdan•talk 14:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks better there than it did where I originally placed it. Thanks.--NMajdan•talk 14:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:220px-IanStanley.jpg)

I did not upload this.

I worked on the code.

trezjr 00:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphan Images

Please delete all orphan images that you can find, This pictures were uploaded by mistake. Thank you.Angel,Isaac 01:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Brick_screenshot.png

Delete away. It was used in an article but it was replaced by a better one. I just forgot about it Oskar 01:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

re: Orphaned fair use image

Thank you for your message. I didn't realize this image was removed from the article (and no reason was given for its removal). That said, the replacement image seems okay, and this image is a gif file (which I now understand is forbidden) so I don't mind if it is deleted. Is there something I should do to delete it? Best regards. Jogurney 03:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

National Titles

MECU: Before taking this idea to the entire group at WP:CFB, I thought I'd run the idea by a couple of guys that seem to be level-headed, have experience in the Project and are telented designers. I have become convinced that we need a fully-integrated solution to infoboxes and football championship article. I think that if we can give some semblance of order to the football championship article, then the infobox problem will solve itself. My idea is to redo the main year-by-year table to fully report all claims to the National Title in each year, but designate the "Wire Champ" and the "Consensus Champ" each year. Then the infoboxes would reference "Wire Champs" and "Consensus Champs" and tie back to the year-by-year table. Take a look at National Champ project and you will see a few sample years that illustrate how this would work. The sources for the poll information will be the NCAA and College Football Data Warehouse. Let me know what you think about the idea and, if you like it, how it can be improved. Also, you are more than welcome to fool around with my test table. Thanks--Tlmclain | Talk 03:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't very clear. First, I am not trying to be exclusionary in the least I just (a) need help with getting the table or template right and (b) was asking for an initial impression of the concept. In other words, if your reaction to the concept was that it was sheer idiocy, then I would not want either of us to waste time on this (I also recognize that even if you think that the concept has merit, the Project may well still reject it when it is presented). In short, I think it still needs work and refinement before it is presented. Without wishing to exclude anybody, I was trying to quickly explain the concept/vision so you could better help with (a) and (b).

As to the concept itself, my cryptic reference was to the on-going debate that started with what National Title information should be included in the team infobox and then seemed to expand to the football championship article. In watching and participating in the debate, I have come to several conclusions. #1 Edit wars related to the National Title entry in the team infoboxes and related to counting “recognized” titles (see, this example) seem to center on the same problem of definition. #2 There are a number of different ways to count national titles being employed across college football pages, including Wire Titles in the team infoboxes, some kind of blended approach in the By Year table in the football championship article and the National Championship Foundation selection in the Most national championships section of the football championship article. #3 There is currently no one source on Expedia which lists all teams selected by all polls in all years. #4 A table that sets forth all teams selected by all polls in all years AND makes an effort to logically identify wire and consensus titles AND is then used to populate team infoboxes could solve a lot of problems.

With all this in mind, I set about to try to create a sample of the master table that I have in mind with my National Champ project. Although it currently only includes three sample years, I believe that it demonstrates many of the possible yearly results. My vision for the master table would be to list every team that received a #1 vote from the polls recognized by the NCAA and CFDW in every year from 1869 until now. In each year, the table would designate which teams won the Wire Title and which teams won the “consensus” title (currently proposed as teams with 25% or more of the polls in a given year, but easily changed once we get input from the Project). This master table would replace the By Year table in the football championship article and be used to create the other tables in the article like the one in the Most national championships section. The next step would be to modify the team infoboxes to either have two lines – Wire Titles & Consensus Titles or one line with Wire & Consensus Titles with links back to the master table. If folks wanted to, we could even include “claimed” Titles.

Hopefully, you now have a clearer understanding of my “vision.” Any help, guidance or counsel that you can provide would be most appreciated.--Tlmclain | Talk 05:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. First - a confession - I don't know how to make the orange and yellow look like the Coach year-by-year. I tried copying the code but must have been doing something wrong. Would you please fix it? Your suggestion about providing percentages is a good one - I had already been toying with something like that, but your idea is better. I hear your concerns about the 25% rule and believe that I have some answers to that question, but will save that entire discussion for the Project (by the way, CFDW uses the 25% rule and I don't think they ever have more than 2 "consensus" titles). Finally, from your observation of edit wars, if you know of any years that seem to be particularly contested, I'd like to put them in the sample table so that people can see what the outcome would be.--Tlmclain | Talk 14:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. A template would make sense going forward if all years are going to be included in the table, however, while I am still working the kinks out, I'd like to leave it as a table since its easier for me to change a table.--Tlmclain | Talk 15:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

MECU: I just went live with the presentation of this idea on WP:CFB at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#National Titles. Your input would be appreciated.--Tlmclain | Talk 22:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

RE: Image:Cap1.jpg

Hello! I had originally written to the film's director about using the screen cap and was given permission to display it, but it doesn't seem to be relevant to the page anymore. Is there a way for me to remove it, or should I just leave it until the 26th? (Sorry, still a newbie with the whole image thing!) Thanks. Romdoll 05:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

orphaned image

Hi there. I saw your message on my talk page regarding Image:NXLogo.jpg. Yeah, it's an orphan. However, it's an orphan because pilotguy screwed up. Please wait until the... discussion is played out. Thanks. ... aa:talk 07:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Image-Michigan labor day 055.jpg

I removed your speedy from Image:Image-Michigan labor day 055.jpg. Take a look at it and Image:Michigan labor day 055.jpg side by side. You're going to be rolling your eyes and banging your head on your desk, but they are ever so slightly different. ;) --BigDT 23:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

civility, csd, ifd, etc.

Hi, Mecu. I don't have any special beef with you. If you care to, you might consider going through the archives for my talk page. In the past, I complained that users were using automated tools to go and delete images that fit... some criterion of theirs. When I bitched and moaned loudly, they all responded, "oh well, heavens, the backlog is just so hyooooge that we can't possibly evaluate each and every one of them..." I assume that is the case here. Granted, I understand your point of view. Consider my perspective on this: if I were to go about deleting orphaned images, I'd spend the five or ten seconds per image to find out why an image is orphaned. In the case of a user who has been here for some years, having had many thousands of edits, I'd be inclined to ask the user, unless said image was of a large meteor hanging above mine head. But that's just my two cents. My response to the Pilot Person was based upon his negligent use of administrative tools, justified by his lack of time. One does not do a piss-poor job of mopping the floor because they are short of time. Rather, if they do a piss-poor job of mopping they floor, they are fired (mopping being a "nothing special" kind of job, there are metric zillions of people capable of mopping who will do a conscientious job of it; you fire one, there are (a metric zillion)-1 people left to do it). I am especially irritated with Mr. Guy and the other admin I've been involved with recently because they both have the same excuse for the same behavior: laziness justifying laziness (or perspective, you choose which is more sinister). Regardless, no offense taken or intended. I understand where you're coming from, and I very much appreciate your replying and letting me know your thoughts on the subject. Thanks again. ... aa:talk 00:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

To be honest

I thought those images had been deleted ages ago. They can be deleted immediately. Humorbot5 00:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Orphaned fair use image (Image:MPOGD.jpg)

It no longer matters. What I had originally uploaded that for has long since been deleted. Months ago. HalfShadow 04:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Orphaned fair use image (Image:Mw1-battle.jpg)

Hi, I've noticed that you have decided to tag the above image for deletion. Can you please refer to my talk page to discuss the issues. Much thx. --Blackhawk charlie2003 05:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:TheseAreMySongs.JPG

Hello! I have no idea why you're objecting to this image. It clearly is designated as an album cover (twice, in fact, for some reason), so what's the problem? Thanks. SFTVLGUY2 16:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I downloaded this image only once, but it appears there is a duplicate of it. See [5] . . . thanks. SFTVLGUY2 16:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It APPEARS I downloaded this image twice, four minutes apart, but in fact I didn't. I wouldn't have any reason to do so. Furthermore, Wiki decides if a photo should be designated .jpg or .JPG, not the editor uploading it. Since the name is exactly the same, wouldn't have Wiki warned me an image with that name already exists? I'm confused by this . . . can you please explain how it could happen? Thanks! SFTVLGUY2 16:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood what I was trying to explain, perhaps not too clearly. When I upload an image, Wikipedia appends the .jpg or .JPG, not I. I simply enter the photo, all of which are labeled .jpg, from my file and Wiki does the rest. Sometimes it retains the .jpg, sometimes it capitalizes it. I understand Wiki thinks there are two different images because one is .jpg and the other is .JPG - what I DON'T understand is why there's a second image. You said this happens often . . . I'm trying to understand why it does. Thanks. SFTVLGUY2 16:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

DarknessLord2

Okay, I forgive you for the template.

However, I would like to know why the userpages I listed (except Jimbo and the WP:'s) aren't up on MfD too if my pages are up there. -- ~D-Lord (Sign!) (TCE) 01:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:Image:Borowski_indians_2006.jpg

I'm sorry, I might misunderstand the first criterion, but it is next to impossible that I'll be able to meet with and take a picture of this ballplayer. MLB.com is my only resource for player images. Bookworm1 01:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

My Image

Okay. I will just upload from the commons instead. That would be easier. --Shaericell (Userpage|Talk|E-mail|Triplets) 01:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I knew that! I was just going to upload it to the commons. But now I know the license. --Shaericell (Userpage|Talk|E-mail|Triplets) 21:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Duff Goldman with cakes.jpg

I thought I gave it the correct tagging. It should be the same as this image here: Image:Giada De Laurentiis2 e.jpg as the two are from the same website. Is this correct? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Junglecat (talk • contribs) 02:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

PJSta 1, 2, & 3.jpegs

Sorry, I forgot to add the copyright tags. I took all three of them years ago. DanTD 03:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Image Warning

I kind of forget to add the copyright status at the upload menu and I was adding the template and rationable when you were writing the unsourced template and a Edit conflict happened, but I already added them, Cheers! --Dark Dragon Flame 04:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Image: Carleth_and_Steven_Keys.jpg

You tagged one of my images as possibly unfree, but I took the photo myself. Please see my response to your statement on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If you have any more questions, please ask. If you don't, please remove the tag on the image. Thanks.
Steevven1 ^{(Talk) (Contributions)} 04:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• I have responded again. Steevven1 ^{(Talk) (Contributions)} 04:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• I have responded again. The issue is now resolved, so please remove the tag from my image. Thanks!
  Steevven1 ^{(Talk) (Contributions)} 16:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• No problem; you're just doing your job. After all, calmness is the Wikipedia way :-)
  Steevven1 ^{(Talk) (Contributions)} 16:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Fritzbot

Sure, just give me your e-mail address (or send me an E-Mail via "E-Mail this user") and I'll send you the settings file. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 12:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

User:ryanpostlethwaite/0017

Please could you enlighten me as to why you put this up for MfD? If had bothered to contact me 1st, I would have been able to enlighten you. The article 0017 was previously speedily deleted as in my opinion it failed WP:WEB, however, not to put off new editors, I have offered to attempt to make the page follow all policies so it can be moved into mainspace, the page you have nominated is the guys first edit to the page (I told him to create it in my userspace so it wouldn't get deleted). I was then planning to work with him here to get it up to scratch, and if not, I would have had it speedied. This occured yesterday - not really giving me much chance to help the guy out. Maybe you could consider discussing with editors, their userspace, rather than putting it up for deletion RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Many appologies about my previous comment, I was just a bit annoyed, but we've obviously had our wires crossed. Do I think the aricle has a chance? No, not really to be honest and I've said this to the original author, but he is insistant that we at least try. My main plan was to do the best job we could with it and try and show the editor (User:Jerry571) why it fails, and how wikipedia works and why it probably isn't an acceptable article, if he agrees with me then I would have it speedied, but if he doesn't I would put the new page for deletion review, and let the commuity decide (as I've previously stated, I'm fairly sure it will fail, but its only fair on the editor). I've already directed him to WP:WEB and WP:RS in a bid to show why he fails, but he really does want to give it a go. Anyway, its upto you, but if you do remove the MfD, I will have it sorted within a week anyway (and in my opinion deletion review or consented speedy by the author is a much better road to down) RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Ryanpostlethwaite/0017

I've now requested this article be speedy deleted after I found this posted on their youtube page, slating wikipedia for originally deleting it in the 1st place, and requesting other people add it to wikipedia and basically say what they want to say. They're not getting any help from me if thats their attitudes! RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

James Blake Pic

Hey, thanks for allowing time to put the use of the image up for discussion, rather than deleting it. Since you're the second person to tag it, I have little doubt that it's "not fair use"; however, I would like to know why. It appears to be released under CC2.0, instead of CC2.5, honest mistake, sorry about that :). Do images have to be released under GFDL or the new version of CC to be deemed "okay"? The "meat" of CC2.0 and CC2.5 appear to be the same, so I really do not understand why the image in question is not fair use. As I'm sure you know, the pages upon pages of what is fair use, what isn't, what are good image sources, etc get rather dense. If you could help explain why things are and aren't fair use, it would be greatly appreciated. My mention on the talk page is here: Image talk:JamesBlake.JPG. Warm Regards Captain Courageous 01:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

He answered everything well. Thanks again for your help and concern :) AS you're well aware, it's easy to get confused on the image licensing when one starts out. Thanks again for the followup. Regards Captain Courageous 03:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

PD-Layout

Hi - I noticed you're adding "PD-Layout" to some images you upload to commons. PD-Layout appears to just be a bit of formatting code meant to be included in PD license templates - it's not a license tag itself. By including it, you're adding extra, junk text to the Licensing sections - see for example commons:Image:Sa1 on pad.jpg. PD-USGov is all you need to put on these images. --Davepape 15:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I see - I didn't realize it was from an automated tool. As you say, it's not a big concern. --Davepape 19:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

from Soso

Hi and thank you for the response. It helped me to get a better understanding. However, I did not quite get your message about the photograper's images. Georgian photographer, Paata, releases the images under {{Cc-by-sa-2.5}} and I thought that I could use those on wiki as well as on commons. For example, I am talking about those kind of pictures. [Image:SvetitskhoveliPaata3.jpg]. Right now, I am kind of busy in real life, but I'll sign up for commons and transfer the pictures as soon as I can. Please let me know If this is a wrong idea. In addition, I will forward the email from Paata if you want. What adressed do I forward it to? SosoMK 16:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Image from Blue Lagoon

Hey you recently told me an image of mine is being considered for deletion, what are the reasons? its been on here for a long time now and i took the photograph myself so i dont see the problem, please explain. (Neostinker 20:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC))

???? Actually , im quite confused, there are two pics, are you deleting the duplicate, the one on my page is differant, has no bag in it, well, if you could let me know but if that is the case it makes a lot more sense. (Neostinker 20:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC))

Image:Allison-brewer.jpg

You've posted a notice to my talk page concerning this image asking me to "specify the exact web page where you found the image", however this is not possible. The image was on a campaign website from 2005 and the site has since been taken offline. The image is one of the few items that remain on the site at allisonbrewer.ca, however any and all copyright information has been removed. - Jord 20:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I will include it... images and copyright are far from my area of expertise. - Jord 21:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Editor review archived

Thanks for having requested an editor review. A month has passed since it has been posted there, and it has been archived. You can find it at Wikipedia:Editor review/MECU, where you may read last minute additions. We would really appreciate your help in reviewing a random editor. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 22:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

BrandyN

Thx 4 information. Here the page: www.google.com/image I'm sorry, but I don't know which page is the exact page.

Source

I provided the image source, and additional information for SeanFarberNew.JPG. What do I do next? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mike5193 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Montauk-airport.gif

I was surprised you tagged my Montauk-airport.gif file as unsourced as I originally stated that it was "by FAA." I have now included a URL for the image which is a federal government website. I know it's a thankless but necessary job to police these files. I hope the URL addresses the issue. Thanks. Americasroof 01:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

With regards to your follow up question. The FAA website is counterintuitive. You can't link directly to an image because it expires. You have to click on the instructions information in blue below the red lettered warning that tells you to link to that page ONLY. That takes you to a map and entry form. I clicked New York and then searched by city for Montauk. The image is a pdf with other data but I jus cropped the diagram. The link: http://www.naco.faa.gov/index.asp?xml=naco/online/d_tpp The link to the Montauk diagram (for today only as it will expire) is http://www.naco.faa.gov/pdfs/ne_161_18JAN2007.pdf Hope this addresses this issue. Hope this addresses the issue. Americasroof 01:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Commons Image move helper

OK, CommonsHelper will no longer use "PD-Layout". --Magnus Manske 11:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

For your consideration. . .

I offer {{Replaceable short}}. For those template-cluttered talk pages (never for first warning, of course). If you like it, tell your friends. If not, tell me. Chick Bowen 03:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: multiple warnings--sometimes, but sometimes it just means a user was around in the old days when, let's face it, our image policies were less strict (it's people like that this template was intended for). I didn't realize about the script. I'll drop by Howcheng's talk page--if he's not interested, then so be it. Chick Bowen 03:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Kelly_gregg.JPG

I'm trying to determine how best to tag this image (and how to tag things with a copyright, in general). I have tried sorting through all the jargon and legalese, and my experience is minimal with copyright law. There isn't anything that I've seen with help in determining copyright or anything that I can reasonably understand that tells me how to apply a tag. Please help.

This is a photograph depicting DT Kelly Gregg of the Oklahoma Sooners at the OU-Texas game on October 11, 1997 at the Cotton Bowl in Dallas, TX. Kelly Gregg was a Junior at the time of the photograph.

I scanned this image from the 1998 Athlon Sports Big XII Edition. It was taken at the OU-Texas game on October 11, 1997 in Dallas, Texas by Layne Murdoch^[6], a freelance photographer based in Flower Mound, TX. I am currently in communication with Mr. Murdoch to determine the copyright on the photo and release information. I believe the photo should be considered under the 'low quality image' distribution clause. Please do not delete this photo until I can determine the copyright information. There are currently no collegiate photographs of Gregg that I could find on the internet.

Desert sapper 14:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)desert sapper

February Portal CFB rotation

So, if we don't get any more nominations or votes for the next Selected Article and Picture for the Portal, which do you think we should promote? Personally, I'd say the 2005 Texas article (I just don't think the 2006 Florida article is up to the quality standard yet) and the Florida picture. The other picture you have is great, so maybe that can be March. Those would be my suggestions, what are yours?↔NMajdan•talk 19:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Tigerliliysuite.gif=

MECU - You left me a request to update my copyright image for the image Template:ITigerliliysuite.gif and I attempted to follow the tag requirements and add what was needed, however, I am not sure I did it correctly. Can you let me know when you return if I did it correctly, and also, if I did not, what else I need to add, or read to properly put the needed copyright information. It is liscenced by the artist's husband. I just could not figure out how to properly tag it. Thanks, ArchiemartinArchiemartin 20:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

About Anderson's Rule edits

Hi! Can you take a look and offer some pointers? I've also asked about on the dead-end article talk page. I think I've found my niche. Hope you had a great vacation. Thx! --LtlKty 23:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your critique. I only made technical (as differentiated from content) mods to the article. I agree with you that as written, it is rather difficult to follow. I want to do a little more research before I tackle the content. I'd also like to include a mention of research that shows that the rule is actually a "characteristic" of some semiconductors, but not a general rule. I'll make the technical changes you suggest, and be more careful about how often I save the page. This isn't a contest for me, so the edit count isn't important. --LtlKty^{talk | contribs} 04:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

RfA

Go for it Mecu, You'd make a great admin RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks MECU - A few more questions RE: Image copyright problem with Image:Tigerliliysuite.gif

Thanks MEcu for helping me with this. I have a few more questions about copyright use. I believe I have input the correct fair use information now on tigerlilysuite.gif as well as updating it again on the main page. Could you check it for me and let me know if I followed the corrrrect wikipedia direction? Since you mentioned that I can restore it - I went ahead and tried to do so. To answer your question - her husband photographs all her works and it is in the public domain, so perhaps I just should have written public domain? I don't know. I am a arts professor so I am a little out of my element here.

Question 2 - I am working on another article about a woman Dorrie Nossiter who died in the 40's. Her grand nephew in UK is providing me with information on her and has images he is using for a book he is writing. How do I approach uploading her picture here? It is on his website and in the public domain as well. He has also given permission but I thought I would ask beforer I go ahead.

Thanks for help. ArchiemartinArchiemartin 23:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading Image:Tigerliliysuite.gif. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. MECU≈talk 03:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC) You've added a fair use license, so the image is now licensed. However, the use of an image under fair use requires a fair use rationale and information on why it's not replaceable. Also, the image must be used on Wikipedia, as fair use orphans can be deleted ("Use it or lose it") -- this is because orphanbot removed it from an article. You can restore it to that article. I've removed the no license tags and marked the other problem that now exist. Also, you said this is from the artist's spouse? Why can't the artist license the image themself? How are you related to them? Ideally, we want freely licensed images here at Wikipedia. If possible, the artist should be willing to license it under a free license. I use CC-BY-SA-2.5 myself, but there are many others, including the GFDL and just releasing into the public domain. Good luck! --MECU≈talk 18:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

hey mecu, i havent been around for awhile but i am getting back into the swing. i have seen user JT_Curtis leave his own quotes (which i have deleted) on various articles, and visited his own wiki 'page.' i believe that his page is a good candidate for deletion. i feel, although he may not, that he is non-notable. his page also leads to his 'band' page which is also non-notable, has no external citations and has links to purchase their music. both pages should be deleted, imo. how do i go about nominating these pages for deletion? i want to make sure i am doing this with correct etiquette. your own opinion on the pages would be great, as well. The undertow 01:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

College football

I just quickly cut and paste the references from Athletics at Rutgers University, without taking any time or care in editing—hence why the "name" parameter was in the <ref> tag. —ExplorerCDT 20:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)