User talk:Kelly/Archives/2008/March

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Welcome!

Hello, Kelly/Archives/2008, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! – sgeureka ^t•c 15:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Aww, sgeureka beat me to welcoming you... always happy to have another Browncoat on Wikipedia. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Nesodak (talk) 16:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Idaho National Laboratory

Hello. You recently tagged the Idaho National Laboratory under the WPMILHIST project. I'm not sure that this really comes under the project's scope, but was wondering if you had any reason for doing this? Thanks. Rockfall (talk) 15:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really sure if it is. The link to military history seems tenuous at best, but I am not really an expert on the subject so can't call it myself. I started a discussion on its talk page, so if you want to outline your reasons there, please do. Don't worry about getting tagging wrong - it's better to tag and dicuss than not to tag at all! Rockfall (talk) 16:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Eliot Spitzer

Please stop removing the sourced material in the Eliot Spitzer. The source(s) indicate his religion. Scythian1 (talk) 03:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see the discussion on the article's talk page - this has already been discussed. You're welcome to make your point there. Nesodak (talk) 03:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for putting in the comment at the head of the article indicating that the {{current}} tag is already in use further down in the article. I monitor the use of the template, and you might correcty guess that it is used 9 times out of 10 incorrectly.
Cheers -- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ashley Alexandra Dupré

An editor has nominated Ashley Alexandra Dupré, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashley Alexandra Dupré and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 01:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Nesodak, Thanks for your note. I agree that the Post cover didn't belong in the info box. I added the non-fair use rationale for the Ashely Dupre article. Thanks for your work on the Ashely Dupre article. I think she is going to be around a lot longer than most people think. ?perhaps the next Paris Hilton. Steve913 (talk) 02:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I think she'll be better than Paris Hilton, since she seems to only surface sporadically (nothing worse than over exposure). Also the whole phenomenon is such a comment about contemporary culture (...And personally I love it!)--Justmeherenow (talk) 03:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Quite desperately seeking Ashley?

It's OK under media licensing guidelines to grab a screenshot from a music album etc to illustrate discussion of the album etc itself, so---- could any pic of Ashley that she herself has up as a part of the artistic media of her song-downloads site conceivably be licensed to illustrate your section (eventually maybe even an independent stub) that discusses critiques of her two commercial songs? Just thinking. --Justmeherenow (talk) 03:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed reply...I was doing some digging in the rules on non-free content (it's pretty complex). It looks we could use album cover art on an article about the album, for purposes of identification, but that's about it. Nesodak (talk) 14:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

I just want to chime in here real quick --I don't mind it when people revert my edits, especially if there isn't any way to back up my source. But since Wikipedia has zero credibility anyway, wouldn't it be easier to just go with the flow? Thanks! 147.226.202.177 (talk) 04:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I hope you are joking. If not, maybe you shouldn't be editing an encyclopedia you have such a low opinion of. Steve913 (talk) 14:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and uploaded it and put it in the section. And in fact the upload form even asks if you're going to use it in an article or else in a section, so I'd guess that particular consideration is maybe OK(?) However, then again, it also does says you have got to scan the physical album, with a caveat about certain exceptions and a "click here" link to WP guidelines stuff for someone to figure out. But I just went ahead and did it, and argued in its rationale section something about since the album is marketed only online its image used by the music press in reviews, WP can only get it via a screengrab(?) :^) --Justmeherenow (talk) 16:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you tagging police

I give up. I'm really sick of taking an article with an image that has no source info, replacing it with a well sourced image, and being slapped down for it. If people like you can't contribute cooperatively, then I should have stuck with my guns a year ago and stopped contributing at all. -Harmil (talk) 13:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Why do you say that I can't contribute cooperatively? Nesodak (talk) 13:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you probably can contribute cooperatively, but if (you, see that's what we call a conditional) you (and that you is plural... it's ambiguous in English) cannot, then contributions made by others are moot. I've been contributing images to Wikipedia for years. Some, my own photos. Some, images from around the Web. Rules have changed over the years, and at times rendered previous contributions deletable for reasons that would never have impacted the original additions. In other cases, like this one, I've tried to improve dicy copyright situations (an unsourced image that I've replaced with a well sourced one that was explicitly distributed for such purposes). When I get slapped down for trying to help with no contributory response from those doing the slapping, I'm left to assume that Wikipedia has become a place where it is futile to try to tilt against the windmills of armchair taggers. -Harmil (talk) 14:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Governor David Paterson

Hi. Just an update... I put an email request in at the governor's website ("Contact the Governor") asking for full permission to use this photograph. If and when they respond, I will publish this under the photograph rationale if I am told it may be used on Wikipedia. Also, please see the consensus on this from the posting I put on the Image Copyright Help Desk a few days back. The section is #41, "Governor David Paterson". Currently the fair use rationale is not strong enough and I agree. If you could, let it stay up until the 20th to see if the Governor's office responds though, since I cited the page in the email, that would be appreciated (unless a free image becomes available sooner). (Nicolaususry (talk) 14:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC))

re:Paterson photo

Answers to both questions:

A) I do not believe that is the flickr user account for the photographer, however I am certain that is who originally took the photo.

B) No, that is not my flickr account, I happened to find the Paterson photo there, and then I noticed the one of Francis so I used that in the article I wrote on him. However it is a thumb so there might be a fair use, although I doubt it would pass WP:living. However thank you for pointing out that it is marked all rights reserved.

Mrprada911 (talk) 06:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

re:tagging

That is going to be difficult. Most of them were grabbed from flickr, either from a straight search (Mills) or through a blog (Bruno) that utilizes it. It will definitely take time. Mrprada911 (talk) 07:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

How did you verify the licenses that you put on the photos? Nesodak (talk) 07:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a cursory glance and picasaweb or flickr, if the blog I initially found them on hosted them there. Some photos (Daniels1, Panio, Cox), I took myself, the tags probably need to be altered slightly.

Otherwise, in question are: Image:Paulfrancis.jpg IMage:Patbrn.jpg Image:Kml.jpg [which I claim no responsibility for, other then replacing what the campaign put up] Image:Jmondello.jpg IMage:Joebruno.jpg Image:Michaelfinnegan.jpg Image:Howardmills.jpg Image:Eddiana.png

The original images of Diana, Mills, and Bruno were all from ourcampaigns. I attempted to replace the later two with free images a year later. So we have about 7 photos out of 105 that need new licensing information. I appreciate you not over-tagging my talk page, although I again note the sentence "most of your photos don't have licenses, that is not cool" is incorrect. Mrprada911 (talk) 07:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Ashley Alexandra Dupré

On 21 March 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ashley Alexandra Dupré, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 18:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

ffs page link

What was the justification for your revert of the link insertion on the ffs page? It is a legitimate link to a support group for people involved with the page's topic. 75.172.75.141 (talk) 23:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:EL probably explains it better than I can, but basically we don't link to social networking sites. Nesodak (talk) 23:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The link is not a "social networking" link. The support group provides information and is not for "social' contact. There is a distinct difference. The link is of similar quality to the other links associated with the article. 75.172.75.141 (talk) 00:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure how to handle this so I passed it off to WT:WPSPAM. Nesodak (talk) 03:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Medal

Thanks! Reggie Perrin (talk) 03:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

None necessary - you deserved it! Nesodak (talk) 03:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Patrick McLaughlin (priest)

As I said in the summary when moving him away from Patrick McLaughlin (priest), for the last twenty-six years of his life he wasn't a priest. Perhaps I've missed the part of the naming convention which requires 'priest', could you please say more? Xn4 04:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Tina Tinio

Image deleted. Thanks for pointing that out, and thanks for helping to revert stuff on that page. :) FCYTravis (talk) 17:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Post Chronicle

I agree that the Post Chronicle links need to be replaced in most cases with something reliable, and the block of Smokefan2007 was sad, but likely warranted. However, it's probably needlessly confrontational to make repeated references to the site as a "spam aggregator" and could provoke more drama. Just my two cents, take it for what it's worth. Nesodak (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that my description was accurate. However, if you prefer, I will use terms other than "spam" in the edit summaries from now on when removing these links. *** Crotalus *** 19:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...not a big deal, and I already bowed out of the whole thing, but I hate to see someone being kicked when they're already down. Nesodak (talk) 19:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Tegan Summer

Hi,

My wikipedia page (Tegan Summer) that has been edited by my publicist has been tagged for COI and I've noticed on the talk notes from another editor that they 'weren't sure' about the work or our television productions (Tegan Summer Productions - marked for deletion). The majority of the acting credits have references and the television series is verifiable via the Setanta Sports North American website. The publicist wrote this via my internet network and both of us are completely free of bias when editing the factual data. This isn't self promotion.

What else do you need in order to verify these pages and/or clean them up?

Please help for both pages as we would like to keep them.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tegan Summer (talk • contribs) 10:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Mr. Summer - another volunteer left a message on your talk page stating our polices regarding this. The most important thing is to have verifiable, reliable sources for facts asserted in the articles. Nesodak (talk) 22:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

vandalism by anonymous user

Hi Nesodak, I have been tirelessly working on bringing the Magdi Allam article up-to-date, but this user:98.209.100.54 - whom you have sent a greeting message - has been sabotaging the article constantly. See the discussion page of Magdi Allam for a whole explanation. This is the third time he has done it. Any ideas on how to proceed? Thanks, SelfEvidentTruths (talk) 22:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I left another warning for the person, and requested semi-protection of the page for a few days. Nesodak (talk) 22:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Nesodak. Hope this calms things down. SelfEvidentTruths (talk) 22:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Having read your contributions to that AN/I thread about PostChronicle...

...I can see I'm going to like having you around. Finally, someone suggesting possible solutions instead of hollering into the drama. Since that's been my own intention for a long time....welcome! Gladys J Cortez 17:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

How nice - thank you! Nesodak (talk) 17:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

FIRE

Hi, see my changes, discuss at talk. Best, Kaisershatner (talk) 19:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I commented there, thank you! Nesodak (talk) 19:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Merrill McPeak

At this point I'm going to remove the article from my watch-list, I was trying to add some balance to it shortly before the current campaign controversies situation when I saw that there were considerable problems with sourcing (it's part of WikiProject:Oregon). I'm not sure why you felt that you needed to post that the article needed the attention of folks on the Barack Obama campaign talk page but I'm not prepared to deal with the influx of POV pushers from all sides that are now going to descend on it.Awotter (talk) 02:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, OK. I guess I assumed good faith for the people who frequent that page, and that they would have some knowledge of sources regarding the political side. Anyway, best wishes to you. Nesodak (talk) 02:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Geert Wilders' photo

According to http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overleg_afbeelding:Geert_Wilders.jpg nl:User:Muijz asked for a rights-free photograph from Geert Wilders and received this photograph from one of his assistants. That's about all I could find. —Ruud 22:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Dawn Wells

It is improper of you to remove the Marijuana Incidents section without proper discussion. If you choose to get into a revert war, you will suffer the consequences which is possible revocation of your ability to edit Wikipedia articles. Please do not revert the section again until the issue is resolved. The proper place to work issues out is the Discussion section for the article i question. Proxy User (talk) 02:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the message! I hope you realize the same applies to your edits.... Kelly ^hi! 02:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

You are not in a position to threaten me with "banning" for anything. I suggest you cease and desist from such threats. I'm not i any kind of "revert war" at all, I am simply reverting VANDALISM. Have you left the same Nasty Gram for the others, or are you showing your POV Bias with me? It will not be tolerated.

The PROPER place to discuss content of an article is the DISCUSSION SECTION of that article. Why don't you try it? Proxy User (talk) 02:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Kelly ^hi! 03:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Short comment on an ANI thread

Hello Kelly, I think we haven't met yet. I was going to reply to an ANI comment of yours [1], but the thread was archived while I was writing. The comment was about the ubiquity of bad faith in the project (due to AGF being quite hard to follow), the appropriateness of the word "sockpuppet" in your comment (as opposed to the word "troll"), and glasshouses. No offense meant, I just feel it is instructive. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you please explain what you mean by that? Kelly ^hi! 00:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry it wasn't clear. Guy's calling the account a troll was not warranted in my opinion (although this kind of thing happens all the time and is usually not even commented upon), but sockpuppetry was clearly obvious, especially when considering that the name of the account was also the original title of the thread. So there was no need for you to mention "sockpuppet", and doing it anyway was akin to Guy's adding "troll" where "sockpuppet" would have sufficed. It seems that you decided to throw a stone at Guy for something that turns out to be a very minor offence, and you inadvertently went into a glasshouse to do it. (More explicitly: Your mentioning "sockpuppet" was a sign of bad faith.)

I am not blaming you for this, after all I am in a glasshouse myself. It takes continuous vigilance to assume good faith all the time, and we inevitably make mistakes. But I think it's worth pointing out such things to each other, in order to learn from them. You did that, and now I did that as well. Perhaps I wouldn't have done it if I hadn't felt that your comment had a good chance of hurting Guy's feelings because you mentioned the RfC, motivated only by a very minor offence.

As these things always go, I must have slipped up somewhere and assumed bad faith in some respect. If you find where, please do let me know: it will make this entire exchange even more interesting. :-) --Hans Adler (talk) 01:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. My reference to "sockpuppet" comes from here, which I looked up once I noticed JzG's ~~issues over~~ discussion of Post Chronicle links. Kelly ^hi! 01:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Now I need an explanation, I don't see the connection. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Kelly ^hi! 01:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't have "issues" over post chronicle links. I have "issues" with spammers, single purpose disruption accounts, unreliable sources,especially in biographies, and copyright violations, but the whole project shares those issues, hence WP:SPAM, WP:SPA], WP:RS, WP:BLP and WP:C. As was plain during the discussion over the post chronicle links, removing links to sites which violate copyright and are not usable as references, is not really considered a problem. Guy (Help!)

Ugh...I'm sorry if it came across that I meant "issues" in some kind of derogatory way towards you, it wasn't intended. I have rephrased. As I said elsewhere, it wasn't the removal of the links I had the problem with, but the confrontational way in which it was handled. Kelly ^hi! 13:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, I don't know if you are aware of this, so I suppose it's worth mentioning. Guy and Dan have both been with Wikipedia since 2004. I don't know how old their conflict is, but it seems to be very deep-rooted and is not restricted to Wikipedia. They have very strong opinions about each other, and I don't think this ANI dispute was mainly about the links, if that's what you mean. Note that the thread was started by Dan, apparently after he saw a comment on Guy's talk page [2]. Look at the tone which he set, and the title. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Hans. Yes, nobody covered themselves in glory there. Kelly ^hi! 15:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:111Sqn shoulder patch.jpg

Hello there, what is it there to dispute about this image, might I ask? Just so you'd know, the same image at the official RSAF website isn't helpful as it is so darned small that I can't even see any details beyond that of the logo and the logo only. Hence, this shot of the image at the RSAF OPEN HOUSE and now you're telling me that this might constitute a copyright violations? What gives? -- Dave1185 (talk) 13:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Dave! I don't doubt that you took the photo, I'm only saying that the copyright to the patch's design is likely held by the government of Singapore, and that your photo is a derivative work, so the correct license tag would be whatever copyright law applies to military insignia in Singapore. Kelly ^hi! 15:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I was told by Rifleman 82 that I can only use those images which I took from open houses or exhibitions or air shows or military tattoo for use on wikipedia and not those directly off the website so that's what I did exactly. Please, for pete's sake, leave a message on my User talk page (before you put a tag on the image file) and get into a discussion with me regarding the image(s) because this is not the only image in question here and IF you were to leave around all these comments in all of my images, I would go crazy just trying to keep up and answering to each and every single one of them. By doing so, wouldn't it seemed like you're trying to push me out of wikipedia? Give me a break, discuss with me first and let us work things out from here, ok? Thanks and cheers. -- Dave1185 (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

That's why I only tagged one...I saw the other images and put this one on my watchlist. I was waiting to see how this one is fixed and I was planning to help fix the other ones. Why would I want to push you out of Wikipedia? Kelly ^hi! 15:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I apologise for being so defensive, it's natural as you can see... these are my babies. Anyway, thanks for your understanding and for letting me know that you only tagged one. You're so sweet, thanks for the help if you can recommend an appropriate license tag for all the insignias I've uploaded. Seriously, I need to catch some Zzz after almost 24hours of editing on wiki. Bye! -- Dave1185 (talk) 16:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I did some looking and I think {{non-free symbol}} would be the correct license...what do you think? Kelly ^hi! 16:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Do what you have to, I'm too tired now... night! -- Dave1185 (talk) 16:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Problem with Image:Nude_Biker.jpg

Please see my comment at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Nude_Biker.jpg&action=history Even if someone were to create a photograph of another nude woman on a motorcycle, it would not be Gilda Texter in 1971, and a 2008 photograph of Gilda Texter would display a significantly different appearance from the way she looked when she appeared in movies in the early 1970s. --Eastmain (talk) 19:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:(S.A.W) grave.jpg

You may have been a bit hasty deleting the no-source tag [3] and having Image:(S.A.W) grave.jpg copied to Commons [4]. Perhaps you have not reviewed the uploader's talk page, but Paki90 (talk · contribs) has had over 80 of his photo contributions deleted. Quite a few were blatant copyright violations (some even had watermarks identifying the legitimate copyright owners), the photos were taken with something like twenty-odd different cameras (ranging from professional SLRs to cheap consumer models to camera phones), Paki90 could not answer questions about any of them, and all were incorrectly tagged {{self}}, {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}}, or something similar (including the photos he stole from the web sites of the Associated Press, Boeing, etc.). Considering his track record for attempting to pass the works of others on as his own creations, I would be extremely wary of trusting his photo uploads without corroborating evidence. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up! Kelly ^hi! 01:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Image: Marksbook.jpg

Go ahead and delete, thanks.

BTW how I do get into an apprentice program to become a wikipedia master like you?

I would also like to change my display name, can you tell me how to do that?

Thanks, chris ckieff (talk) 14:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:6th Duke of Richmond.jpg

It's impossible to remember the exact source of this image. I remember it was several years ago, in the #Wikipedia IRC channel, a user who is conscientious about the copyright policies (my original guess was User:Adam Bishop but it wasn't him) had scanned several pictures from this one book, which was clearly out of copyright and therefore kosher. But I can't remember any details - I'll go digging in my contribs and see if I can figure out more. ugen64 (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm just trying to clean up the old {{PD}} license tags and replace them with the correct license template. Kelly ^hi! 22:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah - if it matters here is the only relevant diff [5]. Sorry I don't know the exact source or anything - and the user in question left Wikipedia a while ago. :-( ugen64 (talk) 22:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Categories: User talk archives