User talk:Videmus Omnia/Archive/Aug 2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] comment

Hi Videmus Omnia. I noted, what I consider to be, your supercilious and superfluous commentary. I would like to discuss this issue with you at a later date, are agreeable to this proposal? Fred ☻ 23:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Supercilious and superfluous? Please elaborate (in simple words, please). Videmus Omnia Talk 23:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. Better words than these elude me at the moment. I will rephrase the question tomorrow and put it to you again. I am not being able to find a simpler way of phrasing the complaint at this time. Until then. Fred ☻

[edit] Linkspam

You tagged my links as spam and removed them, even though they are perfectly relevant, educational sources, which contain further articles and information which extends the knowledge presented in the wiki page as they contain a multitude of free content pages... yet you seem perfectly happy to leave links to obviously commercial sites which have no educational value? how is that right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.124.57.184 (talk • contribs)

Please see WP:GRIEF. Videmus Omnia Talk 12:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I read the entire "external links guideline" and see nothing objecting to the links I provided. Can you tell me why you would erase my links? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.124.57.184 (talk • contribs)

Your links are pure commercial sites soliciting payment. Stop spamming. Videmus Omnia Talk 16:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michelle Malkin

How is it any more correct to say Malkin is a conservative when she is obviously allied with the neo-conservative ideology and not the ambiguous "conservative" moniker? Maybe you wikipedia folk should read into what "neoconservatism" is and consider that, PERHAPS, Michele Malkin is not respresentative of all conservatives and is obviously a neo-con. This is not slander, by the way; this is just reflective of the broad segment of viewers she appeals to that proudly claim to be neo-con's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.73.68 (talk • contribs)

Can you cite a reliable source that states she's a neo-conservative, as opposed to a conservative? Videmus Omnia Talk 04:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] regarding links

Thank you for your prompt answers. You are very good at that and I appreciate the courtesy.

I am not a spammer, I just added 2 links, one day, once, that's it and never re-added them after you removed them.

I am sure you have ways to check that I am telling the truth, so please don't just label me - I don't want any trouble and it is not fair of you.

Now regarding our discussion and understanding what is acceptable to contribute to wikipedia, it is true that the 2 sites I linked have pay services... but they also/mostly have dozens of free information pages, and maybe I did a crappy job of pointing these out which is why you missed those parts?

Was my mistake to simpy link to the homepage of these sites as opposed to linking directly to the free sections? maybe my links were too detailed and should have been simple?

I do not intend to battle you on this and I have not added the links back, I would however like to understand how this works.

I noticed other sites wich have premium services are included, but which are linked to the free section are allowed in, as long as the link is plain... is that how it works? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.124.57.184 (talk • contribs)

Quick question - are you associated with the sites that you linked? But, per the external links policy, I'm not sure what the links are adding to the article, and we shouldn't be linking to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. But I'm open to an explanation. Also, please sign your posts on talk pages, thanks. It makes it possible to keep track of who's talking. Videmus Omnia Talk 16:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for tagging so many images lately! Thanks also for dealing with the JR issue calmly, without adding unnecessary drama. Keep up the good work! – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Videmus Omnia Talk 19:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jennings

Heh, no problem. I'd actually uploaded dozens of images in similar circumstances last year. I've been gradually working my way through them since then, nailing down specific email permissions, but just hadn't gotten to Sylvester's images yet. Eventually I'll get all the way caught up!  :) --Elonka 20:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] July 2007

I am only undoing vandalisim to cited, factual information that was done by the user Shoessss. The information is unbiased and factual, and cited as per wikipedia requirements. Please stop your vandalism! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.28.206.73 (talk • contribs)

The fact that multiple editors are removing your edit should tell you that it is controversial. Please make your case on the article's talk page, thanks. Videmus Omnia Talk 22:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your ridiculous stalking commemts

Desist from making bad faith accusations. I am not interested in FfJ but in not outing rape victims and your ridiculous accusations have no place in wikipedia, SqueakBox 01:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I replied to your comment at WP:ANI. Videmus Omnia Talk 01:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Not quite, you havent tried to defend your out of order stalking allegations merely because I am trying to defend rape victims. Your user page looks cool, how would you feel if we were trying a member of your family. I mean, come on? SqueakBox 01:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Defending dead rape victims from being called "rape victims" in a Wikipedia category seems rather pointless, if you ask me. Probably better to find some live one to defend. Videmus Omnia Talk 01:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Well the live ones are all removed, and by my hand. I've been in wikipedia a long time and if I have learnt one thing its to focus on what's important, I dont think there are any lame edit wars with this cat, SqueakBox 01:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be better to concentrate forces on the CfD (which accomplishes your objective completely), rather than dispersing your efforts on minor skirmishes all over the map? I have no objection to your mission, just to your tactics. Videmus Omnia Talk 01:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Nope, the community can decide for itself re the cfd and meanwhile all I am doing is enforcing really important policies. If you can find a policy that says all policies are suspended during deletion debates please let me know, otherwise stop trying to excuse policies vilolations on the basis of deletion debates.
I am really unhappy with your stalking allegations that have no foundation unless one assumes that FfJ owns the rape cat. Please either strike your comments or give some diffs to prove your point otherwise all I can assume is your that comments were trolling, SqueakBox 02:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to say, based on the contribs history, and my allegations elsewhere on AN/I, it's actually Ffj that is stalking SqueakBox. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 16:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I've decided to stay out of it - it looks like they're both reverting each other all over the wiki, and probably will be until the CfD is resolved (and maybe even afterwards). Sooner or later one or both will end up blocked for disruption unless things calm down. Videmus Omnia Talk 16:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Sooner rather than later. I blocked Ffj for the attacks and incivility etc. on the CfD. It's also borderline WP:POINT given her avowed POV. Not that squeakbox is an angel, but in this one Ffj is significantly worse. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 17:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My civility

You sir have not had said IFD submitter stalking your edits for months, and submitting your uploaded content for IFD. I'll kindly ask you to step off and not get involved. Abu Badali has already been censured once for his behavior.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 02:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Censured where? Videmus Omnia Talk 02:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Abu_badali and his RFAr is ongoing here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Abu_badali. As for "step off"... you are not an administrator, you should not be involving yourself in my affairs until said time you become an administrator.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 02:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm an administrator. Alkivar, please remember to be civil, even to those you disagree with. – Quadell (talk) (random) 03:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The RFC

H, Videmus. I would suggest that, before starting the RFC. We could give a last chance to "talking".

When Alkivar came back from his 12 days long Wikipedia retirement in February, I left a message at his talk page asking for some compromise. Unfortunately, the message was immediately removed by admin Alex Bakharev, that considered it "uncivil". I strongly disagree with his interpretation.

I engaged with some talk with Alex Bakharev, but that didn't led us anywhere.

I believe that we should post again a similar message to Alkivar. Asking him if he understand that his behavior on that instances were completely inappropriate. And, if he admits that and accept to avoid this behavior from now on, we should give him this chance.

But if he ignores this message or simply fails to admit his behavior was inappropriate, than an RFC is justified. He already have a lot of problems with misuse of admins tools (mainly block and restore) and don't need a bad-admin that doesn't regrets uncivil personal attacks.

Would you post such message to his user page? --Abu badali (talk) 16:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Abu, that's a sane idea - however, I already posted the RfC, and it sounds from the ANI thread as if other users besides you have tried to engage him and had the same problem. I think at this point an RfC is the most effective approach - after all, he can express his point of view there. If he ignores the RfC, it has the same effect as ignoring another attempt at resolution on his talk page. Videmus Omnia Talk 16:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I don't think I can say I tried and failed to resolve a dispute with him, because Alex Bakharev reverted my attempt. I'll consider repeating that. --Abu badali (talk) 17:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
If you care to add an 'outside view', that'd be welcome. Videmus Omnia Talk 17:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jason Kevin Dunn

Hi. You're obviously busy right now, but I wanted to let you know that the AfD you started on this article was closed after the article was speedy deleted. I pointed out to the admin who deleted it that it may not have been a speedy candidate and he agreed. Since the AfD was closed, however, a new one would have to be started to continue the discussion. I'm relatively indifferent, and your previous concern no longer applies, so I figured I'd let you open a new discussion if you wanted. --Maxamegalon2000 16:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I'll wait a while to see if someone improves the article, as there at least some claim to notability. Videmus Omnia Talk 16:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your sci fi authors pic

Image:Flint Drake Ruddell.jpg. I just cropped this for the Drake and Ruddell articles, neither of which had a pic, SqueakBox 23:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! I was planning to do that but hadn't got around to it yet. I think those articles needed infoboxes, too. Videmus Omnia Talk 00:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Go for it. I have to crop images at work, so its a little skill I can bring here, SqueakBox 00:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I'll take care of it, thanks again. Videmus Omnia Talk 00:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

I feel the whole affair is pointless, in my mind, because I've dealt with Alkivar for three years and I just don't think he knows how to be nice in dealing with people. As far as retracting, I'm mildly insulted that you even asked me to do that. So I'll just say no, I won't. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 04:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

So, your assertion that he doesn't know how to get along with people makes the RfC "stupid sniping"? I don't quite understand that, but fine. Also, I don't appreciate the "stupid" insinuation. If you're too small to apologize for that, I'm big enough to survive it. Videmus Omnia Talk 04:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tagalog

Wow, that was odd. Did you ever think your basic knowledge of Tagalog would be useful in image deletion questions? It's a strange world we live in, and smaller every day. – Quadell (talk) (random) 05:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's come in useful a couple of times here - expect it to be more common, as the P.I. gets more connected every day, they nearly all speak English as a second language, and are inveterate Internet addicts. Up until now my Tag was only useful for buying beer and knowing what my wife was saying about me to her friends. :) Videmus Omnia Talk 05:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

You are right now blocked for the next 48 hours for harassing Alkivar, Mike Halterman, and NeoCoronis, by going through their uploads, looking for images that meet some sort of deletion criteria, tagging that image, and then filling their talk pages with the related templated warnings. Out of your last 500 edits, half of them are to images and the other half are to the user talk pages of the three individuals. This is verging on a WP:POINT violation with your level of activity concerning these things, and I had gone through two other block lengths to get to this point.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

While we do need people to go through images and check rationales, sources, and so forth, I can't help but notice that two of the people whose contributions you just went through are people with whom you have just entered into conflict. (Pardon my tortured grammar, there.)

For example, you just criticized Alkivar for civility, then got a response you didn't find satisfactory. Immediately thereafter, you add 50 kilobytes of warning templates to his talk page. Something similar happened with Mike Halterman, where you added 52K of warnings.

The timing is an unhappy coincidence at best, and the way you did it was quite disruptive. When your block expires, if you continue checking images (which is necessary work), I would highly suggest letting a user know that you went through their contributions and give them a list of images with problems, instead of spamming dozens of templates on their talk page. I would also suggest not checking the contributions of users immediately after entering into conflict with them about an unrelated issue, as it will lead to bad feelings. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I've commented regarding this block on Ryulong's talkpage. I agree with much of what A Man In Black has said but would feel far more comfortable if there had been some discussion with or warning to this user before blocking. Newyorkbrad 03:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

You are currently not blocked, due to the fact I did not see the time stamps in regards to your actions. If you persist in the talk page flooding when you do return to editting, I will reinstate the initial block.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

All of the people who work on image tagging (including me) will often find a group of images that merit investigation and will go through them to check for errors or violations. When one user has uploaded several violating images in the past, it is perfectly acceptable to go through that user's logs and look for other violations. That's not Wikistalking. Wikipedia:Harassment specifically condones this: "This [wikistalking] does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason. Using the edit history of users to correct related problems on multiple articles is part of the recommended practices both for Recent changes patrol (RCP) and WikiProject Spam. The important part is the disruption - disruption is considered harmful. Wikistalking is the act of following another user around in order to harass them." I don't see any evidence that VO was intending to harass either user. The tagging that VO did seems to have been factually correct. He has spent a lot of time over the past few weeks tagging images like this; it certainly hasn't been targeting a few users, when seen as a whole.
As for the many image-deletion notices, VO uses a tool (which I also use) that automatically notifies the uploader when an image is tagged for deletion. When I see that I have left many notices on a user's talk page, I finish all my tagging, and then I go back and compact the warnings -- simply saying something like "This applies to the following images as well. . ." It seems likely that VO was planning to do this. How would you know without asking him?
This sort of a block without prior discussion was unwarranted and unacceptable. I'm glad you chose to reverse the block. – Quadell (talk) (random) 04:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't wholly endorse the block, but the timing is unfortunate (he was engaged in unrelated disputes with both Alkivar and Mike Halterman) and the way the users were notified was unquestionably disruptive (50 KILOBYTES of templated messages being dumped on the talk pages of experienced users?). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it was "unquestionably disruptive". I think it was an error in judgment. – Quadell (talk) (random) 05:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
It was quite disruptive; Alkivar was beside himself over the excess, and Mike wasn't much pleased either. I don't think VO's intent was to be disruptive; rather, it merely was the result of his actions. That, combined with the timing, resulted in an inflammatory result. I would not have blocked VO, but the result of his actions was certainly problematic. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

A comment: I think the block without prior warning was inappropriate. Adding 50 kB of templated messages to a user's talk page, whether in a dispute or not, however, is also inappropriate. Can everyone who reads this and is involved in image tagging please take note and, if they feel several or more images by the same uploader merit deletion, add a custom message instead of a set of templated messages? --Iamunknown 05:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone, for the comments and inputs. The warnings were the result of using a monobook script. If consensus if that users do not want to be notified in this way, I'm happy to comply if only asked. Videmus Omnia Talk 23:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Are you me?

I appears that I'm your sockpuppet. Videmus Omnia Talk 21:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been told that I am too, by two different people. Since I disagree with you on a regular basis, I can only conclude that you're an especially ineffective puppetmaster. – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
That would be almost a case of bipolar disorder. --Abu badali (talk) 03:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Did you hear about the guy who went bowling and knocked just three pins over his first try? He proceded to score one, then four, then one, then five, and then nine, on each successive roll. A terrible case of pi-bowler disorder. :-D – Quadell (talk) (random) 05:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Videmus Omnia, considering the wonderful work you've being doing for the project, I have to say that it's an honor for me that someone though you could be my sockpuppet. --Abu badali (talk) 03:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] See what happens when you go to sleep?

All hell breaks loose. :-) This AN/I thread has all the drama. Consensus seems to be that you shouldn't have left such a long string of warnings on people's talk pages, but that you shouldn't have been blocked for it either. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 05:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

However, you will probably want to respond to this thread in particular. Just letting you know. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I responded there. Thanks for the heads-up, both of you. Videmus Omnia Talk 23:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:Psoriasis_severity.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Psoriasis_severity.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Videmus Omnia 18:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Who is disputing its copyright status? This is an image entirely created by me from information (raw data) sourced from the National Psoriasis Foundation. I see no need for it to be removed. --Batrobin 16:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll withdraw the nomination. The image was so professional-looking I mistakenly thought you had downloaded it from their website. I'm sorry about the misunderstanding, and nice work on the chart. Videmus Omnia Talk 23:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kudos

Having looked at your user page, I thought I'd just say a word of appreciation for the work you do in obtaining free content. Thanks for making the effort, and congratulations on your success. --Tony Sidaway 18:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words! Videmus Omnia Talk 23:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] tagging me

what have I done to deserve the massive amount of deletion tagging on my images..they are edited to remove all words so people will still have to purchase the comics to read them..and they are being used to illustrate a characters appearance in said media..and i the future..ask me BEFORE you try to get all my pics deleted.

NeoCoronis 14:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you uploaded dozens of non-free images without rationales - see WP:NONFREE. You also removed tags stating that those images required rationales, some would consider that vandalism. Please add rationales to the images per WP:FURG. Videmus Omnia Talk 23:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

They had rationales..you just didn't agree with them..which is completely based on your opinion and you deliberately targted ever image I ever uploaded..which will be time-consuming and tedious to "fix" everyone of them..people like you make me regret joining wikipedia. NeoCoronis 21:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Well dont upload unfree images then, Videmus isnt just acting on his opinion, SqueakBox 21:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow..I didn't recall even asking your opinion Sqeakers

Yes well you are in the wikipedia news right now (figuratively) and I anyway keep most user pages that I write to on my watchlist and did notice some comment of yours earlier about supporting not wanting non-free images mis-used on wikipedia and I'll happily support that. There used to be a sayingn here "dont bite the newbies" (which you clearly are in spite of your impressive track record) and you seem to have been bitten the other day so you are someone to keep an eye on as well, SqueakBox 01:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
"This is a scan from Teen Titans #38" is not a rationale. Looking through your uploads, I can't find any VO tagged that could be possibly interpreted as having a valid rationale per WP:FURG. – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi in reference to Mongal...I am not really sure how to fix that page you are talking about. I dont understand why this image is an issue when there are hundreds if no thousnads of comic book scans all over wiki. Can you please help? by the way there are thousands of comic scans all over wiki and i dont see them tagged and deleted. Please, instead of just saying it is wrong and needs fixing or will be deleted how about offering some assistance or advice on how to change it to make it OK. I am sure that if you know it is wrong that you know how to fix it.thanks JayDub 17:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi - if you follow the link to WP:FURG, it'll explain how to write a fair use rationale. But the fact that many illegal images exist on Wikipedia is unfortunately not a reason to keep still more. Videmus Omnia Talk 01:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Please show an example of one that is done right or at least a link to one that id done right. thanks JayDub 05:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Imagework and drama

This user's image-related efforts were proposed for termination. The result was to Keep Up the efforts, as they were deemed to be non-replaceable. :-)

Seriously though, I certainly understand taking a wiki-break. A couple years ago I was blocked (wrongly) by one of the earliest Wikipedians for editing articles according to (what was at the time) our date-format guideline. I took great umbrage and demanded that she apologize, or at least promise not to block me again for the same action. She declined, and I left the project for about nine months. It was sad, but it was a much-needed break, and I don't regret it.

Adminship is "no big deal", and I think that's a good thing, but one result is that we get a few real boneheads as admins. I've been blocked twice (though both times the block was reversed), had two RFCs filed against me (though neither was certified), and have been threatened with ArbCom action numerous times, always for enforcing a policy that someone didn't agree with. And you know what Abu badali is going through. It's part of the territory. Sometimes I think that the image-use policy was set up so that only the masochistic or the insane would want to enforce it.

Like you said, none of us is paid to do volunteer work on Wikipedia. It's how we choose to spend our free time, and I'm of the opinion that if it's not fun, you shouldn't do it. That said, you are one of the most reliable and knowledgeable Wikipedians about our image policy, and it will set us back to lose you. When it comes to obtaining new, free content, you're literally peerless. The contacts you have made with publicists and other representatives are absolutely invaluable. I dearly hope we don't lose that.

I say this often, but I mean it: all the best. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

sorry i did not see the leave a message button.

Hi in reference to Mongal...I am not really sure how to fix that page you are talking about. I dont understand why this image is an issue when there are hundreds if no thousnads of comic book scans all over wiki. Can you please help? by the way there are thousands of comic scans all over wiki and i dont see them tagged and deleted. Please, instead of just saying it is wrong and needs fixing or will be deleted how about offering some assistance or advice on how to change it to make it OK. I am sure that if you know it is wrong that you know how to fix it.thanks JayDub 17:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 29 messages in 20 minutes

Would it really have been so difficult to compile a list of affected images, rather than using 29 verbose templates amounting to nearly 40 kilobytes of text? Here's the particular sequence of edits I'm referring to. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I prefer to use the standard templates for each improper image, especially since I use a script to tag images. It's really not that hard for someone to remove the templates from their talk page if they don't want to see them (takes about 5 seconds and a couple of mouse clicks). I prefer to be absolutely positive I'm doing the correct notifications. Videmus Omnia Talk 02:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps it will drill the point home if I leave you a message pointing out every time you leave someone more than, say, 10 notification templates? It would certainly be just as easy for you to remove them. Or would that be bad? – Luna Santin (talk) 02:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I guess my thinking is based on this. Why shouldn't I leave a message for each illegal image? Videmus Omnia Talk 02:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to butt in here. As a previous avalanche victim, I'd have to agree with Luna, VO. It just seems a matter of courtesy. It takes time to upload pictures-- yes, even those detestable "Fair use" ones-- and it seems you could spare a few extra seconds in tagging them for deletion. I understand that getting rid of Fair Use violations is important, but it seems to me that time can be taken to treat the uploader, who presumably uploaded in good faith, with a modicum of courtesy. If that takes a couple minutes out of your important tagging schedule, well, that should be considered part of the job. Unlike many who work in your chosen field, you don't seem to look at the uploaders with withering contempt. So why not try showing it on their user pages? Oh, and welcom back, VO. I'm still working on the tutorial. Regards. Dekkappai 02:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
(ec) Because it's really annoying, and could easily be construed as harassment. I find it hard to believe that you can't understand why leaving so many messages in such a short time could even be seen as problematic. It clogs up a page, both in content and history, and quite a few users get rightly frustrated at the sight of a solid wall of entirely redundant text. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
What would you suggest that isn't time-consuming on my part? It's not like a lot of editors are helping with non-free image cleanup. Videmus Omnia Talk 02:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
In terms of a "right now" solution, it shouldn't take too long to build a list of images affected by tagging, possibly adding that list after the relevant template; in the longer term, whichever script you're using should probably be modified, either to build such a list on its own, or to interact different with the various templates involved. I don't intend to single you out, here, by any means. Unfortunately this is beyond my level of JS ability, but I'd be happy to try and find people who can help implement a working solution. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
What would you suggest that isn't time-consuming on my part? It's not like a lot of editors are helping with non-free image cleanup. Videmus Omnia Talk 02:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
(ec)I'd try gathering a list of the images you're tagging for that user, then pasting them all into one message. A little less bot-like, a little more human. Or is that against the goal? OK, got to go now. Dekkappai 02:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
The script I use was built by User:Howcheng (though I hate to single him out, too). No matter how annoying several image deletion warnings are to a particular problem uploader, I have to admit it's probably equally or more annoying to me to look at the contents of a user's upload log and see dozens of uploaded images that are in violation of Wikipedia policy. I don't have an axe to grind - just trying to keep the encyclopedia free, and it's really a lot easier and faster for an uploader to delete unwanted messages than it is for me to craft handwritten messages. I think this is really an issue to be raised more at WP:NONFREE than with individual image taggers, as I know I am not the only person following this practice. Videmus Omnia Talk 03:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'll stay out of your hair for now. ;) Thread link, if you're interested, and thanks for pointing me over there. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Luna. I put in my two cents there - have a good night, I'm turning in. Cheers - Videmus Omnia Talk 03:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tell Quadell to Leave me the hell alone.

Im tired of explaining myself to Quadell, all the images i've uploaded have been legit, and it is getting to the point where he is literally stalking me, and deleting pictures which i have uploaded that i have made personally. He doesnt check image information, but he does seem to enjoy deleting them without any warning or request for proof or information. Zlatko 22:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Why haven't you responded to questions about your uploads on your talk page? There are obviously problems. And nothing is an excuse for insults and personal attacks. Videmus Omnia Talk 22:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please read image descriptions more carefully

You tagged Image:Land_of_the_Lost_(1974)_-_Sleestak.jpg as lacking a fair use rationale. In fact, I stuck one in there back when the previous major round of fair use purging was going on. I just didn't use a standard template or put the words "fair use rationale:" in front of them. Since you're tagging images for deletion please be a little more careful in the future that deletion is actually warranted. Bryan Derksen 16:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I should probably have been more clear - the rationale doesn't satisfy the requirements of WP:NFCC, especially as it doesn't address the specific articles the image is to be used in. I'll change it. Videmus Omnia Talk 16:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
There's a fairusein template naming an article and the fair use rationale refers to "an article describing the species", it's not very difficult to connect those two dots. Simply copy and pasting the article name from the fairusein template to the fair use rationale would have resolved this more easily than pasting boilerplate messages on multiple pages. Bryan Derksen 23:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
No disrespect intended, but it's really not my job to write rationales for other uploaders. I think the image is pretty much only be used decoratively in most uses, anyway. Videmus Omnia Talk 00:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 666 Satan images

all images for 666 Satan are used for clarification of certin information in the article, all the little small iamges are used to clarify the symbols used by the angels and demons seen in the series... and my only reason for not adding anything to them sooner is it is nearly imposible to add them to the 50+ images i have uploaded for this article(s) as they all have the same reason & i have yet to figure out a easy way to be able to make this edit to EVERY image... so if you have a good idea on how i'm very willing to hear it... thanks Ancientanubis, talk Editor Review 01:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like you should be able to use the same rationale for each image - WP:FURG has the guidelines for writing non-free usage rationales. Videmus Omnia Talk 01:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
so your telling me that i have 2 go in and add this to every single image, even tho it's all clearly stated... comic book image, used to illustrate an article about the comic book and etc etc???Ancientanubis, talk Editor Review 01:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I'm afraid so, per the non-free content criteria. Videmus Omnia Talk 01:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
you realize that i've had a few admins review these pages, and never said anything about these??? then suddenly you came in and are sunddenly finding problems where there are none...Ancientanubis, talk Editor Review 01:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but did you read the policy and guidelines on non-free content? Honestly, I'm not just making this up. Videmus Omnia Talk 01:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

i never said your making any of this up, but i am saying that i only suddenly had a problem with the images when you came in, but i've had a small handful of admins review theentire section of articles and had nothin said... Ancientanubis, talk Editor Review 02:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that...actually I'm not surprised at that, as a lot of people don't bother to learn these policies, as they're a bit complex and kind of a headache sometimes. But any non-free image has to have a use rationale for each article in which it is used. Sorry about that. I've only tagged a couple of yours, but it's probably just a matter of time before every one of them gets tagged for deletion by a bot unless rationales are added. Videmus Omnia Talk 02:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
well ya just taged another 10 or so, so its not a bot but w.e..... this shit is really messed up, if it's required for each non free image then they need to force the upload file section to open a new text box to put this in instead of just sayin its up to the user, it'd save ALOT of time and etc etc... but w.e, not like it'll ever happen Ancientanubis, talk Editor Review 05:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I've been reviewing the content in Category:Non-free comic images, which has a lot of problems with images lacking rationales. If I've tagged several of your images, it's because I've run across them in sequence in the category (I think I'm still at '2'). It's not tough to add the rationales, there are examples at WP:FURG. Videmus Omnia Talk 05:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
so citing my source is not enough anymore for all these images you've marked as "not allowed"?? basically i have 2 go in and describe the image on all of these just to satisfy the fair use rational, this concept makes absolutely no sense, i mean my rational is that it helps to better explain the article, which is why any image is uploaded onto wikipedia, so it basically makes the entire process redundant, look @ one of the images(mainly the description section) and tell me what is really missing from it besides "this is a symbol representing X" which is said in the article right next to the image Ancientanubis, talk Editor Review 05:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
i mean if i really wanted to split hairs, i could just switch them all over to my own work seeing as i used photoshop to crop the images down, or insert multiple images into the same one, or removed everything in the image of question inorder to get to it.... i will do that for the small ones you've reported actually, seeing as i not only croped them, but spent about 5-10 minutes a piece cleaning up the image around them so i could get just the imageAncientanubis, talk Editor Review 05:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that would work - I'm not sure if you made your own versions whether or not they would be considered derivative works. Some of the symbols are probably not copyrightable. I asked a question here to see if anyone else knows. Videmus Omnia Talk 13:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

well i decided to go with a different approach, but i have a HUGE favor to ask of ya, i'll explain it if your interested in hearin my proposal... thanks, Ancientanubis, talk Editor Review 00:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Your symbols made me think of Elvish - those runes are apparently not copyrighted, but I'm not sure if Tolkien came up with those himself or if he got them from somewhere else. But I'm willing to help out with whatever your idea is. Videmus Omnia Talk 00:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
ya idk if its elvish(doubtful tho, it's symbols for a handful of angels and demons in a manga called 666 Satan) but my proposal is if/when you come across any of the 666 Satan images(when ever i upload one i put (666 Satan) next to it inorder to help better organize the images & it makes it easy knowing where its from and etc, etc) to ignore them for the next few days as i am in the process of adding a fair use table to all of them but it'll take time & when i see the yellow box up top it makes me think a message, but its just a notice, and i can only work so fast, but i've got @ least 40ish done already, and i have about another 70 to go through
basically my request is if you can ignore them when you come across them in the list as i am working as fast as i can to add a fair use rational to all of them... thanks Ancientanubis, talk Editor Review 01:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
No problem - I'm not working comics stuff right now anyway, am mostly working music video screenshots, which are in way worse shape. Sounds like you're on top of things, good luck! Videmus Omnia Talk 01:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

thanks man, you seem to know alot about FURs(fair use rationals) so i was wonderin if you ever heard of anyone gettin in trouble for makin a template for a FUR to be used for images that are all for one series or what not... Ancientanubis, talk Editor Review 01:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem, the main thing in your case is that the rationale has to state the specific article(s) the image will be used in per WP:NFCC#10c. If you cover that and keep the images low-resolution, I don't think you'll have any problems. Oh, and just as a housekeeping thing, you should probably convert your images to .png or .svg instead of .jpg. But that's not a deletion criteria. Please don't hesitate to drop me a line with any questions about non-free image policy. Videmus Omnia Talk 01:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Raising problems with image tagging alerts

If you tag an image for deletion it is helpful to also drop a note into the talk pages of the articles where this image is used. This is how the main tagging bots work and it gives the editors of a page the chance to address the issue. If you only alert the uploader and they are on holiday or inactive then the image can get deleted without anyone realising there is a problem which only makes extra work for everyone. I only spotted two such messages as I have the person's talk page on my watchlist which isn't a satisfactory way of dealing with the licensing issues. (Emperor 11:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Be more careful when tagging images with {{badjpeg}}

You should be careful when tagging images with {{badjpeg}}. PNG is for non-photographic data with relatively few colours in large blocks. JPEG is for photos and other pictures that share similar properties (many different colours in small blocks).

And BTW, I have tested this, on Image:Nighteagle.jpg. The original JPEG was 62670 bytes. Naively converting it to PNG format (no indexing, etc) brought it up to 396781. Even indexing it to 256 colours only brought it down to 133636 bytes.

In short, JPEG can be much, much more efficient for certain kinds of comic book pictures.

With love, Lewis Collard! (baby i'm bad news) 20:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the tip! Videmus Omnia Talk 20:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
No problem at all. :) Lewis Collard! (baby i'm bad news) 20:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting

This is in response to your question here: [1] We don't "out" editors here. If someone wants to be anonymous (or even AnonEMouse!) we let them. Exposing the real identity of someone who wants to be anonymous is a bannable offense. Removal of information exposing the identities of pseudonymous or anonymous individuals who have not made their identity public is the very first reason listed for Wikipedia:Oversight. Hope that explains it. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 02:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that was a bad revert. Thanks for the heads-up. Videmus Omnia Talk 02:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] personal attack

i got a quick question, there is, what i feel to be a personal attack on me on someones user page(we got into a fairly heated argument for a good part of one night and he took something i posted on someones talk page and put it onto his user page) long story short, i feel that it is a personal attack upon me and i have until now just left it there out of respect for the fact that its his user page, what im wonderin is whats the protocol for this, i mean i assume it'd be extremely shuned upon if i were 2 remove it my self, but on the other hand i'd think it would be understandable for a user to remove something such as this from another's user page... so i thought i'd ask someone with a bit more experience in some advanced matters of wikipedia... Ancientanubis, talk Editor Review 04:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it User:GasSnake or Poison Oak? Videmus Omnia Talk 14:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Indeed it is, it was a real immature thing he did puttin that up, but like i said i left it up outta respect for the fact that its his user page, but i've changed my mind now....Ancientanubis, talk Editor Review 14:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I asked him to remove it. If he doesn't respond, I'll remove it. Videmus Omnia Talk 14:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Replaceable fair use notice

Please see the large red box at the top of my talk page, it has relevant information ;) -- Editor at Large • talk 06:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that - I use a script to do image deletion notifications, and it's not smart enough to check the upload log, just the file history. I'll watch for your name in the future. The same thing happened with User:17Drew. Videmus Omnia Talk 13:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
No problem; I run into the same issue on Commons all the time, scripts can be a pain sometimes! ;) -- Editor at Large • talk 18:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your note

No worries, Tim, and thanks for explaining. What a beautiful family you have, by the way. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 06:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What?

Okay, I do understand that I need to have fair use rationales for images, but why do you tag only the images I put for America's Got Talent (season 1), and yet when I look at the other images on there that have no fair use rationales and came from the exact same website, there was no tag? User:ClonedPickle 24:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what happened - I normally review images by working my way through a particular image category. I've tagged the other ones now - sorry about the apparent inequity. Videmus Omnia Talk 13:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Jp01.jpg

Hi, Videmus, You suggested that Image:Jp01.jpg should be taken to deletion review. I just wanted to let you know that it has been. Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 16:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Videmus Omnia Talk 16:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attack?

It's not really a personal attack I'm just using him as reference to show people I will annoy people it's not like I said "here's a quote by something from a little annoying prick who whines to every one about issues that should be settled one on one"(not my true feelings on the matter just using that as an example except for the last 14 words) and if you feel the need to, remove it but remember what you were protecting when sitting in that chair 5 miles in the sky--GasSnake or Poison Oak 20:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems like you guys are communicating so I'll stay out of it. Videmus Omnia Talk 05:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FSU seal

why do you keep deleting an fsu seal from an fsu page about an fsu institution?

The image needs a fair use rationale for use in that article. I left a note on the article talk page. Videmus Omnia Talk 05:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] update on 666 Satan

hey Videmus, it's takin a bit longer then i planned on gettin the FUR on the images for 666 Satan, my main reason for it not bein done(or close to done) is i have been repitevly side tracked with other matters(with varying levels of importance) including(but not limited too) the creation of a 666 Satan wikiproject, disagreements between editors, and just things needing to be taken care of around my house... it's your call on wheither you want to start tagging 666 Satan images(if/when you start doin comic pics again) or if you just want to keep ignorin them while i work through my numerous other indevors around wiki/my RL, it is your call on waht you want to do, but i was just wanting to give you an update on everything that has been happenin wth it all... peace, Ancientanubis, talk Editor Review 04:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

No rush. It seems like you're on top of it. Videmus Omnia Talk 05:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thank you, and i appologise for GasSnakes possibly harsh words, Ancientanubis, talk Editor Review 06:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs
Four Star Mary
Amber Michaels
Mechanical-Copyright Protection Society
David Balfe
The Women of Brewster Place (1989 television)
Bridgette Kerkove
List of action stars
Dominique Simone
Jenteal
Susan Hart
Dave Hall (record producer)
Chucky Thompson
Dyanna Lauren
List of messiah claimants
The Gonnabees
List of people pardoned by Bill Clinton
Brooke Ashley
Alex Jordan
Adriana Sage
Cleanup
Jeung San Do
The Emperor's Club
Alicia Rhodes
Merge
Shanda Fantasy Arts
Music (Madonna song)
Changeling (Marvel Comics)
Add Sources
Amerasian
List of the most popular names in the 1890s in the United States
Julia Ann
Wikify
Mr. Marcus
Michael Bolton
Tom Jones (singer)
Expand
Pandora Peaks
Alyssa Alps
List of supervillainesses

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 09:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evangelion pics

I'll work on putting the pics you tagged into .png format and renaming them ASAP. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 15:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate it, been reviewing a lot of comics images, and I don't have a graphics tool on this PC to do the conversions easily. Videmus Omnia Talk 15:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Question. I've started working on renaming the pics that you tagged, but I'm not sure how to work the replace image template in terms of the last step. Can you un-dense me? Willbyr (talk | contribs) 03:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Sure - can you point me toward the old and new name of an example image? Videmus Omnia Talk 04:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
One example: [[Image:200511000092.jpg]] was replaced with [[Image:ShinjiIkariRaisingProjectmanga.jpg]] The four images with long #s as the names were all replaced with relevantly named images. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 04:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, if you look at Image:200511000092.jpg, I tagged it with {{isd|1=ShinjiIkariRaisingProjectmanga.jpg}}. Basically, it's just the {{isd}} with the "1=new filename" parameter. Hope this works for you... Videmus Omnia Talk 04:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Works great; I've tagged the other images. Thanks a bunch! Willbyr (talk | contribs) 05:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] way too big - reduce to about 300 by 300

Image:BS-...BabyOneMoreTime1.jpg = reduce to about 300 by 300

Seems like an arbitrary number and unnecessarily small. Image is currently much smaller than original and unsuitable for print. Is there WP documentation on image sizes?--Knulclunk 14:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I was looking for the written reference but can't find it...300px or so seems to be the accepted popular wisdom on album covers in order to comply with WP:NFCC#3b - take a look at a random sampling of other album articles and you'll see what I mean. The image is displayed in the article at about 200px, so the image page version shouldn't need to be much larger than that, and 600X500 is definitely too big. Keeping a copy at larger resolution than needed encourages use of the image for piracy. Videmus Omnia Talk 14:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
315x315 is the standard I've been using; comes out at 99225 pixels, which is just under the recommended 0.1 megapixels. So "about 300" is just fine. Lewis Collard! (baby i'm bad news) 22:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Works for me! Videmus Omnia Talk 22:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Big-bust_models_and_performers

I'm tidying up the category, as per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_29#Category:Big-bust_models_and_performers. Epbr123 01:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reduction image tag

Hello. I'm a little confused and wondered if you could shed light on this tag? [2] Your edit summary says it was reduced but I don't see history of that. Am I supposed to get it reduced? ♫ Cricket02 04:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the file history, you'll see that there was originally a much larger version (800x1200). A smaller version was uploaded by User:Susanlesch. The tag just means an administrator should delete the older revision to comply with WP:NFCC#3b. This won't affect the image in its current state. Videmus Omnia Talk 04:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Excellent. Thanks much for your help. ♫ Cricket02 04:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This image ok for fair use?

Since you're a fair use expert, is this screenshot of a Youtube clip of CNN ok for fair use here? Cache link since the article's deletion is being reviewed. User AnonymousE argued that it might not be fair use. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 18:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Afraid it's pretty clearly bad fair use per WP:NFCC#1. Since she's a living public figure, the image is easily replaceable by a free image (someone can take her picture, or she or CAIR could release one under a free license). If someone wants to request a free image of her, have them look at User:Videmus Omnia/Requesting free content for some tips - I request images like this pretty frequently. Videmus Omnia Talk 18:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, will look around for a free image then. If you'd like to IfD this, go ahead. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 18:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, I tagged it (you probably got an automated notice on your talk page). Videmus Omnia Talk 18:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you very much for the bird and the apology

Pax humana.BlueSapphires 21:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Tim's Day!

Videmus Omnia has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Tim's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Tim!

Love,
Phaedriel
03:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

Don't thank me for a well deserved gift, dear Tim - your fantastic work is much, much appreciated, and the kindness that you display is inspirational. I hope you seized your special Day, and it's a beautiful pleasure to meet you! :) Love, Phaedriel - 04:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You've been busy...

...since I'm noticing that a huge number of the images showing up in Non-free image size reduction request are being tagged by you. Oh well, someone's gotta do it. :) With love, Lewis Collard! (baby i'm bad news) 22:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Been going through album covers and music video images - for some reason, seems to attract a lot of high-res uploads. Thanks for doing the reductions! Videmus Omnia Talk 22:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
No problem. And I've found a new way to do them superhumanly fast, so when ee.pl starts working again, plenty more where that came from.. ;D Lewis Collard! (baby i'm bad news) 04:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rescaling

Thanks for the tip! In return, I've got a tip for you. <whispering>Pssst. You don't have to remove images from articles at all anymore. Pass it on!</whispering> – Quadell (talk) (random) 23:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Bot? Awesome! Videmus Omnia Talk 23:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
It gets my vote for "Best New Bot of 2007". – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
No, that would be PolBot, despite its insensitive creation of so many articles. :) Videmus Omnia Talk 17:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Album covers

I know that you are trying to rid Wikipedia of non-free images, but can't you just leave the album covers alone? Its common knowledge that they are fair use, and as long as the source is given, what's the problem? Weatherman90 02:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to rid Wikipedia of non-free images, but they do need to have rationales per policy. No big deal. Videmus Omnia Talk 02:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Videmus Omnia is just being an idiot, Weatherman90. You cannot believe what this guy is trying to do: leave tags about images that are about to be deleted, remove album covers on a music page and whatever I can't stand. Alex 03:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Image:Suicidal Tendencies.jpg

I just replied to your message on my talk page. Alex 03:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Brigitte Bardaux (Fair use)

If another suitable image is readily available, I request anyone to replace the image I've uploaded. The page has been in existence with more than a year and no images were found. Also, you might have noticed that the page has been translated to numerous languages, probably since it featured in the "list of 1000 articles every wikipedia should have". The discussion page also lists efforts to get a suitable image, but nothing turned out.

I request you not to delete the image till a suitable replacement is found. I am not able to find one yet. Simynazareth 03:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, so I can't delete anything - what I would advise is that you add the 'disputed' tag to the image page and explain why a free image can't be obtained. Have you tried requesting one, or contacting a photographer with a photo to see if they might be willing to release one under free license? Videmus Omnia Talk 13:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] So I have editcountitis, but...

Ahoy! Since this is my 2000th edit, and numbers with three zeros on the end are important somehow, I thought I'd do something worthwhile with it, which is to thank you for your tireless editing, excellent contributions, and your generally kind and decent attitude to everyone. So, thank you. :) With love, Lewis Collard! (baby i'm bad news) 11:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, and thanks! I really appreciate all the work you do with image conversions and reductions, which is thankless but necessary. Videmus Omnia Talk 13:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
And thanks too! The barnstar made my day! :D Lewis Collard! (baby i'm bad news) 13:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I miss being able to check my editcount. (Interiot's tool truncates after 45,000. I exceeded that a while back, and now my bot has too.) – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

There must be some way to track it - I saw a Signpost article a while back about someone with over 100,000 edits. Videmus Omnia Talk 17:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
This one gives you a count of 58382. :) Lewis Collard! (baby i'm bad news) 18:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
(For values of you = Quadell. Lewis Collard! (baby i'm bad news) 18:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC))
Yay! And that doesn't include deleted edits, of which I have many. I'd like to know when Polbot, surpasses me -- now I can see. :) – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Ooh, looks like she's about to lap me. :) – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:NirvanaNevermindalbumcover.jpg

I left a msg over at Wikipedia:Fair use review on this, wanted to see if where its at now is good so the review box can come off of the image. No rush, just more of an FYI thing...wasn't sure if you were watching that page. Tarc 19:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed the tag - everything's fine now. Sorry, it wasn't even on my watchlist anymore - I thought everything was done already. Thanks! Videmus Omnia Talk 19:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amyphoto.jpg - Done with Non-free rationale / Apology

Thank you for your patience, and apologies if I was rude. Really, really sorry. I didn't realize that you were trying to be helpful by reducing the image. I had no idea that written permission wasn't valid as a Wikipedia policy construct and I was upset to have to spend more time on this suddenly. You have no idea what stress I'm under right now; Please, if there is anything pressing about this photo, vis-a-vis copyright matters, would you please try to put a note on my talk page? I'm not on Wikipedia much generally. It is fun, but I'm simply not in the right life-space for it, as is evident. I've far too many obligations. Thank you for helping me to sort this out; I felt this was important enough to give time and focus. Take care. BlueSapphires 22:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

No worries. Videmus Omnia Talk 23:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

The Resilient Barnstar
For toughing it out when people yell at you for trying to help them, I hereby award Videmus Omnia this barnstar! BlueSapphires 23:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! Videmus Omnia Talk 23:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome. Though I can't imagine what horrible person would ever yell at you, VO, when you were trying to help them ;) BlueSapphires 03:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting free content

Hi, Videmus Omnia. I just wanted to let you know that I really like your new essay. I hope you do not mind, but I have already started steering people its way. All the best ×Meegs 22:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

That's great, thanks! Videmus Omnia Talk 23:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Burlesque Images

Good job scoring those images. Despite my opposing all your NFC music video tags, getting those pictures is pretty darn cool. --Knulclunk 20:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Yeah, getting stuff like this can be pretty fun. Videmus Omnia Talk 20:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Magda.jpg

Added double rationale as follows: Source: Magda Goebbels: the First Lady of the Third Reich By Hans-Otto Meisner between pages 240-241.

Rationale:
  1. Copyright destroyed by Enemy Properties Act, if re-enacted, all heirs to Joseph Goebbels' estate are deceased, no financial loss, used in low-resolution to illustrate article of historic person.
  2. As of January 1, 2005, any German photograph first published prior to January 1, 1955 would be in the public domain. So would any photograph taken prior to January 1, 1955 that was hitherto unpublished.

Added (or insured) same rationale on:

  • Image:Helga.JPG
  • Image:Helmut.JPG
  • Image:haraldquandt.jpg
  • Image:Holde.JPG
  • Image:Hilde.JPG
  • Image:Heide.JPG
  • Image:Hedwig.JPG

Where it also applies. Should have straightened them out ages ago, plead "absence of mind" - sorry. --Zeraeph 16:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply...doesn't Magda Goebbels still have living descendants, through Harald Quandt? If so, they should be the copyright holders, unless I'm seriously mistaken. Videmus Omnia Talk 16:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Don't think that applies, not only due to 2nd part of rationale (I'll number it, as I should have done, then go back and number pics - which will teach me to forget stuff :o( ) but also because, according to witnesses, Magda predeceased Josef, thus Josef left no living heirs. --Zeraeph 16:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Had to fix all those again, turns out "Enemy Properties Act" only applies in UK and German limit on copyright is 70 years, not 50. I reckon the "fair use" rationale should be enough though? --Zeraeph 19:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I would double-check the rationales per WP:FURG, to make sure they address all ten points of WP:NFCC. Even then, you may want to evaluate the use of images in Goebbels children - minimal use should mean that we only need one photo per child to show their appearance, and non-free images definitely shouldn't be used in a gallery per WP:NFCC#8. I think at least some of the images will have to be deleted. Videmus Omnia Talk 19:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Well that should do it. Harald is out of copyright anyway (born 1922, he COULDN'T be 15 in that photo). The Regatta photo is June or July 1937 and just out of copyright, I'd take a chance on the other one as Helga is obviously younger than in the 1937 picture certainly less than 5. I think the full set of last portraits should stay as historical record. Particularly in the case of the children, because it is the most we can illustrate of the people they might have become if that makes sense? And they are a set. I agree with you about the gallery but Sherurcij gets so touchy I don't want to be the one to remove it (he isn't very happy with me for trying to get his free, Russian corpse photos removed). I think a family group is appropriate, though perhaps not that one (it's not a great picture)? Unfortunately, as two of the children were born less than 70 years ago any family group has to be "fair use".--Zeraeph 21:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to try to get User:Quadell to take a look - some of the photos may be PD in Germany but not the U.S., where the cutoff is 1923. I'm not sure exactly how we handle that. Videmus Omnia Talk 22:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's the most comprehensive discussion I found User:Physchim62/German images (also this Template talk:PD-Germany). It's all VERY confusing. I'll keep an eye on all. Personally I wouldn't be pushed about anything except the set of portraits, which I feel are the most appropriate illustrations. The rest are curiosities...have to admit I would like to see the "corpse photos" consigned to permanent oblivion, but Russian copyright law leaves them PD...any chance US law contradicts that?--Zeraeph 22:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I need to do some looking around (probably tomorrow). We had a discussion recently about Iraqi copyright law that was similar...basically that the less restrictive copyright law applies. But I don't want to steer you wrong, so I'll research it. Videmus Omnia Talk 01:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commons "no derivative" licensing

I noticed you are involved in image and copyright issues on Wikipedia and was hoping you could answer a question for me.

I had contacted a source about licensing a poster for use on Wikipedia several months ago, and the copyright owner was fine with all the conditions of GFDL (copy, distribute, commercial use) except allowing derivatives. I asked for advice about where to go from there at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use...#...without modification? and did not receive a response. (Looking back there now, I see there was a response, but almost a month after I posted the question.)

I recently came across some information on Commons licensing and noticed they have an option for not allowing derivative works when choosing a license. If the copyright owner agreed, would it be allowed to upload this image to Commons under the "no derivative works" license Commons has, and then use it in a Wikipedia article? Or can Wikipedia articles only use Commons images with certain licenses? LyrlTalk C 01:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the NoDerivs CC license is considered non-free for Wikipedia purposes. The only CC licenses considered free are the Attribution and ShareAlike. (Usually the problem we have is with Noncommercial licenses...but I'm having a similar problem with PETA regarding release of some of their posters - still discussing with them.) Sorry for the bad news... Videmus Omnia Talk 01:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
As far as I understand, it's the "encyclopedia that everyone can edit" principle. For our purposes, the ability to edit the work is useful; I've cropped several photos to focus on article subjects (for example Scott Stringer and Deborah Glick are from the same photo :-)), and removed red eye once or twice. I tell people who worry about vandalism, that we keep a revision history that allows us to remove vandalism from images just as from text, and the sorts of people who would download a photo and draw a moustache on it generally don't worry about being licensed to do so anyway... but yes, it can be an issue. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For all your wonderful work persuading photographers to freely license their works for us. Thank you for doing a job that surely requires a good deal of patience and dedication! :) ~ Riana ⁂ 05:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Awesome - thanks for the recognition! Videmus Omnia Talk 13:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] thanks

ya, sorry i've been behind on taggin the images, had a busy weekend movin in2 a new apartment and all that, just have not had time to sit down and work.... thanks for the info tho, Ancientanubis, talk Editor Review 05:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem - image conversion is not a deletion criteria or anything, it's just housekeeping. Good luck with the new place! Videmus Omnia Talk 13:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PETA

Hi Videmus Omnia. I got your message. I can contact PETA to talk about this if you would like me to. You seem more experienced at dealing with it than me though, but feel free to contact me if you need help. --Deskana (banana) 20:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Deskana. I'm waiting to hear back from their attorney, but sounds like they're contacting their photographer to discuss releasing the posters under a free license. They said it should be a week or so until they get back with me. Videmus Omnia Talk 20:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pump organ

You know, with your previous successful requests for permission, I was sort of afraid to click on Image:Pump organ.jpg. :-) – Quadell (talk) (random) 03:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Good one. :) Videmus Omnia Talk 03:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of which, if you look at my latest uploads, it's back to porn stars again. Videmus Omnia Talk 17:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My talk page

Please leave future messages to User_talk:Wormsie, not User_talk:Deadworm222. User_talk:Deadworm222 is a redirect page.--Wormsie 08:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Nicole from Spike TV"

... is apparently Nicole Malgarini.[3] However we don't have an article on her, and I am not at all sure she is a Spike TV regular, and doesn't have a whole lot of credits anywhere (see Nicole Malgarini at the Internet Movie Database). You may have acquired an image of someone who doesn't qualify for an article. :-( --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Well, still a pretty image and maybe she'll be notable someday. Videmus Omnia Talk 15:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pics from Anime Nut

Just curious about something... I see from your note on AnonEMouse's page that you got a release from Anime Nut for some of his porn star pics. Did you only get the porn star pics or were you able to get a general release from his site? Reason for my asking is that looking through some of his other pics I can see a nice one of Tricia Helfer [4], Liana K [5] (though the caption would have to make clear she was in a costume... maybe as a secondary pic?), and Tom Hodges [6] for starts. Tabercil 22:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

He gave me a GFDL license for specific pictures (a fairly lengthy list). I'm pretty sure he gave permission for the ones you mentioned above - I'll double-check when I do the uploads tonight and tomorrow. If he didn't release those specific pics, I'll go back and request them as well. Videmus Omnia Talk 23:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Did you try asking if he would be so kind as to change the license on all his pics to Creative Commons? I've gotten a couple of users on Flickr to do just that... Tabercil 23:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, he prefers to release individual pics under GFDL, as opposed to CC. I work with a couple of other Flickr photographers who have the same policy. Videmus Omnia Talk 23:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, those photos were uploaded since I made my original request...I sent him another request for those three pics. Hopefully I'm not being a pain in his ass. :) Videmus Omnia Talk 02:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Those images are now on Commons. Videmus Omnia Talk 14:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image spamming

I must say - a little surprised a military guy like you has so much time on his hands!! Wow! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you?" Contribs 08:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing. :) I don't watch much TV, this is my main time-waster. Videmus Omnia Talk 14:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I am impressed though by your efforts but I was a little daunted seeing so many images on my page!!. Quite rightly images needed rationales and wikipedia is a better place for having the correct licenses and details for fair usage. Its not a task I personally would be motivated to do but I know there are many who take under their wing to accomplish. Good work. All the best ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you?" Contribs 08:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry there were so many - I was looking at some of the articles in the James Bond categories. If you don't want to receive these notices, I would recommend going back through your upload log to make sure that the non-free images are in compliance with the non-free content criteria. Any that are not, or that you don't want to fix, you can nominate for deletion yourself. That should prevent any future "spamming". Cheers - Videmus Omnia Talk 14:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Image tagging

Hi. I've posted a reply on my own talk page about the image you tagged. Please take a look. But in a nutshell: the page had been vandalized by an anon, which is why it was blank. And the point would be: it is always necessary to check a page's history before tagging it, for deletion or anything else. You never know when the current state of affaris might just be the result of vandalism, as it appears to have been the case with this image. Thanks, Redux 13:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. Normally I look but I must have spaced out on that one. I removed the image from the Ewan MacGregor article because it didn't have a rationale for use there. Cheers - Videmus Omnia Talk 14:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:DK as Agent Mimi.jpg

Please note :

1) The heading is "Rationale for use in the articles : Casino Royale (1967 film) and List of James Bond characters in Casino Royale"

2) Rationale Point 1 says :

"|Description= Deborah Kerr screen shot from Casino Royale DVD. The rationale for this image is for use in the articles : Casino Royale (1967 film) and List of James Bond characters in Casino Royale."

The names of the articles are thus prominently displayed twice.

Tovojolo 18:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Casinobouchet.jpg

Please note :

1) `The heading is "Rationale for use in the articles : Casino Royale (1967 film) and Miss Moneypenny"

2) Rationale Point 1 says :

|Description= Barbara Bouchet screen shot from Casino Royale DVD. This rationale is for the articles : Casino Royale (1967 film) and Miss Moneypenny.

The names of the articles are thus prominently displayed twice.

Tovojolo 18:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Evelyn Tremble.jpg

Please note :

1) The heading is : "Rationale for use in the articles : Casino Royale (1967 film) and List of James Bond characters in Casino Royale"

2) Rationale Point 1 says :

|Description= Film Screenshot showing Peter Sellers in Casino Royale. This rationale is for the use of the image in the articles Casino Royale (1967 film) and List of James Bond characters in Casino Royale.

The names of the articles are thus prominently displayed twice.

Tovojolo 18:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Bouchet&Niven2.jpg

Please note :

1) The heading is "Rationale for use of the image in the articles : Casino Royale (1967 film) and Casino Royale (novel)"

2) Rationale Point 1 says :

|Description= Film Screenshot showing David Niven and Barbara Bouchet in Casino Royale. The rationale for this image is for use in the articles : Casino Royale (1967 film) and Casino Royale (novel).

The names of the articles are thus prominently displayed twice.

Tovojolo 19:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting the above images into compliance. I removed them from articles which had no rationales for their use there. Videmus Omnia Talk 21:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

Why, thank you! Tabercil 22:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] user page

Thanks for removing the non-free images on my page, I didn't know that this was discouraged. I've read WP:NFCC#9, so this surely won't happen again^^. Thanks, 1stLtLombardi 07:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Connie Britton

I've been looking for the discussion on photo credits, to no avail. I know it exists, because I commented in the thread. From what I recall, the policy is more relaxed than it used to be: now credits can be included in the image caption if the image is by a well-known person. I'll keep looking for the guideline or policy. - Dudesleeper · Talk 18:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Appreciate it...like I said, my goal is not to promote any particular person, just to encourage the contribution of free content. Videmus Omnia Talk 18:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Found it, naturally when I wasn't actively looking for it. See here. - Dudesleeper · Talk 16:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! Videmus Omnia Talk 16:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] {{no rationale}}

What will you with this tag? We have for over thousand screenshots in [[Category:Arcade_games]] only {{Non-free game screenshot}} see: {{Non-free game screenshot}} without fucking additionally {{no rationale}} infospam! --Fidelfair 23:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but did you read the last sentence of the above tag? Videmus Omnia Talk 23:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Where is the source for this newer rule? It is inappropriate, many images are older, include me. And many Image have already Entry for Description and Sources! {{no rationale}} demands additionally only Portion, Low_resolution, Purpose and Replaceability Info. Who needs this for the life? --Fidelfair 23:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Please see WP:NFCC for the policy. Videmus Omnia Talk 23:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
The discussion there is not at the end, we should not create hastily facts. --Fidelfair 23:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Here is the Wikimedia licensing resolution. Videmus Omnia Talk 23:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Here are only you, for there, something. The page there, has not deleted my images. --Fidelfair 00:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, just left a friendly comment to Fidelfair's user page. I hope this can be solved with friendly comments. Wikidemo 00:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Wikidemo - I'm not sure where the hostility was coming from. Videmus Omnia Talk 01:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Was that necessary?

Sticking over 130 notices on my talk page overnight? Possibly you could contact me and I could repond. user_talk:mathewignash

I'm sorry - I was working my way through some of the Transformers categories. I recommend checking back through your upload log to make sure any non-free content you have uploaded is in compliance with policy, this should prevent any future notices. Videmus Omnia Talk 12:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Hoynomepuedolevantar.jpg

I have added the fair use rationale for Image:Hoynomepuedolevantar.jpg. Please can you tell me if the deletion process is over or I need to explain something else. I actually work on Grupo CIE, the producer of this play in Mexico, and I'm clearly aware that the use of this image is permited under informational uses; also Wikipedia can be considered for educational purposes and Grupo CIE decided, under the Mexican Law of Author Rights and Intellectual Property, to permit the use of their plays for educational purposes (please refer to main Grupo CIE web site: [7] for information). Hapmt —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 05:46:20, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

The licensing and rationale on the image look fine now. Thanks! Videmus Omnia Talk 12:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image links you removed from Musical Theatre

I have no particular interest in that page or its pictures, but I noticed that you removed the links to some of them (the selection seems somewhat random to me). All of those images are used in other articles.

The images Image:Pnight.jpeg, Image:MOULINROUGEF.jpg, and Image:Oklahoma-DVDcover.jpg do have Fair Use rationales. It would have been useful if you had used that page's Talk Page or the images' Talk Page to point out why they are insufficient.

PS: It would clutter an article's history less if you (or your bot) could perform your edits in one session instead of six. Michael Bednarek 11:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The images had fair use rationales for use in other articles, but not for use in Musical theater. See WP:NFCC#10c. Thanks for the tip on editing - it took me a while to look up all those non-free images and I didn't want to run into an edit conflict. The edits were manual, I don't use a bot. Videmus Omnia Talk 12:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iraqi insurgency logos

Why do you think that the insurgency logos on Iraqi insurgency do not involve, in the words of {{logo}}, "identification and critical commentary"? It certainly seems to be that they do. And, looking at your user page, someone might easily think that there is an appearance of a conflict of interest. I'm not saying there is; I don't know you or what your motivation was or why you might think displaying those in the article doesn't count as identification or critical commentary. It's just that you might want to avoid the appearance of impropriety by, for example, asking another editor to look at things like this. ←BenB4 12:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I asked for an opinion here before removing the images. The logos would be appropriate for the articles about the groups, but the list in which they were contained had no critical commentary about the groups or the logos. Videmus Omnia Talk 12:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
See also WP:NONFREE#Examples of unacceptable use, first paragraph. Videmus Omnia Talk 12:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I see that instead of acknowledging the obvious fact that the images meet the significance criterion because they allow readers to identify groups from their logos where they would otherwise not be (not if they were used in separate articles, and not if they were interspersed) you have decided to revert without comment and leave a 3RR warning template for me. I assure you I am familiar with policy. I have asked Mike Godwin for his opinion. ←BenB4 14:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

If you get an exception to policy from Mike Godwin, then I have no problem with the images being placed back in. Until then, the policy applies, I'm sorry. Videmus Omnia Talk 14:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Which policy? The significance criterion which is quite obviously met, or your interpretation of the sentence which says non-free galleries aren't allowed because they usually don't meet the significance criterion? ←BenB4 14:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but obviously other editors disagree with your assessment of the significance criterion being met. You might try a request for comment to bring in other opinions on this, but the policy is pretty clear, based on my experience with non-free images. Videmus Omnia Talk 14:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I will wait for Godwin's input, but I think your unwillingness to address the fact that without the images, readers would be unable to identify groups by their logos speaks volumes. ←BenB4 14:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Aren't the logos used in the articles about the various groups? Videmus Omnia Talk 14:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Some of them; some of the groups don't have articles yet. That doesn't help a researcher with a picture of a logo -- who might very well be a diplomat or military officer in the US or anywhere else trying to decide a policy question -- who wants to know what group it's associated with. Removing that ability, which so obviously meets the letter and spirit of the significance criterion, strikes me as just absurd. ←BenB4 14:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we're going to convince each other. Since User:Angr already offered a third opinion, RfC is probably the way to go. (I could be wrong, but I doubt Mike Godwin will deal with an issue this minor.) Videmus Omnia Talk 14:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OP Caracas

In matter of facts.. You added an incorrect tag on that photo... so I had to revert your change.Jfreyre —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 18:31:50, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

It was not an incorrect tag, it was a notification that the image is possibly unfree. If that is mistaken, please make your case at the WP:PUI page, don't just keep deleting maintenance templates, as you have apparently been doing for some time. Videmus Omnia Talk 18:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
and why do you think that the image is unfree? maybe do you have to explain why do you think that instead of putting those maintenance templates in such way... And let me tell you something else I'm not been deleting maintenance templates as you said. Jfreyre —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 19:11:43, August 19, 2007 (UTC).
In regards to deleting templates, see this, this, this, and this. Videmus Omnia Talk 21:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh tell me something dude.. why are you tagging the images that I've uploaded as if they were unfree? Jfreyre —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 19:24:15, August 19, 2007 (UTC).
Can you provide any evidence that they are under a free license? Videmus Omnia Talk 20:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)