Talk archives
February — June 2006 July — August 2006 September 2006 — November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 —
Did You Know acceptances
December 2006 —

I added a rationable to the description page if you think it needs something else in there just tell me. You might like to see the Family Guy page it has a few of those rationable lacking images. --Dark Dragon Flame 00:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me now. I will check that page if I get the chance. Cheers! -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 00:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

if there was a fair use image you should assume it would already be up. it is not unlikely that fans have taken pics themselves, however they respectively own the copyrights and none have been found which are GNU. rather than blindly assuming there are GNU images out there, you should first consider a)there probably isnt since fans usually only GNU a pic when added to wikipedia b)some people might not want to GNU their photos and removing promo pictures is merely an attempt to coerce them to do so. --AlexOvShaolin 20:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, I can't delete anything; I don't have those powers. As far as the last word on whether an image is replaceable or not, that is the choice of the deciding admin. If he figures that it is unreplaceable, then that is perfectly fine with me. Until then, I believe that but most bands that actively perform and celebrities that appear in public are able to be photographed be anyone. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 20:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The license tag present of the image is designed for software screenshots, which would indicate it being incorrect to start with, and I get the feeling that the uploader would not be in the position to verify permission. In any case, the tag hould be replaced with fair use (due to the originally incorrect license tag, and the (presumed) copyrighted, rights withheld, status of the image), and a replaceable notice added to allow process to (eventually) do its work. Thanks, Martinp23 21:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the Wishbone Ash edit. Also take note of Sillyputty1 (talk · contribs) contributions. Something foul there. Of SEGA's 3 main IP pipes only 2 were blocked. I suspect his sporadic access through the third IP will show up periodically. Fun stuff! Cheers! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 12:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also going to watch Mahav (talk · contribs). -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 08:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add another one Moe. Keep an eye on TVMan11 (talk · contribs). Cheers! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 04:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently dealing with another one, possibily; Solohann (talk · contribs). -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 04:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hi ron,

today I was looking at wikipedia, looking up some things on the russian revolution. At the top of my page there was a note saying that I had "new messages (last change)." I found a note from you and 5-6 others that said I had made changes to pages that I have not visited, nor had edited. I was wondering if you could tell me more about how something like that could happen. Is it possible that since I access this computer via work at a school, that a student or someone could hack in and post on wikipedia using my IP address? It's odd, the activity is all within the past few months. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.54.248.130 (talk) 16:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It is possible, since it is a school/university, that the IPs aren't unique. This means that multiple people can use the same IP address over the web, which could lead to people vandalising. I have asked for someone to see if this is the case at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#IP asking for assistance on my talk page. On a side note, if you feel like you would like to contribute to Wikipedia and not have to deal with vandal incrimination, feel free to WP:REGISTER your own username. Cheers! -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 18:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you very much! Somedays it's frustrating as hell coming here. But I'm old and retired(semi) and hobbies aren't supposed to be dull anyways :) . Thanks again Moe! Cheers and take care! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 19:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting a little ridiculous, the last image was a free use image and had a link to direct authorization of the band stating that it was and it was deleted anyways with no reason given, and now ths one is a public image found on flicr as the page said and you still feel the need to claim it is a coppyright violation. --E tac 22:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if this all seems unjust, but it is about being safe and adhering to the photographers rights. You can search Flickr for images that can be used here, under the Creative Commons, by doing and advanced search here and checking the box near the bottom that says "Only search within Creative Commons-licensed photos." Again, you should try and contact the user and ask if he will release one of the images under the GFDL/CC agreement. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 23:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I am still confused about why the first image was deleted, I recieved no explanation after I showed that the image was FREE use. --E tac 23:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the admin who deleted that one was Angr (talk · contribs), so maybe if you ask them, they can tell you more. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 00:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image complies with the Wikipedia the fair use criteria in that

1. No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information.
2. The picture is not being used in a manner that would likely replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media - the picture is currently only available from the band's myspace website (although is likely to also be available on the band's offical website which is currently under construction)
3. The picture has been published on the band's offical myspace website.
4. The picture only relates to the article describing the band, its history, members (which the picture illustrates) & discography
5. The picture meets the media-specific policy requirements.
6. The picture is to be used in the article on the band.
7. The picture contributes significantly to the article (e.g. clearly identifies the subject of an article). The image is only being used in the article namespace. It is not linked, nor inlined, from the talk pages
8. The image or media description page contains:

• Proper attribution of the source of the material.
• An appropriate fair use tag indicating which Wikipedia policy provision permitting the use is claimed.

The picture is one of several prictures that the band has had taken for promotional press releases - there are currently no other free equivalent images of the band available - the image is only being used in respect to an article on the band Dan arndt 05:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:Nrfb.jpg"

The problem is it is break rule number one, which is the most important one; someone can capture this band/group at a show/concert quite easily since the band performs live on a regular basis and freely release it. Also, the pictures section of the Myspace page is only available to people who sign up for myspace, which is another problem. Finally, the band must label the appropriate picture to be released under the GFDL but, again, since this is a band that currently performs, this image is replaceable. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 18:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I would have to disagree in that as the picture is a promotional picture released by the band it does constitute a freely available image of the band - and based on your 'narrow' interpretation almost all images on wikipedia would have to be removed. At this stage there are no other 'free' images of the band available - given that most venues actively discourage or prohibit the taking of pictures or video it becomes extremely unlikely that someone could/would take a picture of the band performing live and then mave it freely available - I would contend that the best source of any image of a band is directly from the band itself - which is the case here Dan arndt 23:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:Nrfb.jpg"

Hey Moe! IF you have a minute could you take a look at the recent uploads of this user. With everything I've seen around here as far as images go...my AGF towards "self mades" is very very thin. Is there an admin who's keen on image "truthiness"? I know a couple of users who check them full time but they are either busy, breaking or blocked. Just wondering. Cheers and take care! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 21:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The one image looks like it came from the MySpace profile here (direct image link here). -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 01:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Another one appears to come from here. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 01:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Yet another also appears here. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 01:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your fast! So who's the 'schoolmarm' to alert to this editor and his "errors?" ? Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 01:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should possibly just list these at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion with my links provided and call them copyvios. The thing with IFD is that it is usually always backlogged, so an admin might not get to for a week or so. If you don't want to go through that process, I can list them tomorrow. Otherwise, I will pop over and support your listing. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 01:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've got "Wiki-policy/formality burnout"(actually a killer head cold) I am just going to leave this tab open and I'll try to zip back and list them tomorrow. Thanks for the legwork. I am overdue for a Wiki-break so I may be very scarce for a week or 2(or 3). Good luck with all the "Wiki-loons" Moe. Take care! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 02:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Moeron, Sorry for bugging you with my own "problems" when I'm sure you just want to be out there reading up on interesting stuff, but I'm turning to you as a first resort with something that as just occurred. I've just come across the following tidbit on my watchlist:

(diff) (hist) . . m Stevie Wonder‎; 16:27 . . (+29,509) . . FrancoGG (Talk | contribs) (JS: Reverted edits by 66.222.19.10 to last version by Technopat)

If you have time to check it out, it's pretty clear on the history page. Not quite sure of the implications, or what to do about it - maybe it's just a statistical hiccough and as such, nothing to worry about. Any recommendations/suggestions/comments? Thanx for being out there! Technopat 23:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What happened was that 66.222.19.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) edited the page in a vandal-like manner with this edit, replacing the page with nonsense. FrancoGG (talk · contribs) then used a program (see WP:POPUPS or WP:SCRIPTS) to rollback that IPs edit to the last version that was correct; in this case, that correction was yours. In short, everything is all good on the Stevie Wonder page again and there is no worries. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. Cheers! -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 23:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moeron - many thanx for your prompt reply. Your matter-of-fact attitude leads me to the conclusion that there's naught to worry about. Is this something that I will come across often on my travels through Wikipedia? Cheers. Technopat 23:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tell you, I've really got to hand it to you man. First of all, if you ever really thought you could ban me, well...forget it. But I must say, all I and all of your detractors (and I see there are many) have ever, ever asked of you, is this: if you suddenly claim (as if you're some sort of administrator) that an image is replaceable, that you get off your mega-editing ass and find a god damn image that suits your Nazi attitude, then no one would ever have a problem with you. Now, Anger22 is a very bored individual, seeing that he's 98 years old and has no friends, so he's started up this gay relationship with you, which is fine by me. NOT THAT THERE'S ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT. But as long as you understand that images BENEFIT Wiki articles, then we definitely agree. It's very very nice to see that instead of hitting the edit button every chance you get, you are actually finding images that suit your unfair, OCD demands, even though many of the ones you erase pertain to FU more than the ones you replace them with. Congrats on finally understanding why everyone hates you, and finally doing something about it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BadBRains111 (talk • contribs) 01:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]