Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Welcome!

Hello, Oden/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Jedi6-(need help?) 00:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello Oden. Great to see you added a table at the Stockholm Arlanda Airport page. I was wondering if I could request you to update the destinations as well. I added the destinations list based on timetables online, but there are a couple of things I cannot do, at least. I see that Swedish destinations have diacritics on the letters, I was wondering if you could edit it, since I have no idea how to encode those. Also, the destinations list are incomplete. Any of your contributions would be appreciated. Elektrik Blue 82 19:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I was getting around to it, I am translating the article sv:Arlanda to English. Finished Stockholm-Bromma Airport earlier this week. --Oden 19:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey there! I saw you reverting or removing linkspam. Thanks! If you're interested, come visit us in Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam so we can work together fighting those who spam Wikipedia. Lewispb 12:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Oden, thanks for your request to add references to the Israel Hernandez article - I had worked on that much earlier before I knew how to properly reference and link. I'd appreciate it if you could look over the article again and then remove the 'requires sources' banner on the page unless you have another objection. If I don't see anything on the Talk page for M. Hernandez in a week I'm going to remove the banner...

Thanks--Artificialard 07:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

VOTE to keep Category:Wikipedians from Texas from merging with Category:Wikipedians in Texas. Being FROM Texas is not necessarily the same as being IN Texas. --Renice 15:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to say good job with the re-write of the whiplash article. It needed it bad.

ONUnicorn 16:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! --Oden 21:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		I award you this barnstar for your extensive work on Fredrik Reinfeldt →AzaToth 23:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! --Oden 23:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Oden, I realize this is a bit late (2 months to be exact), but I just wanted to say that any extraneous deletions to the 2006 World Cup article were completely accidental.

Sorry for the late reply, and thanks for pointing out the deletions

--kpillai 20:25, 25 September 2006 (GMT -5:00)

No problem, I assumed that they were accidental. Thanks for the confirmation. --Oden 00:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello Oden, I did some update on the now resigned Maria Borelius and took some pains to bring out that much of the spadework was done by a blogger, Magnus Ljungkvist. I also wanted to explain to non-Swedes why the household work thing became so damaging (and without being POV), if not, it might have seemed like sheer prissiness to some people.

In the process of pointing out how the story grew, the Falsterbo summer villa has got mentioned twice, first in the "Nanny controversy" section and then under "other controversies" but I think it could well be left, the "other controversies" bit is more specific (name of the company and so on) while my edit in the first part brings out how it undermined her credibility. Strausszek October 14, 2006 18:40 (CEST)

Hello, suggested improvements are best discussed on the talk page. --Oden 17:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I tried to get this on to the Borelius talk page (now empty except for a few standard Wiki/html tags) by editing it in, the ordinary way, but for some reason it wouldn't work. I'm not terribly familiar with html code, so there may be some sort of end tag, like a bracket sign, in what is there already, which makes it impossible to just put in new text right away.Strausszek October 14, 2006

I fixed the problem. --Oden 18:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok Oden thanks for the advice I will take this on board for future editing. User:Noface1 17:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

What does that have to do with anything? Why is it always the fanboys who want spoiler-warnings everywhere? And why did you revert my helpful update on Moderaterna? Morningmusic 19:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• What I am or am not is irrelevant (no personal attacks). Undertaking major edits without forming a consensus (which you did when you started removing spoiler warnings from several articles, regardless of their content) is disruptive. The same is true when you start adding spoiler warnings to articles where there is a consensus that there should not be spoiler warnings, see Wikipedia_talk:Spoiler_warning#Spoiler_warnings_on_classical_works for instance.
• Your edit to the Moderate Party article (here) was an apparent link vandalization of this encyclopedia. Please bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and that editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right.
• Your contributions so far seem to be intended on disrupting Wikipedia in order to illustrate a point or a form of trolling. Try to learn what the consensus is first and then try to influence it if you feel it is wrong (and remember to be civil and assume good faith).
• If you make the same edit three times you risk violating the three-revert rule and being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Blocking an editor from contributing to Wikipedia is not done as a punitive measure but done in order to protect the encyclopedia from a harmful user.
• This response has also been left on your talk page, where the discussion started and should have been continued.

Sincerely, Oden 09:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Your recent changes to Jennifer Morrison were reverted. You added an image in violation of WP:FUC; only freely-licensed images are permitted to be used to depict living people. Also, you added a copyrighted image without providing the associated mandatory detailed fair-use rationale. --Yamla 15:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It's still a violation of WP:FUC. You are trying to use an image which is not freely licensed to depict a living person. --Yamla 18:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I reintroduced the image and provided a summary of the fair use rationale in the edit summary as well as more detailed one on the talk page and on the image in question.

I have been unable to find any limitation in policy regarding the use of fair use images to depict living people. One of the counterexamples on the Fair use guideline states that "An image of a living person that merely shows what they look like." is not fair use, which I have interpreted as that the image has to be put in context (which is also a part of the fair use criteria). There is however a movement among a few wikipedians to introduce such a policy, see Wikipedia:Images of living people. --Oden 18:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Now that you have added a fair-use rationale for its specific use and plan to attach it to the paragraph discussing her role on the show, please feel free to add the image back. I don't think you are worried about a 3RR violation here, but just in case you are, it would not be a 3RR violation for you to add it back (provided it is not to the infobox). --Yamla 19:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Here are three featured articles that have fair use or promotional images: Lindsey Lohan, Uma Thurman and Celine Dion. Since it is hardly likely that these articles would have become featured articles if they violated policy, the more reasonable explanation is that there is no clear consensus regarding the use of fair use images in a living persons biography. --Oden 20:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Not one of those is using the image solely to depict a living person (afaics), nor in any of these three cases is the image in the infobox anything other than freely licensed. --Yamla 20:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

So it is possible to use fair use images in a living persons biography, just as long as it is not in the infobox (and also there has to be a fair use rationale etc.). That is the bottom line. --Oden 20:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, provided it adheres to the fair use criteria. But a non-freely-licensed image that is used solely to depict a living person would never adhere. Nor would an image that could be replaced by a freely-licensed image (well, as a general rule). --Yamla 20:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

What about biographic articles lacking a infobx? Lisa Edelstein (diff) and Robert Sean Leonard (diff) have fair use images at the top of the articles?

Both of these are being used in violation of WP:FUC. You can tag them with {{subst:rfu}} if you wish. --Yamla 21:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I also tagged an orphaned fair use image of Jennifer Morrison which I found in the page history for deletion (Image:JennMorris.jpg). Don't know if I got the template to work right though. --Oden 20:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I think you did it correctly. --Yamla 21:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I've been looking through several actor's biographies, and a substantial amount have non-free images in the infoboxes, such as Alan Alda, Peter Gallagher and Laurel Holloman. Al Pacino has only fair use images in the article and Russell Crowe has a fair use movie poster in the infobox. --Oden 21:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, a large number have non-free images in the infobox. We are tagging them as fast as we can but there's a lot of pages to get through. I monitor less than 7,000 pages, for example. Note that it is acceptable to use a fair-use image where a free replacement could not be provided. So, for example, to depict a dead person, where no free images are known to exist. --Yamla 21:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You said: "Are you acting as an editor or administrator when you reverted Jennifer Morrison three times between 15:47 and 18:56 on 17 November 2006?"

I was reverting a simple case of an image which violated policy and so had to be removed. It is not considered a 3RR violation to enforce policy. --Yamla 19:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Noted. --Oden 20:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

This image was uploaded with the permission of London After Midnight/Sean Brennan. It should not be deleted. You can write to info@londonaftermidnight.com for verification. Complete quote reads "All photos (c) London After Midnight. Off site use allowed for encyclopedic or promotional purposes." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blipblip (talk • contribs) 02:05, 18 November 2006

When you uploaded Image:Sean_brennan.gif you tagged it with the license {{NoRightsReserved}} which means that the copyright holder has allowed it to be "freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, used, modified, built upon, or otherwise exploited in any way by anyone for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, with or without attribution of the author, as if in the public domain", in essence "releasing all rights". Any restrictions on the image means that it is incompatible with that license, which is why it was deleted. --Oden 14:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The image was deleted because the copyright holder did not want to release their rights to the image. See the deletion log entry. You can learn more about how images are used on Wikipedia at Wikipedia:Images. --Oden 14:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

ODEN- I have responded to this user with EACH AND EVERY MESSAGE. Try looking at his talk page for proof of this! I removed his messages because he is harassing me and posting stuff that is not true Try reading my responses on his page. How do you archive a page? I don't want his garbage littering my page. Why did you restore lies to the article on LAM? We are supposed to be able to edit the articles for accuracy. Deathrocker continually posts PERSONAL OPINION and stuff that I've shown repeatedly to be false. Why are you allowing this and constantly blanking my edits?--Blipblip 20:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I have responded on your talk page. --Oden 22:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Is there any rule against fair use images in the infobox or you did it by your own?201.37.247.93

The fair use criteria states that the first requirement is that "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information. [...] However, if the subject of the photograph still exists, a freely-licensed photograph could be taken." One of the counterexamples in the fair use guideline is: "An image of a living person that merely shows what they look like."

The subject of this photograph still exists and the purpose of an image in the article's infobox is to depict what the person looks like. This is why we have the {{subst:rfu}} tag. Now, if this particular image was attached to a paragraph discussing his acting performance in a specific context and accompanied with a fair-use rationale explaining why it was important to show what he looked like there, this image would be acceptable. Similarly, the image is acceptable to depict the fictional character because it is not replaceable in that context. --Oden 14:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but until we can take a free image (almost impossible) that one can stay there, as many others of various artists here, as you can see if you make a tour. It's disgusting and absurd to Wikipedia that an article about Pacino do not have a leading image.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.37.247.93 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 21 November 2006

• Many biograhies of living persons have non-free images in the infobox in violation of the fair use criteria, but we are busy tagging them as fast as we can.
• The primary goal of Wikipedia is to produce and distribute a free content encyclopedia, and the use of fair use (non-free) images is a limitation. (There's more information at Wikipedia:Fair use.)
• It isn't impossible to find a free image of Al Pacino; a quick search on Flickr reveals several privately taken photographs ([1] [2] [3] [4] [5]). If you want to you can contact the photographers and ask them to release any of the photographs under a free license.

--Oden 03:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, my point is: the fair use is legal here, otherwise we couldn't make an encyclopedia. The primary goal here is a Wikipedia done by everybody who wants do that from all the world. This is the primary goal, acording to the Board. If the primary goal was to be a free content only, fair use would be illegal here. If you don't like it (fair use), you can colaborate in arabic Wikipedia, but don't try destroy visual information at the articles, please.

Second, these images you showed are not free, because users have to contact the photographers and ask something. I could ask 'The Informer' production company too, to get a release for free of that image you deleted. None is a free one.

The point is, "free" images has a preference but if we don't get one, we can use a fair use image instead until we have a free one, this is the rule, agree? As I read in the rules, there isn't a prohibition to use fair use images in the infobox, I could use a screenshot of Pacino in "Dog Day Afternoon", for example, right?

Im my opinion, you and others users against fair use here, are trying to destroy Wikipedia and closing access to free information, creating your own rules. Discuss it, please. 201.37.247.93 04:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Whether or not users choose to collaborate in different language versions of Wikipedia (such as Arabic) is their personal choice. See also WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA.
• Fair use:
  • A fair use image cannot be used solely to illustrate a living person. (See for instance the counterexamples at the fair use guideline.) The purpose of an image in the article's infobox is to depict what the person looks like. This is why we have the {{subst:rfu}} tag.
  • Now, if this particular image was attached to a paragraph in an article discussing a living persons appearance in a specific context and accompanied with a fair-use rationale explaining why it is important to show what that person looked like there, this image would be acceptable.
  • Similarly, the image is acceptable to depict a fictional character because it is not replaceable in that context.
  • Last of all it is allowed to use a fair use image to depict a dead person, where no free images are known to exist.
• If other articles violate policy, that is grounds for fixing those violations, not for violating the policy in yet another article.
• It is true that there is nothing stopping anyone from asking anyone else to release their copyright. This does not detract from the fact that as long as a person is alive it is not impossible to create a free image.
• Regarding a change in policy, this isn't the place to discuss or propose new policy. Try for instance Wikipedia:Images of living people, Wikipedia talk:Images, Wikipedia talk:Fair use or the Wikipedia:Village pump.
• A final note: all editors should remember that editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right. (See also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.)

--Oden 04:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if you tought I was not polite, it was not my intention and it isn't, but I maintain my opinion about people who do not like fair use editing here. It's not the place for them, because they do what they can to difficult the free imformation (and I can't wonder why).

Well, The purpose of an image in the article's infobox is to depict what the person looks like. And what is that image (I didn't uploaded it and not placed it there, I just turned curious why you deleted it) doing? Depicting Al Pacino. I'm not discussing the policy, I'm discussing why you deleted it. Is Paul Newman. Harrison Ford, etc infobox images illegal too? I don't think so.

Of course editing is a privilege not a right. And?

But the point is: that image, untill we can find a free one, is obviously legal and accepted by wiki policies, according to the rules. 201.37.247.93 05:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I can agree that it is a little difficult to understand this policy, and that it should be written more clearly. (I have also made the mistake of adding a fair use image to a living person's biography.) --Oden 05:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't think you made the mistake of adding a fair use image to a living person's biography, because, as you said, the rules are not clear and can rise many doubts, as this one. As it turns out, all the whole thing ends in a self-interpretation. So, I think the image can't be deleted until he have a "free" one. There's not a consensus about this fact. The image is only depicting Al as he looks like. Agree? 201.37.247.93 05:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The rules are clear: the fair use criteria (which is policy) states that the first requirement is that "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information. [...] However, if the subject of the photograph still exists, a freely-licensed photograph could be taken.". However the policy could be more clearly written in order to avoid alot of WikiLawyering (it could simply say: "it is not allowed to use a fair use image just to illustrate what a person looks like as long as they are alive". --Oden 06:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

hi..

umm.. i don't think i was advertising any company there on Only Much Louder. i was just writing the bare basic info i have about them... i don't even work for them, or with them, or anything of the sort.

and likewise with showcause

Yufeeko 19:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The articles did not state any reason for notability, see Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations) (specifically criteria for companies and corporations). You are however encouraged to write on subjects like Indian rock. --Oden 19:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

i guess one would need some time to put together that info.. if that be the case, i'll write the thing and then make an article. all those red links on the indian rock page were getting to me. one does need to understand that in india, where rock has a minority status, organizations/people do what they can to promote music. it'd be on the lines of what rolling stone would have started out with, to put it in a roundabout simile. these pages i made were about two of just three major players in the indian rock scene.

but it's okay... what's got to go, has got to go.

--Yufeeko 19:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know there aren't any articles about companies that are rock promoters on Wikipedia. However articles on people who work as rock promoters and record labels might be treated differently. --Oden 19:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

and as far as i know, there aren't any either. but that doesn't mean they don't exist. of the seven mentioned in Indian_rock#Promoters, five of them are registered companies that more-or less follow an open source mode of operation. they're all manned by professionals outside of the music industry (an architect, several engineers, some software techies, a doctor et al), and very often barely make any sort of profit worth mentioning. and why are they companies that do this kind of thing... because, most often, one man can't handle this kind of work alone. as i'd mentioned in that section, these companies handle several tasks simultaneously. and they do this more as a form of recreation than as a form of commercial activity. perhaps this is a situation peculiar to india, or to the Indian subcontinent.

it may not be so in other parts of the world, but ignorance should not be a criterion for making claims that certain things don't exist. --Yufeeko 20:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• You can search for "rock promoter" here on Wikipedia, I didn't find any companies among the first ten hits. You will however find the Canadian Association of Promotional Marketing Agencies, but none of the companies listed in that article have any articles of their own.
• Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate collection of information, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. --Oden 20:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

i am hardly contesting your choice to delete the articles... but one of the few things i remember from my philosophy class was the term appeal to false authority. if i didn't know anything about why swedish girls are allowed to retain their thongs in a clothes line, i wouldn't say anything about it, much less deny the existence of a clothes line. the two articles i started, and which i regret oh so badly, in my humble opinion and that of many other people who have a fair amount of knowledge about rock music in india, were written with an absolutely neutral view point, about companies which satisfy points 1 and 2 of criteria for companies and corporations. again... i stress... i'm not contesting the deletion. but broaden your horizons a bit before you make sweeping statements. --Yufeeko 20:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The articles were deleted by Merope (deletion log for "Only Much Louder") and Quarl (deletion log for "ShowCause"). If you feel that they were incorrect you can appeal at Wikipedia:Deletion review (see also Wikipedia:Undeletion policy). --Oden 21:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

what part of "i am hardly contesting your choice to delete the articles" was dificult to understand. but, just based on principle, i shall.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Yufeeko (talk • contribs) 21:16, 20 November 2006

See also Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. --Oden 21:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

i apologize if i offended you. --Yufeeko 21:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for your (?) message. I wonder why people keep cluttering my talk page with all those canned messages (just look at it!) if all I can do is wait for thre image to be deleted. I uploaded it in good faith in 2003 (!), it's a screenshot, it's being used in other articles I didn't even know existed. You tag it and declare it was uploaded after May 2006. The image is from Myra Breckinridge and could easily be put there, but soon someone else will come along and want to remove it from there as well. If it makes you happy, please speedy delete it. Best wishes, <KF> 02:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

You keep getting messages because the template says "please notify the uploader". Personally I wonder if the message serves a purpose every time, or if it sometimes just is annoying and supercedes common sense. As for the image it is used to illustrate the image of a living person in violation of the fair use criteria and not being used to illustrate any fictional character in Myra Breckinridge and should be deleted. It also lacks a detailed fair use rationale. --Oden 03:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I am a nuetral party in the issue on the LAM article. I have attempted to mediate the two users arguing, and even took both versions of the article and removed both's pov, orginal research and non nuetral wording (both of their slurs and praise).

Deathrocker, as much as i dislike the user, has actually made an effort to work with the user Blip. However, after i explained to Blip the core policys WP:NPOV, WP:CITE, WP:NOR) and other related policys (WP:3RR, WP:NPA, WP:VANDAL and WP:COOL), the user has refused to work with any editors and is blanking large sections of the article, removing other editors work, and generally acting dominant other overs with the attitude of supreriority.

What im asking is if you can speak to the user, having already had contact with him, and discourage him from continuing this behaviour as its damaging the article and the user does not seem prepared to work within the rules and systems of Wikipedia, or respect other Wikipedians.

Im sorry to have to ask, but this seems better than revert warring, and better than letting this whole issue branch out to vandalising user pages/talks, other articles, and generally causing a lot of hassle.

Could you also please look over the version i tried to create from Deathrockers version and Blips version and tell me if there is anything i could do to improve the page regardless of the revert warring taking place.

Thanks for the time taken to read this by the way.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.91.34 (talk • contribs) 08:36, 21 November 2006

Sure, I'll take a look. --Oden 10:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I have listed the article at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Media, art and literature. --Oden 10:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the effort. However, Blip seems determined to not work with anybody on this matter. Ive not even commented on the issue (im not taking sides, my own past with Deathrocker withstanding) and seeing his latest triad, he blatantly refuses to follow Wikipedia policy and its mostly a complete slur at myself and Deathrocker.

Can yew please speak to him and make him actually read WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, as i tried to mediate this once, and i dont want to dip my toe in the water to have it ripped apart by one pirana. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.42.120 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 21 November 2006

Hi. Thanks for your message regarding the image above. I am not the original poster of this image on wikipedia, but merely restored it after vandalism where it was replaced with a user's picture. If you believe it to be outside of wikipedia's fair use policy, please feel free to delete it. Kind regards Hongshi 10:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Good evening. Per the discussion about privacy concerns expressed at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of birthdays, date of birth should generally not be added to the biographies of living non-public or semi-public figures. So far, that policy has been interpreted fairly strictly with a pretty high bar being set for the definition of "public figures" who are assumed to have given up their rights to privacy.

By the same token, we should not be adding Category:Date of birth missing to articles unless we have made the case that the person meets the "public figures" threshold. Otherwise, we're just baiting new users into adding content even though the community has already said that we shouldn't include that particular data point. Category:Year of birth missing is okay but the exact date is often not. Thanks for your help. Rossami (talk) 23:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Noted. --Oden 23:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your work with bringing the article to GA status. In case you are interested in writing about other Swedish topics, you might find the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sweden interesting.

Regards, Fred-Chess 16:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for letting me know. Didn't know that! I'm done improving Anthony Michael Hall so I'll request a speedy deletion on that one. I'm currently working on User:Gzkn/Sandbox/Peter Jennings which also has fair use images...is it OK if I just delete the images for now on that page, or should I move it somewhere? Gzkn 05:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you need to have a entire article in your user namespace, since improvements are supposed to be made to the article in the article namespace? As regards removing the fair use images in your user namespace you should probably not wait too long since some other user might tag them for removal (or simply just remove them). --Oden 05:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh. Well I had seen other users do so, and I thought it would be a good resource for me to add junk such as links I would want to use as add sources, and other notes that might make sense to me, but not to other WP editors. In any case, I will delete the images in User:Gzkn/Sandbox/Peter Jennings. Gzkn 06:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, you are allowed to do so (for instance for templates, essays and userboxes), but unfortunately fair use images can only be used in the article namespace. --Oden 06:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that...I was referring to having a draft article there, not the fair use images (which I have removed). Gzkn 06:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for the clarification! --Oden 06:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It IS a fair use image. Please desist removing it. Thank you. Kyaa the Catlord 09:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

There exists a free image (Image:Ann Coulter.jpg) which replaces the fair use image currently in use (Image:Coulter-Silver-dress.jpeg). According to policy fair use images should be replaced with free images. --Oden 09:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and delete it if you're an admin. There's a free image in the article now. —Malber (talk • contribs) 14:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm no admin, but one will delete it in seven days if the tag stays put. --Oden 14:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't care what the rules say, you're not going to get every actor or actress in Hollywood to take a Creative Commons promotional shot just because the rules state, However, if the subject of the photograph still exists, a freely-licensed photograph could be taken.

Sure, it could be taken. But will it? Highly unlikely. You probably won't convince Jennifer Coolidge or any other Hollywood actor or actress that they need to stop what they're doing to make their photos fall under the GPL just so Wikipedia can use them. Putting these sorts of rules on the photos merely has the effect of diluting hours of work that went into grabbing the original photos in the first place, taking away recognizability of biographical subjects, diluting the overall quality of the encyclopedia and creating unnecessary edit wars for the rest of us.

It's a case of Wiki-overboard that you did this to so many different promotional shots which are covered under a fair use rationale. Let's be realistic here and worry about fair use issues which actually will improve the quality of the site rather than taking away from it. - Stick Fig 10:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

This makes me think. If the idea that anything that exists can be photographed or released as GFDL/CC, what's the point in having fair use images on the English Wikipedia? --LBMixPro ^{<Speak|on|it!>} 03:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• The primary goal of Wikipedia is to produce and distribute a free content encyclopedia.
• A fair use image cannot be used solely to illustrate a living person. This is why we have the {{subst:rfu}} tag.
• Many biograhies of living persons use non-free images in violation of the fair use criteria, but we are busy tagging them as fast as we can.
• Regarding a change in policy, this isn't the place to discuss or propose new policy. Try for instance Wikipedia:Images of living people, Wikipedia talk:Images, Wikipedia talk:Fair use or the Wikipedia:Village pump.
• A final note: all editors should remember that editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right. (See also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.)

--Oden 04:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This policy you're enforcing is only a proposed policy, according to your links. - Stick Fig 09:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The links I provided were to proposed changes in policy, which is the proper venue do discuss any changes in policy. However, the policy in this issue is quite clear: the fair use criteria (which is policy) states that the first requirement is that "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information. [...] However, if the subject of the photograph still exists, a freely-licensed photograph could be taken.". --Oden 09:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to note to others that he's spiteful about his policies, too, and marked every single image I've ever uploaded (including one I created myself and which does fit the necessary criteria). I'm sorry, you're just being rude now. You know, there is such a thing as loose interpretation of the rules and there are other, more important factors at play here. - Stick Fig 10:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:No personal attacks. The image you claim to have created is a derivative work, uploading it with a free license is most likely a copyright infringement. Removing the tag without providing a fair use rationale is against Wikipedia policy. I have responded on your talk page with further details. --Oden 12:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand that you feel offended in that I have reviewed you recent contributions, but please bear in mind that neither you nor I have ownership of the articles. You are perfectly free to examine my contributions, and make any necessary improvements. Sincerely --Oden 12:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not making personal attacks so much as noting your questionable choice of edits; I feel like you chose to go back and look back at my prior edits in response to criticism instead. It seems purely selective and somewhat vindictive. I mean, I understand the matter about us not owning the articles, but edits should also be constructive instead of destructive. I feel that your edits were destructive in nature.

Regarding the Bluffton Today image, I laid out the cover. I used to work there. It mentions as much on my talk page. - Stick Fig 22:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Image:Blufftontoday.jpg if you are the creator of all the images and text that are displayed there (including the newspaper logo) then it would still be a derivative work, but it would be dervied from previous work to which you are the creator. However the website states "Copyright ©2006 Bluffton Today. All rights reserved." [6].

If the newspaper in question copyrights its website, it is also likely that the print edition (which you might very well have created) also is copyrighted. Furthermore, when an employee creates a copyrighted work in the course of their employment many times the copyright is retained by or shared with the employer, which makes the matter even more complicated. However, the image is permissible under the fair use terms here on Wikipedia, with a detailed fair use rationale and proper source attribution. Cheers! --Oden 06:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

re the nrd on the above Image, that Image was uploaded way before 4 May 2006. Brian | (Talk) 10:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep, missed the date on that one. The image could still use a fair use rationale, even though it is no requirement. --Oden 10:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I also self-reverted my edits on that one. Cheers! --Oden 13:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I've updated the licensing for this image. I'm not sure if it still needs the speedy deletion tag in Beatrix_of_the_Netherlands because it's not in the main article? --Rpvdk 13:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I self-reverted. Cheers! --Oden 13:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

There is an interesting debate going on at Image talk:Wheatus 2005.jpg (regarding Image:Wheatus 2005.jpg). It has a potential effect on many other images, and I'm really not sure where I fall on this. If you'd like to chime in, your input would be valued.

Also, did you know about Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abu badali? I thought you might be interested. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't really understand how it fails fair use criterion 1. I couldn't help it read the comments above because that is exactly what I was thinking. Are you suggesting that I should stalk Anthony Michael Hall to get a free picture? A freely-licensed photograph on actors is not always available, that is why I believe this image (and many others used in biographies of living persons) does not fail fair use criterion 1. If you could reply in my talk page, I'd really appreciate it. Nat91 05:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I have responded on your user talk page. --Oden 05:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

As for your reply, I'm aware of the criterion you're mentioning in the second paragraph (If the image is attached to a paragraph in the article which discusses the subjects acting performance in a specific context). But, I'm still not sure where I can find the kind of pictures that would be suitable for an infobox. It is not easy to find a free image. Do you have any suggestions? (apart from Creative Commons?) Could you reply in my talk page again? Thanks! Nat91 06:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I have responded on your user talk page. --Oden 06:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You said: "if you place the current image elswehere in the article it might even improve it further"

I can place the current image elsewhere in the article? Is that acceptable? Well, considering the image is a promotional picture of a TV series, it should be attached to the paragraph that talks about it, correct?. But there's already another picture there. Honestly, the infobox picture is the one I'm thinking about right now. I know is not a requirement for FA, but it feels like there should be one there. Nat91 06:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

If the image is not necessary for the article you could orphan it (remove it completely). Katie Holmes, Austin Nichols and Diane Keaton are all featured article which do not have an image in the infobox.--Oden 07:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I just want to let you know I have finally got permission to use an image (under the Creative Commons license) taken by the webmaster of a website I found. I'll added it to the article and remove the Amhalldz.jpg image as soon as I can. Nat91 17:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Noted. --Oden 17:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The original image was not marked as all rights reserved at the time it was uploaded, the Greene Web site has since been redone, images moved to Flickr, and additional rights restriction posted. Even though the image might still qualify under Fair use as Mr. Greene is deceased, I have indicated on the image's talk page that with the revised licensing on Flickr, I have no objection to the image's removal. Tvccs 16:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Noted. --Oden 16:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Since he is deceased I removed the replaceable fair use image tag, and I also provided a fair use rationale for Ted Greene. Sincerely, --Oden 16:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Noted. Thank you. Tvccs 16:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Please review the revised information at Image:SallyBarker1.jpg and provide commentary as needed. Thank you. Tvccs 16:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It looks good. I don't think anyone would be upset if you removed the "no rationale" tag when you provide a fair use rationale. --Oden 16:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback - for the record, I would note that I have seen dozens of album cover images, most as a part of Wikiproject:Album, that do not include a detailed fair use rationale for each image, and it was those images I used as a reference when loading my own. Tvccs 17:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand, it is a fairly common mistake. Thank you also for your contributions to Wikipedia's articles. --Oden 17:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Synar, who is also deceased, no longer has a Congressional Web page, or one archived. The image in question was previously used by his office as an official photo - that's why it was tagged as such - I knew Mr. Synar and his staff personally prior to his death. There is no "free" image of Mr. Synar available through any source I could locate, and I did considerable research at the time of posting this one. Since you were kind enough to quickly do the rationale on Ted Greene, I'm wondering if you'd do the same for Mr. Synar and remove your tag, etc? The image source was http://www.congsoftball.com/. Tvccs 17:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The website says "All text, images and techniques (c)1998-2006" but he died in 1996, so I don't know what the copyright status is. There is no mention of a photographer. The safest thing to do is, because he is no longer with us, to switch to a fair use template. I'll make the necessary changes. --Oden 17:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your assistance. Tvccs 17:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Fixed Image:Synar1.jpg. --Oden 17:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I reviewed your changes - extremely helpful, thank you. Tvccs 17:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The content on the Mitchel Forman Web page and the image used were released by Mr. Forman at my request under GFDL. Those efforts are detailed on the talk page for the article - if you find them sufficient, I hope they addressed your concerns - in neither the Synar or Forman cases did I post a copyrighted image without clearance, although the exact specification of said was apparently unclear. As a matter of note, there are numerous artists for whom I have attempted to find, or gain fair use or GFDL images for, which I cannot locate, and I have declined to post those images as a result. Tvccs 17:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Permission has been logged in the OTRS system, so I self-reverted my edits to Image:MitchelForman-1.jpg. --Oden

Thank you. Tvccs 18:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Another image you tagged, and since you are obviously far faster than I on these...another deceased individual - can you assist? Thank you. Tvccs 18:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Fixed it, but it's actually just a matter of taking a standard piece of text (a fair use rationale) and adapting it for the situation (and at the same time making sure that the fair use image meets the fair use criteria). --Oden 18:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes...I am aware of that, and have begun adding further rationales as requested, as I have been able to do as in Sally Barker, and I will be moving on to others as I have time. I'm wondering how you would handle a promotional image of a musical group which is no longer together, and of which one of the members is deceased - see Image:Softmachine70-Promo4.jpg Tvccs 18:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Image:Softmachine70-Promo4.jpg - it looks like a old (period) picture, so since their appearances must have changed taking a new photo would not be the same (it isn't replaceable). That is what I would write, but other editors might have a different opinion. --Oden 18:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback, as I mentioned prior, one of the members in said photo is also deceased. Tvccs 18:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting me to the issues surrounding fair use of the image in question. In fact, the image can be deleted as there is little use for it anymore. I uploaded it at a time when there were very few other available images that were suitable for use on the character's page. Now that Wayne Palmer is a major character in season 6 of 24, an official promotional image is now used in the article. Cheers.

Northeasternbeast 19:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks! --Oden 19:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The said image is fair use. It's an album cover, and that's all there is to it... Please review it. Thank you. Øřêōş 20:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You need to add a detailed fair use rationale. Follow this link for more information: Wikipedia:Image_description_page#Fair_use_rationale. --Oden 02:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for sparing Image:Wisitbear.jpg. – WiseKwai | Talk | Contribs 21:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if you'd take a look at the Fair Use rationale and comments regarding replacabilty and provide feedback, and adjust if you think appropriate. Thank you. Tvccs 02:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Left a comment on the image talk page. --Oden 02:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions and edits to the fair use rationale. I have made both the changes you suggested. Tvccs 06:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Since I believe you placed the Rfu tag on the image, and have apparently determined it's proper fair use, is it possible the tag can be removed? Tvccs 06:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Fixed it. --Oden 06:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you actually read the description page of images that you tag? Image:Tuheitia Paki--Maori King.jpg It has a rational and a source. --Kunzite 04:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not I am a bot: see Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Regarding the image, that should be discussed on the image talk page. --Oden 04:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I am being civil. In line with WP:BOT, I am inquiring to see if this a malfunctioning or mal-progammed bot. If it is a bot doing this, I will file a request that it be shut down because it is wrongly tagging images to be deleted. --Kunzite 04:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

No, you said "Do you actually read the description page of images that you tag?". If this were a bot you wouldn't ask that, you would say this bot is malfunctioning. Bots can be found with Category:Wikipedia bots on the user page, and will generally have the word "Bot" in the user name. No one else has made this mistake, so yes this is a personal attack. Be aware that users who engage in this type of behaviour can end up in WP:RFC regarding their user conduct. --Oden 04:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not a personal attact. The question is perfectly valid for determining if this account is a bot. Since you claim not to be a bot (I assume that included running any automation program such as WP:AWB to semi-automatically tag such images.) It rules out this being a mechanical mistake. The question then must be asked of you an an editor: Did you read the text on the page? Did you not see that there was a source and a fairuse rational? I usually include source and a rational when I upload images. Was it not up to par? Why did you mark an image that has a source as not having one? Why did you mark an image that included a rational as not having one? I'd like to know so that I can avoid that tagging in the future. --Kunzite 04:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I did not tag it as lacking a fair use rationale, I tagged it as a replaceable fair use image (RFU). See criterion #1 of Wikipedia:Fair use criteria. --Oden 05:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation of that guideline, but that's a different matter. Please review your edit. This is why I thought you were using a bot. "{{no rationale|month=November|day=29|year=2006}} {{no source|month=November|day=29|year=2006}} {{Replaceable fair use|month=November|day=29|year=2006}}" link You wrote in your edit: "(nrd, nsd, rfu)" --Kunzite 05:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

"{{no rationale|month=November|day=29|year=2006}} {{no source|month=November|day=29|year=2006}} {{Replaceable fair use|month=November|day=29|year=2006}}" is the Wikipedia code for the template. NRD stands for "No detailed fair use rationale", NSD stands for "No proper source attribution" and RFU stands for "Replaceable fair use". The image lacks a detailed fair use rationale, a proper source attribution (website?) and is only used to depict a living person.--Oden 05:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)