Hey, take a look at this diff [1]. That information was changed by the uploader after I tagged the image as PUI. Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 19:32, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, I can see the confusion. Very frustrating. Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 20:21, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Was that not the point of you notifying me on my talk page? As a matter of fact the image was tagged at the time, yet does not seem to have been saved, there was also an explanation for the blurring in the right hand corner, which was where my children had been edited out, I am mystified as that was definitely saved, yet no record remains - strange. Giano | talk 22:11, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• No' funnily enough someone recently replaced the picture in its article with something far better check out Montacute House. Giano | talk 22:24, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Burgundavia, I noticed you've changed Template:Idw-pui to have a very light background, and to include the full image name (with namespace) as parameter. While these are possibly good things (and I can see the benefit of the parameter change), {{idw-pui}} is now out-of-synch with {{idw-uo}} and {{idw-cp}}. Should the other two be changed, or this one changed back? Please reply to this section. Thanks, Alphax ^τεχ 08:08, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I would change the other two to the same style. I changed them to make them less garish, as they already stick out, and to make copying easier, as I generally do lots of images at once, and thus copy the image file name to several places, including there and list for addition to the PUI page. Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 08:14, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Fine. I'll do {{idw}} as well. Alphax ^τεχ 08:44, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

---

Is that ok now?

Image:Airportx.jpg - Pittsburg aiport

Apogr 11:14, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop vandalising pictures in articles relating to Israel with the unverified signature. Its unwarranted and wastes time reverting.

Guy Montag 09:48, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of any dispute around these images. They have been there for over a year on the JDL and Religious Zionist Article and about six months on the other articles.

Guy Montag 10:05, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, yes I did take that pic. I had uploaded it onto commons, but then when I tried to put it in the article another picture of an album cover kept going up instead. I reaslised that it had the exact same name but was on wikipedia, so I uploaded again over that. If that is taken off, without the album cover being deleted, then the vatican article will look a bit silly! Thanks, Erin. --Silversmith 11:17, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I took this photo. Orange Goblin 01:18, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

I am Gilles' godson and I confirm that he is willing to give away rights of this 600 pixel max images for the Wikipedia. He is in the New York phone book (95 Grand Street, NYC, NY) or you can also reach him on the "INQUIRIES" link of his web site [2] for official confirmation.

Cheers...

Franois-do 01:26, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Image:Shul.jpg and Image:RabbiGoldberger.jpg -- You are asking which license I want to use. I took both of those pictures myself. Which license is appropriate in such a case? Tzadik 04:03, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

After reviewing the tagging options, I decided to use "permission". I wish to retain the copyright to the pictures for myself and give Wikipedia permission to use them. Tzadik 04:44, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I meant to vote on the airport. WhisperToMe 15:01, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you list Image:Jacob - Joseph.jpg on PUI? It is clearly tagged as PD-old. - SimonP 00:19, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Actually you are wrong about that. In the United States an exact reproduction of an art work is not considered to add artistic merit and thus not copyrighted. See Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. and Wikipedia:Copyright_FAQ#Derivative_works. If you were right then practically the entire PD-art and PD-old categories would likely have to be emptied. - SimonP 00:32, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean? It shows the frieze in its entirety. Moreover we also have many other images (e.g. Image:Creation of Adam.jpg and Image:Last judgement.jpg) that are only the part of a frieze but are marked PD. Please remember m:Avoid Copyright Paranoia. - SimonP 00:52, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

It never occurred to me that a government's photo collection would not be in the public domain. Anyhow, the Bet Alfa pic was from the World Zionist Organization, but the Kibbutz Dan pic was from the Israeli National Photo Collection. I am assuming that the photos are acceptable though. The kibbutz article has been up at the official English version of the kibbutz website. http://www.kibbutz.org.il/eng/welcome.htm Dinopup 23:49, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Burgundavia, I honestly wasn't trying to be daft with these edits! What I was trying to do was to get the number of {| symbols equal to the number of |} symbols in those airport articles. The reason I noticed this is because it is one of the things the Wiki Syntax Project checks, as people will regularly start a table without closing it, or close a table without opening it, or nest tables but stuff up the syntax. Sometimes this has no visual effect, but sometimes it results in whole sections of an article not being visible until it's fixed. So finding and fixing these situations is useful. With tables, there are almost always two types - there is the taxobox style, where the table is started in an included template ('Taxobox begin'), and ended in an included template ('Taxobox end'); Or there is the straight start a table (possibly with a template, such as prettytable, to define it's appearance), followed by the straight table end. E.g.

{| {{subst:prettytable}}
... blah blah ...
|}

Now, the problem with the airport tables, was that they had mixed those two styles - it had an {{Airport frame}} at the start, but an |} at the end. Whilst the end result was valid wiki syntax, it had three problems, namely:

• It looks like invalid syntax to software performing very simple checks for syntax problems.
• It looks like invalid syntax to humans reading the wiki source (for example, I assumed it was wrong at first, because it just looks wrong).
• It's inconsistent - ideally a table should start one way, and end the same way (not start in a template, and end on the page).

So in terms of fixing this, whilst producing the same output, there were two choices that seemed applicable. One was to match the starting {{Airport frame}} with an equivalent ending template, which is what I did with {{Airport end frame}}. The alternative would be to do something like:

{| {{pretty airport box}}
... blah blah ...
|}

Would you prefer the second of these styles? If so, please just let me know, as I'm happy to change them all over to use this style instead. Basically, I'm just looking for a consistent table start and table end style, but the actual style that is used doesn't bother me. I hope I've explained what I was doing OK, and that you don't think I'm completely mad :-) -- All the best, Nickj (t) 00:18, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You voted for Lee Smith (baseball), this week's Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article., congrats Falphin 03:00, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Have you heard anything back regarding this? Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 05:01, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

No, I haven't sent the letter because I don't know where to find it. Alphax ^τεχ 09:26, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, ok, I am going to go to Phase II with this. Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 09:32, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Found it - Wikipedia:Boilerplate request for permission. Who should it be sent to? There are two possibilities - images at noao dot edu - or - outreach at noao dot edu - which would be better, and how should the letter be worded? Alphax ^τεχ 15:31, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just ask them to release it under the cc-by-sa 2.0. That is simple, easy to understand license, that is clearly free. Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 09:19, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see this until today - I've sent the letter (a modified version of Neutrality's semi-formal image request) asking them to release it under GFDL or cc-by-sa-2.5 (yes, there is a new version!). Alphax ^τεχ 18:03, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that means commercial. I suspect the answer is going to be no. Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 19:36, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for all the work on these. Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 18:10, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

As I suspected, the answer was no. Or rather "Since under your GNU Free Documentation License images can be reproduced for commercial purposes and may be modified - we decline your offer to include our NOAO images in the Wikipedia at this time. Thank you." Deletion time then. Alphax ^τεχ 16:50, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for tracking this down. Image is (unhappily) gone. Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 23:19, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

I sent an email to the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs (the relevant bureau, the one in charge of the photo collection) asking for permission to use their pics. They say that they will reply within two weeks. Dinopup 15:53, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have now spent a considerable amount of time tagging the images uploaded by me over the past few years, which you have questioned recently. Because of the long time lapse since these pictures were first uploaded to Wikipedia, I have had to dig deep into time to find the right tag for each image, and I believe I have done a good job by following the guidelines on the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags page. Since there are so many images involved here (over 80), I placed all the images relating to me in a separate section, see Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images#Compliance by User:IZAK [3]. Now, as I mention in that section: I have now provided updated legitimate tags for the images enumerated below by User:Burgundavia. I hope that the questions have been laid to rest about sources as I have now updated the tags to reflect their current status using Wikipedia's own guidelines from Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. I respectfully request resolution of this matter as soon as possible. Thank you. One more point, if you come across any more images that may have been uploaded or incorrectly tagged by me in the past and you need more accurate information, please contact me about each and every one of them on my user page as soon as you find them and not days or weeks after you list them. I will hopefully respond to all requests as best I can under the circumstances. Thanks again! IZAK 14:27, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, come to think of this - i might not have been best advised to put that up. its a piece of microsoft 'clip art' with the colours changed and the image intverted (he used to be right-footed).

I'd re-load it - but should I be allowed to use it?:

A.K.A.47 17:22, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Burgundavia, i don t see on Wikipedia:Categorization where is says that it is (proposed as) policy that we can t add an article to both direct parent and more ultimate parent cats. is there another page on policy i m not finding?

the primary goal of categorizing (as stated on the policy page cited above) is accessibility. Having an article so central to Category:Nova Scotia go through two lesser cat links is poor accessibilty. moreover, Category: Nova Scotia is a thinly populated cat - there is neither space or clutter issues involved in having a few (there are a few more) instances of redundant categorizing for the sake of far better accessibility. Regards -Mayumashu 03:01, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image deletion warning

The image Image:Xmasmannekenpis.jpg has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it will be deleted. If you have any information on the source or licensing of this image, please go there to provide the necessary information.

Burgundavia 22:59, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

I thought I found this on some government website and thought it was public domain. Unfortunately, I can't remember where. I looked, but I can't find it. There are already other pictures in that article, so delete this one if you want. CDThieme

talk pages are not speedied unless the article is deleted[4]

Actually, they are, the page was (at least when I marked it) a WP:CSD case 1, and (2 or 3). While I agree the talk page isn't a CSD anymore (it's not one of our most wonderful talk pages, but it'll do), talk pages do get speedied even if their article page doesn't. --W(t) 13:01, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

I would like to bring to your notice - cuz i dunno anyone else - about a set of copyvio images since they dont have any tags. The article on Indian Navy has many of these images which are from an Indian source, that is gerally copyrighted. please check up on this matter, since i don't know the procedure for following up on such copyvio issues.--Idleguy 03:58, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, my mind had a glitch and I mistakenly thought you had removed the control tower pic. I agree my aircraft pic is not very relevant - Adrian Pingstone 12:05, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted all your external links, as I feel they do not add value to wikipedia. Sites with pictures are easy to find. Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 02:51, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Easy to find? So what? And it's HARD to find sites like ford.com? A lot of the pictures are UNIQUE. 1. You may have created this page for the exclusive purpose of adding to wikipedia. If you did, that is a strict no-no What are you talking about? What page? The car article pages already existed!

2. It looks like many of your images are copyright violations. There are not. You would be very wise to not make such accusations.

Hi Burg. I don't agree about the whole content of the note. True is that Palestine is not a state yet. However, the Palestinian territories are currently under the control of the Palestinian Authority, which took it over from Israel following the 1993 Oslo Accords. Particularly, the airport of Gaza is located in Gaza city, which is controlled by the Palestinian Authority. For the West Bank, civil control over substantial areas is granted to the Palestinian Authority. The kind of those airports are civil infrastructures, as opposed to military ones. I don't imagine a category of Palestinian universities having such a note! Indeed, if the construction of airports is disputed than surely Israel would have not agreed about their construction. This is my explanation and I am still not convinced of the relevance of that note there. Svest 12:26, May 21, 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

• It is not a big issue. Leave it there. It's a consensus. Cheers Svest 12:46, May 21, 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

The site from which the picture was gotten has no copyright disclaimer. If we are not sure about the {fairuse}, than we can remove it. What do you think? Svest 12:26, May 21, 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

• Removed. Maybe I´ll take a picture myself if I´d go there ;). Svest 12:50, May 21, 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

Thanks. I just got there when I was editing that Mohammed V International Airport is twined with the Gaza airport. Svest 12:26, May 21, 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

Looks like the 'carpictures' guy has some anger management problems:

http://www.gblog.info/?p=354

82.194.62.22 13:12, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think your message got garbled on my talk page. Would you try again? Mark in Richmond. Vaoverland 23:40, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

FYI, this image (together with all other Gibraltar or Ceuta related images uploaded by me) was photographed by me. I am happy for them to be on the public domain. I have amended the description of this image myself and removed the possibly unfree images notices. Please feel free to amend the descriptions of any other Gibraltar or Ceuta related images I have uploaded if my intention to release them into the public domain is in any way unclear. I trust this is ok. Kind regards, jguk 13:33, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This image is derived from http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%94%BB%E5%83%8F:%E7%BE%A4%E9%A6%AC%E7%9C%8C%E3%83%BB%E7%95%AA%E5%8F%B7%E4%BB%98%E3%81%8D.png which is derived from http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%94%BB%E5%83%8F:%E7%BE%A4%E9%A6%AC%E7%9C%8C%E3%81%AE%E5%B8%82%E7%94%BA%E6%9D%91%E5%A2%83%E7%95%8C.png which is derived from http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%94%BB%E5%83%8F:JpLargeMap_KantoTokai.png which has a GNU licence on it. Sorry, I don't know exactly how to link this stuff as it is from the japanese the real wiki.

Thanks for the copyright info. I've used fairuse copyright. Is that enough? Roscoe x 15:31, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've change it to {{Non-free logo}}. I guess i could put the image back to the article, right? Roscoe x 16:57, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[Section 107] of the first chapter of US copyright law regarding Fair Use dictates that, "Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright." Identifiers are as follows: (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."

And next time, introduce yourself properly on my talk page instead of tackily posting a notification message. EreinionFile:RAHSymbol.JPG 00:01, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Hi there- You left messages on my page that some of my images are possibly not free, and are marked for deletion. I took all of them myself and will release them to the public domain. How do I do so - and in the future, what method should I use when I upload P.D. images that I've taken myself? Thank you. Rmisiak 03:56, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I myself had marked the image for deletion. Its been over three weeks but it has not been deleted yet. I had added the image im my early days at wikipedia when I was not very clear abt the fair use tag. If you hav the authotrity then kindly delete the image. Gaurav1146 05:26, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Burgundavia,
Thanx for deleting the image. There are some more images added by me with similar history. I had also marked them for deletion but they have not been deleted yet. I also tried looking for suitable replacements (that come under fair use) but could not find any. I am listing the images. Kindly delete them.
Image:Myskina.jpg
Image:Zeenataman.jpg
Image:Adrienbrody.jpg
Image:Gopichand.jpg
Image:Anjubobbygeorge.jpg
Image:Prannoyroy.jpg
Image:Virsanghvi.jpg

Image:MohammedAzharuddin.jpg
Image:Sofiacoppola.jpg
Image:Robertobenigni.jpg
Image:Kuznetsova.jpg

Image:Sofiacoppola.jpg
Image:Kuznetsova.jpg
Image:Myskina.jpg
Image:Amisha.jpg TIA Gaurav1146 07:11, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx, that was really quick. I had just finished listing them and by that time I found that they were gone. Sorry, for the Image:Amisha.jpg, actually I forgot that I had replaced it by the magazine cover .

OK. Sorry to sound a bit angry here, but you tagged a bunch of images I put on wiki with "Image deletion warning" including:

• Image:200px-Ikebukuro sta2.jpg
• Image:200px-Takadanobaba station.jpg
• Image:250px-Hachiko odate.jpg
• Image:250px-Odate station.jpg
• Image:320px-Shinookubo station.jpg

I guess I wasnt clear when I said "from Japanese page" but of course I ment from WIKI Japanese page. And if you spent two seconds looking there, you'd know these are not evil pictures and they can be used on wiki. For example Shinokubo: http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%94%BB%E5%83%8F:Shinookubo_sta1.jpg Is GNU and yes when I uploaded it I didn't know how to make the tag, and if you want to put the correct tag on them, do it, but don't jump to "delete!!!" status with out a little checking around, please!! thank you. any questions, let me know. User talk:Nesnad 13:58, 24 May 2005 (UTC) more from me: good effort, trying to tag all those images. I did tell you they all have a source, the Japanese wikipedia page, they are not images you want to whack. I am busy with a project can't tag them now, if you have too much to do, I understand. If you can't, I'll tag them later when I have time to chase them down. Although, could you atleast take your "these are badddd" tags off so someone doesn't mess with them and I have to do this story again. Nesnad 14:14, 24 May 2005 (UTC) DUDE. I said they have rights. You can't run around tagging things but not give them a chance when you are told their source. If you can tag things as no source, you can tag them with their source when you learn it. It's only fair, man. Otherwise you are saying "I tag them as no source and want them to be deleted even though I've been told they are GNU and they have a source" which is silly. Yes? Nesnad 14:34, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All the photos uploaded by me are taken by myself and distributed with my permission. However, at the moment I have no physical ability to change all tags. As to the anti-BSPP cartoon it was published anonymously by an underground movement. I think it fair to say it fell in the public domain. --Soman 17:36, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy, I submitted this image and you marked it as PUIdisputed. I sent an email to Bob Gruen at his website, asking permission to use this photograph of Yoko on Wikipedia, and he was fine with it. I'm still a newbie to wikipedia, and it wasn't clear to me which copyright tag I should use. Was I wrong in assuming that it's ok to put an image on Wikipedia as long as one gets permission? WoodenTaco 20:36, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just taking a last minute flight to see where we're going (like your signature very much!). Kind regards, — mark ✎ 21:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Bijee cont..

Unlike western airports, Calicut International Airport do not have a offical website. For offical (Govt.) source of information one should see sites of Calicut (http://kozhikode.nic.in/), Malappuram (http://malappuram.nic.in/) and state Tourism Site. Hence those links are very much relavent.

Link to map of kochi was a mistake on my part, thanks for removing it.

Please understand other counties in the world are not advanced as Canada or US -Bijee 22:46, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Posted at User talk:Samuelsen:

I have already apologised for deleting your article without informing you first. In fact, I would never have done it this way if the article had been better advertised, but I didn't become aware of its existence until after I had made mine.

Anyway, shouldn't we all have as our primary goal to make the best encyclopedia possible? I think the present article, with the help of Burgundavia, is better than either one of the originals. I have left a note on its discussion page concerning alphabetization. Eixo 08:03, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just cropped the image, but was able to find out it was PDimages. Thanks for the note. :) --mav 00:27, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

regarding the photos discussed here --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rossvdlinde

The photos are available on the Rhodes University website -- www.ru.ac.za. Part of the terms and conditions of their use is outlined at http://www.ru.ac.za/administrative/it/policies/tac.php

See section 1.3:

   "Without derogating from the aforegoing, Rhodes University hereby authorises the user to view, copy, download to a local drive, print and distribute the content of this web site, or any part thereof, provided that:  
   1.3.1 such content is used for information and/or non-commercial purposes only; and  
   1.3.2 any reproduction of the content of this web site, or portion thereof, must include the following copyright notice: © Rhodes University 2005. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.  "

presumably then it will be sufficient to merely add the tag "© Rhodes University 2005. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED."?

I dont know -- all I am sure about is the fact that the university has absolutely no problem with pictures being used for non-commercial purposes.

Image deletion warning

The image Image:BRD Cluj small.gif has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it will be deleted. If you have any information on the source or licensing of this image, please go there to provide the necessary information.

Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 00:13, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, merely uploading ti does not make it GFDL. Images have to have a copyright tag. Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 07:11, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Excuse me, I didn't "merely upload it." I uploaded it from a GFDL source, which I identified. If you think that GFDL source had a copyright issue, take it up with them. Whoever uploaded it there already answered a question asserting he/she had the rights to the image (which looks like probably a personal snapshot). Why should the Romanian Wikipedia be any less trustworthy a source for this than the English Wikipedia? -- Jmabel | Talk 15:59, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • The page ro:Imagine:BRD Cluj.gif says "poză făcută de mine" (which means "picture taken by me"), presumably meaning by ro:user:Danutz, who put it there. It doesn't look like a professional photo, and I gather that he lives in Cluj, so I see no reason to doubt that. -- Jmabel | Talk 16:30, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

I dont have any information. Probably someone scaned it from newspaper. --M. Pokrajac 23:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am more than happy for you to delete the vatican image on Wikipedia. It is on commons, and doesn't need to be on both. The CD cover needs to be deleted as well, or the name changed, as it appears on the vatican city article otherwise. --Silversmith Hewwo 08:41, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It has the same name on commons, I'll give you the URL [5] Thanks, --Silversmith Hewwo 09:15, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, "lets keep it" means absolutely nothing in copyright, court, or law in general. Find us a good, well sourced and free image and then I am willing to keep it. Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 02:29, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Of course, I wrote more than "let's keep it". Anyway, see Category:Presumed GFDL images, which points out that

"assuming the image is redistributable under GFDL just because the original uploader didn't say otherwise is similar to assuming an image is GFDL just because the original uploader says so."

You have to trust people eventually, and what I meant by my comment at WP:PUI is that even if the uploader is AWOL, he can probably be trusted.

Is there anything more I have to do to formally dispute or object to the image's deletion? I hope you won't simply ignore my objection ...

By the way, if the image is replaced by a good, well sourced and free image (especially if it's higher resolution), then I'll have no objection to deleting Image:Airflow.jpg. dbenbenn | talk 03:13, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing there to lead me to believe that he took the picture. The most glaring thing is that the photo date is extimated. So, no, this is not GFDL-presumed. Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 12:34, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

You mean "estimated", right? Not knowing when you took a photo isn't very surprising. And the uploader could probably have narrowed it down closer if he had bothered. So again, I believe the uploader took the photo, and I intend to dispute its deletion. dbenbenn | talk 16:36, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Burgundavia !

You have listed The image of Image:Baldev Ram Mirdha1.jpg for delition. It has been taken from a book published and widely circulated in Jaipur. It was scanned and reduced in size to upload in Wikipedia.It is a free image used for knowledge.burdak 05:48, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your query about taking pictures myself-Yes most of the pictures on my user page were taken by me. Persons who died long back could not be photographed so the available image in books have been taken. burdak 16:46, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Corey:

I have just outlined my reasons why I have listed the map as a GDFL on the map page itself. I hope this is right and I have done it all correctly. If not, please dont hesitate to contact me again. Thank you for spotting the fact that i had not given a copyright rating. It was one of the earlier ones I worked on and I guess I justmissed it.

Cheers,

John Hill

................

Dear Corey:

I and my partner Jo Wynter (and Gisela Whitear who works for Cook Shire Council) adapted the map for use in our report. It was based on a standard map used by Cook Shire Council for many pamphlets, free handouts, etc. They keep changing the basic map to highlight whatever subject they are using it for. If there is any copyright on it, it would probably belong to Jo Wynter and myself as we are listed as the authors of the report. Jo Wynter is, of course, happy for it to be used and, so as to cover all bases, I have just contacted the Chief Executive Officer of Cook Shire Council to write a letter of permission for its use. Will scan it when I get it and send it on to you.

Cheers,

John

Hi Burgundavia, Sorry to have bothered you for forgetting to put the copyright tag on, fixed now. See Image:Capeweed_flower.jpg --Fir0002 09:38, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Um, you mentioned having "a quick look over your pictures", is there any quick way to look over my photos? I mean I've uploaded several hundred. And although I do apologize for my carelessness, no one's perfect and it's quite easy to just hit the "upload" button and only write out the description. --Fir0002 12:46, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, just spotted your tag for copyright info. This has now been clarified. There is a note on my talk page about images I upload, but I guess you must have missed it. Just for future reference: If I haven't taken a photo myself, then it's from The Regimental Photo Archives Collection, and I'm the Regimental Photo Archivist, If I upload photo's to wiki the images are free, but to anyone else they arn't. Richard Harvey 11:02, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your not the only one that's confused, over licences. Basically I'm uploading images that I don't mind people taking and using themselves, but I don't want people to abuse them or use them to earn a profit from. I don't follow the US licence system, I'm British, so is there an international licence you could suggest that falls within my requirements. I did take a look at the wiki sections on licences, but after half an hour I needed an aspirin and a lie down in a dark room. On some of my images I've put:-

{{PD-user|Richard Harvey subject to no commercial use for gain & the Image must not be modified}} Is that allowable? Richard Harvey 13:19, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think deleting them, will make the pages look a bit of a mess, Incidentally is there a way of telling how many times the articles have been viewed, ie a hits counter? Richard Harvey 13:32, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! lots of nice images, if you follow all the links from the Duke of Wellington's Regiment page you will see I've uploaded lots of images of various Dukes of Wellingtons, which are on the linked pages in the Duke of Wellington page articles, plus I've also uploaded lots of previously unkown nice photo's of Victoria Cross Recipients to the pages converted from the Victoria Cross Reference website. So if you intend to delete everything I've ever uploaded there will be a bit of a mess to sort out, editing away all the links. Richard Harvey 13:59, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't spot any info re:- free creative commons licenses? Can you clarify those or give a link to them. Richard Harvey 14:06, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! That lot took a bit of wading through, I had to get my shovel & Wellington Boots on.

In view of who I work for I think the Tag I've put on Image:DWR_Cap_Badge_small.jpg will apply to most of my work, See what you think? As for my own personal items, I will release them to the public domain. Richard Harvey 15:07, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the query. To answer your question: The passenger terminal of HKIA is a guiness world record holder for being the largest building, and the airport project is a record holder for being the most expensive. — Instantnood 17:56, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Hey - That image was created by me but based on Image:Acme2.jpg while the Image Sleuths considered what to do with it. I'm pretty sure It's not going to be used so feel free to delete it if there are any issues with it. Nrbelex ^(talk) 00:24, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At the time I don't think it had an issue requiring deletion and it was requested that somebody try to delete the black background; I went ahead and did that. If I had known the original was under consideration for deletion due to (c) issues, I would not have created the new image. Sorry if it caused you any extra work. Nrbelex ^(talk) 15:56, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed your notice on this page regarding a possible copyvio with Image:65mustang.jpg. This user in on an a WIKI-vacation and might not be aware of the situation. Perhaps as a courtesy, an email to him would give him the opportunity to correct the attribution. On his behalf, thank you. º0º hydnjo talk 18:54, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I was unable to continue conversation, I was called away on urgent business, I will have to confirm with higher authority before progressing further on Crown Copyright Tag, The UK is currently on a Public Holiday weekend, so it may take a bit of time. In the meantime these obsolete images I uploaded can be deleted, as they were replaced by updated images:-

Image:DWR Honorary Queen's Colour.JPG Image:DWR Honorary Regimental Colour.JPG Image:DWR Regulation Queen's Colour.JPG Image:DWR Regulation Regimental Colour.JPG Image:DWR CD Cap Badge.jpg Image:DWR 33rd Badge Template.jpg

Please advise regarding tags on Regimental Colours, you mentioned other tags, though these items would also be covered by CC as they are replaced & updated every 25 years, paid for by the Regiments, so they are Regimental property.

Also logo's of badges: I created those, using CorelDraw, as copies of the original logos in the archive records, again the Regiment owns the original logo's, not the Government. NB will be unable to pickup your reply before Friday. Richard Harvey 15:52, 29 May 2005 (UTC) Image:DWR Combined Badge.jpg[reply]

I did indeed create this image, and so it would normally be PD. The only thing is, I'm not sure if the music itself is yet in the public domain--Petrushka was written in the 1910s, but I don't know if it was published before the 1940s (I have one reference work to hand which suggests it wasn't, but it's not very clear). I would think that, if nothing else, the image is OK for us to use under fair use (it's a tiny excerpt from a much larger work), but I'm not sure if it should be considered PD or not. Sorry I can't be more definite. --Camembert 20:20, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The picture was taken off www.cardomain.com, where as far as I've read, images do not have copyrights. Still if you can see something regarding that subject in their page, let me know and I'll be glad to take the picture down.

Sorry for the delay in answering; I started out in Wikipedia as a means of not going crazy while I was between jobs. Now I have a couple of jobs and have found it quite hard to set some time apart and answer back queries. I've also forgot most of the typing commands and I'm having a had time posting this.

Diego440

I've added the GDFL tag; I took the picture myself. RivGuySC 02:51, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated, and replaced the needed information. You can do what's needed. Thanks for the heads up. Pacific Coast Highway 00:04, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

I'm currently in Africa, with very erratic access to the net. All imgaes will be properly tagged in due time, but the completion of the list will have to wait til I get somewhat permanent net access. All politicals maps uploaded by me are done by myself. --Soman 11:03, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be great. Also, I wonder how to tag images whose copyright belongs to organizations that a) no longer exist and b) never had any legal existance (i.e. political underground movements). Moreover, concerning the Somalia images, could a similar tag be made as on that of public use of Soviet images? --Soman 16:44, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please get back to me wrt the Rhodes University photos - it now says they're pending deletion when I've already made it clear that the university doesn't have a problem with them being used for non-commercial purposes

See by User:Ranamim - not sure about GFDL -SV|t 02:33, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Burgundavia - You need to talk to User:AntonioMartin about these two - he was the one who negotiated permission (precisely what permission I'll admit I'm not sure).

• Image:Raphael Hernandez runway.jpg
• Image:Ecuatoriana 727.jpg

Cheers Rlandmann 22:36, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You voted for Roaring Twenties, this week's Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article. Falphin 03:34, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not quite sure what seems to be the issue with images that you have listed on my talk page. Most images were taken from Wikipedia (either english or bosnian) and slightly revised. One image Image:Ferhadija.jpg I got with permission from www.ferhadija.com. Let me know if I need to provide any more information regarding these images. --Dado 03:44, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Burgundavia.

RE: the Ear Spirals image. The image is not one of mine. It was listed as an image for cleanup (Category:Images for cleanup) and I just removed the original text from the image. As regards the copyright I would check with the original uploader User:Rafti Institute, as the text I removed was 'Rafti' and he would appear to be the originator. Regards Ian Dunster 09:34, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Burgundavia The Howard Gardner images were taken with permission from an article on the author. RegardsEBlack 08:57, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, is this some kind of joke about Image:Earl_Hines.jpg? I don't see any picture there. (It says "Missing image" in the article.) Has it already been deleted? What am I supposed to do?

All the best, <KF> 13:37, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

HI, I was doing RC today and noticed the new article J. C. Penney. Some mistake, obviously, I thought, but on checking I found that the article of that name had recently been deleted. Looking at it I see that the article was a perfectly good stub for months on end, then someone grafted a copyvio onto it. Someone spotted it and listed it as a copyvio, and then, against normal procedure (revert to non-violating article) the entire article and its history were deleted. I see you marked it pending deletion in April so I guess this must have been your decision.

Please be more careful. In case you didn't know, this guy was the founder of a large chain of department stores. The article had been present on Wikipedia since September, 2003 and there wasn't a hint of copyvio until March of this year. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:50, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr. Burgundavia. I was just looking (and replying to) the comment you made on my talk page, and I realized that you made the Meta, Fr, and Simple links at the head of your page external links. This adds the little graphic with the arrow and the box to the right hand side of the link. In order to make these internal links (which they are; just in secret), you can link to them using [[:NAMESPACE:article]], so for your Meta page, (which is special: it doesn't need the leading colon) it would be:

[[meta:User:Burgundavia|Burgundavia]]

But for all language wikis, you will need to preface it with a colon. Your french page, for example:

[[:fr:Utilisateur:Burgundavia|Burgundavia]]

(Just a note: leaving the colon off of the front of language-links make it show up in the "Other Languages" bar on the left-hand side. You might also want to consider this.) You can read up about interwiki linking at:

• Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page#Links_and_URLs
• Interwiki

Not saying you must, just saying it's a cool feature of Wikipedia you might want to check out. Thanks --Imaek 23:55, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]