User talk:Zscout370/Archive 4

Hi, I checked my mail, there is no emails from you. As for the vote for deletion. If you pay attention, I mostly ignore his empty talks. I just request him to stop lying about me, and here, I am forced to get that voted, so that his lies get deleted. I have already presented evidences at to the Arbcom, he hasn't been able to support his slanders, but yet refuse to take them back. I have enough of this. He will be mentored, he can go and reporte what he percieve as abuses comming from me, any justifications for that reason, comming from him, to get that page runing are worthless. And here again, he has, underground IRCized someone to talk on my back, and get a vote changed, while his constant lobbying against members he dislike has been brought to the Arbcom, but yet, he continue with that. So, I ask this for the last time. I am included in that page, he lies about me, it is unwiki and childishtic, how should I take that? I requested, and tried to be kind with my request, he still refuse. Fadix 00:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My email mentions about the IRC support Cool Cat is trying to drum up. I also mentioned that on IRC that I found out about the deletion debate. And, Fadix, the AFD/MD/whatever it is now is very valid, since you followed the proper procedure. I also warned Cool Cat myself that he should not recreate the page (which he said on IRC that he will (I got proof, since I took a screenshot of his statement)) and I warned him to calm down once before (using strong language). I still believe this is a hitlist that he created, which pretty much is like the Stormfront list of the "Wiki Elders." I understand how you feel, and how you tried to resolve the situation, but I am just trying to be fair and suggesting to not try to esclate the attacks. Zach (Sound Off) 00:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Fadix 00:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome. I am checking his page now, and I already see what you are trying to say. at the "Stereotek (talk • contribs) a.k.a. Karl Meier (talk • contribs)" section, Karl Meier has not used Stereotek for months, so he is following the rules when switching accounts. And Karl did do the right thing and actively came out and said that Stereotek was his former account. Zach (Sound Off) 00:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I told you before, stay civil with the discussion. Zach (Sound Off) 00:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will try really hard. Can you however consider revising the personal attack(s) on that page by fadix. Such as "Get a life" comment. --Cool Cat ^Talk 01:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I told him to knock it off too. Zach (Sound Off) 01:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message, Zscout370. Eventhough I think that I am very dedicated to policies such as no personal attacks and civility (I am proud to say that in my long career as a Wikipedian, I don't think that I've made a single personal attack!), it's always nice that we remind each other that it is important for the working enviroment, that we stay polite and resonably nice to each other. I'll try to stay as polite as possible, while at the same time pointing out what I believe has been wrong with Cool Cat's behavior, regarding these issues. And no, frankly, I am not too pleased with being on that hit-list. I look forward to his mentors reaction to this question. -- Karl Meier 18:11, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome, but I am not too pleased about the list either, since there was another such list put up for deletion before (so there is precedent) and I still believe it should have been presented to ArbCom. But, I do wish to tell you one thing, as I told Fadix via email and here, Cool Cat has brought up the deletion debate on the IRC Wikipedia chat room (that was how I found out) and I remember some of the keep votes came from the IRC room. Cool Cat also used this method to get support for his RFAr. I really think the IRC room might be causing problems for yall, but I need to see if that was brought up in the RFAr. Zach (Sound Off) 18:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We did actually present the hit list as evidence at the ArbCom case, and I also mentioned that I was indeed concerned about his constant agitating on IRC (a place where we can't respond or follow what he is saying). However, you are more than welcome to make a note about what you have observed regarding his behavior on IRC, at the ArbCom page. I've visited the IRC room a few times myself to see what he's been up to, and frankly I didn't like what I saw there. Every time I was there, he was VERY active in rallying support for what I believe has been his questionable behavior. -- Karl Meier 18:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You pretty much saw what I saw, but he does sometimes post about Star Trek and his "vandal-whacking bot" posts. Zach (Sound Off) 18:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he also discuss other issues and Startrek is obviously one of his big passions... It's also quite obvious that he's very proud that he invented that "vandal-whacking bot" and the internet. -- Karl Meier 18:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I worked with Cool Cat before on the Star Trek insignia article. Me and him were in a conflict over images until user Husnock stepped in and sided with me. But I do not wish to contribute to the ArbCom, but I just wanted you to know my feelings on the matter. Zach (Sound Off) 18:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I understand your position, and frankly when I think about it, I don't think it would make things much different anyway. The case it just about to be closed I think. Hopefully the mentors that have been assigned to monitor him will make a positive difference. -- Karl Meier 18:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you want, and others wish to agree, I could try to calm down the IRC front, but I am going to wait and see what ArbCom says. Pretty much, I am asking to extend the mediation to IRC. Zach (Sound Off) 19:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually, I just made a request that he should be banned from the main IRC room, because I think it'll make the work of his mentors much more difficult if they have deal with not only Cool Cat, but also his whole IRC-Team. A few IRC mentors could of course be another solution that might help, but seriously, this guy already have 4 montors already. I don't know how many people should spend their time watching out for that guy... I am not against the idea in any way though, and if he isn't banned it would of course be a very good idea. -- Karl Meier 19:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, it will be hard to ban folks from the IRC room since every time someone is banned, they are back in and bans are cleared daily, unless it was GNAA or Sollog. Zach (Sound Off) 20:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But if you think ArbCom can help keep Cool Cat out of the room, that is fine by me. Zach (Sound Off) 20:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the technical side should be much of a problem. If the moderators there know that he shouldn't be in that IRC room and would kick him out every time he show up, then it wouldn't be very rewarding for him to go there. He'd have to say who he is to start whining... Anyway, that Sollog sure looks like a pretty scary guy! (at least on his mugshot). I've never heard about him before, and I hope I won't meet him a on a dark, lonely street! It feels great not to be Jimbo Wales... -- Karl Meier 20:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is already opposition to the plan at, you guessed it, the IRC room. There was a spam link posted by a user (not Cool Cat) to come tell ArbCom that this is a stupid idea. If the ban does not work, then you can suggest the idea that I could mediate Cool Cat while in the IRC room, if that sounds like a better idea. Zach (Sound Off) 20:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, yeah, there was apparently a whole IRC-team that jumped me there, and it all happend just within a matter of minutes! And for sure none of them liked my suggestion very much... ("Ridiculous suggestion", "this suggestion really does press the limits of good faith on your part." and what not :-)) I tried to reply and there was an edit conflict no less three times before I could respond. Anyway, I'll try to advance the idea of a mentorship instead. Right now, I'd suggest you and Kelly Martin for the job (if she wants it of course)... -- Karl Meier 21:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I got into a few edit conflicts myself, but Kelly has mentioned that she will run for ArbCom, so I believe we should let her focus on that. I mentioned I could watch Cool Cat. But if the idea is approved, then we have to see what kind of things are go/no go in the room. Zach (Sound Off) 21:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to serve as one of his mentors; I declined the position, for reasons having relatively little to do with my feelings about Cool Cat or any of the other parties involved. Kelly Martin 21:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know this may not mean much, just to say, that it's always great to witness that there are members with the integrity Wikipedia worth. You won my highest respect. Fadix 20:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While I thank you for the comments, I am just trying to be fair. Zach (Sound Off) 20:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And that was what I always asked. Fadix 21:02, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I already brought the vote for deletion at the mailing list(more relating the problematic of userpage), it is waiting approval, at least the mailing list is a transparent place, because the material is saved and storted, unlike IRC. Fadix 21:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a lot of debate about AFD recently at the mailing list, so I would not be surprise it will cause a firestorm. Zach (Sound Off) 21:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you suggest me to delete it? Maybe it was a mistake. Fadix 21:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know that I have deleted it, maybe I should let things cool down, and posting something at the mailing list, would have been like pulling fuel. Fadix 22:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me, we will let ArbCom handle it. Zach (Sound Off) 22:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zach, I just found this conversation and would like to ask that you do what you can to rein-in User:Cool Cat's behavior on IRC. I don't drop in often, but it is obvious to me that he uses it to agitate and to malign. Thanks, Davenbelle 08:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I, personally, have not seen him on IRC in the past few days, so I am not sure what is going on with him, but I am also ready to ditch IRC myself. Zach (Sound Off) 13:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have not forgotten your vote on my RfA. I thank you. --Maru (talk) 00:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, you deserved it. Zach (Sound Off) 00:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As you can discover on the newsroom page, I wrote up a story about the Special:Makesysop glitch that happened, and included the list of new admins in it. I see that you're covering that beat currently (incidentally, thanks for helping out with The Signpost) and figured you could save yourself the effort of compiling it a second time. Feel free to add to or use my story in any way. You could write up the new featured content as a separate story or merge it into mine, whichever seems more appropriate. --Michael Snow 03:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I made a brief mention of it at the Features and admin and showed a few edits explaining the situation. Zach (Sound Off) 03:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I've found your story now. I merged mine in, that seemed the best solution. --Michael Snow 04:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problems with me, thanks a bunch. :) Zach (Sound Off) 04:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please, if you can, respond to my comment about the flag on Talk:Mengjiang. Thanks. --Nlu 09:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Responded. I will just draw it myself and release it under GFDL, but not sure when I can do it. Zach (Sound Off) 16:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure about the legality of this image, but it has recently been replaced by another that can be vouched for and is of higher quality so go ahead and delete it.

-spencer

What image are you talking about? Zach (Sound Off) 22:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zach. Not sure what parts of the SFD discussion you're uclear on, but my guess is the bits about "cutting across the stub hierarchy". If so: With each major stub type (in this case bio-stub, biographies), WP:WSS has tried to keep the way its further split to one or two possible ways. Geo-stub, for instance, is split by location into separate country stubs, but not by type of feature (there is no town-stub or river-stub). In the case of bio-stubs, we've split firstly by nationality and then - because there are just so many bio-stubs - also by occupation. Even doing this raises the possibility of an enormous number of stub types if they were made ito "complex stubs" (e.g., UK-writer-stub). HRF-stub causes problems as far as this is concerned, because - while it's specific to one nationality, it cuts across the occupation stubs.

Also, from an editorial viewpoint, it's likely that any editor who knows about Heroes of the Russian Federation will also know about other Russian people, so they're likely to check the Russia-bio-stubs rather than the HRF-stubs (or, if they know about a specific occupation, they'll check something like Russia-politician-stub or any of the other complex categories that either have been or mat soon be created. Hope that helps. Grutness...wha? 23:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly did. I made it into a redirect for now, since I was asked to populate the category with more stub articles. Though, as I said before, I mianly used to the template to mark those who got the title, which also establishes notability. Zach (Sound Off) 00:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the articles that I have created have been deleted because of so-called copyright issues. See 1 & 2. I find this wrong because, 1, I did not use the source they state, infact I used books & another internet source. 2, Many other people have contributed to the articles. 3, They have been there a long time, & no one has had a problem with it. 4, The person who blocked the articles seems incompetant & foolish, & possibly a past enemy of mine. I think his name is Wikiheak or Wikiphreak. You seem like a knowledgable person, what can I do to get these unblocked, because clearly, I did not copy the info from firstworldwar.com. Sincerly, Spawn Man 00:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Both have been reverted. Thank User:Evil Monkey, who looked through the tags and saw that there was no evidence of a copyvio that took place. Zach (Sound Off) 01:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have thanked EvilMonkey for a job well done. Thank you as well. Dunno why, but thank you anyway. :)) Spawn Man 02:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to have more than one set of eyeballs looking over everything. Zach (Sound Off) 02:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for the Barnstar...now what do I do with it ? Dowew 01:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Put it on your front page :D Zach (Sound Off) 01:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was taking a look through Category:CopyrightedFreeUse and there are an awful lot of unsourced and clearly incorrectly tagged images in there- is there any automated way to weed these out? --nixie 04:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tried to, got bitched at. Try talking to JesseW, he has something. But thanks for your interest. Zach (Sound Off) 04:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks.--nixie 04:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- Francs2000 11:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Zach (Sound Off) 13:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When tagging an image as GFDL-presumed, please provide a rationale. Specifically, why did you tag Image:Vaslui in Romania.png and Image:V dr ro.png. I see no evidence that status is accurate. Superm401 | Talk 04:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the images were user made, like the other map images, unless my computer was screwing up. If you think this is not right, i'll just delete away. Zach (Sound Off) 04:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my comments at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Rhyddfrydol. While you apparently meant well, deleting the flag images was neither necessary or appropriate. Dragons flight 03:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the flag images cannot be on here because they are under licenses which Wikipedia explicitly forbids. I know I was a bit harsh when I wrote the message, but if they have come out and said that we (FOTW and WFD) have images that are only to be used for non-commercial purposes, then websites like Wikipedia have to respect that. I actually got complaints from other FOTW users on our mailing list about our (FOTW) images were being used by Wikipedia with no credit to us. While I see yalls viewpoint about flag images not being copyrighted, but I personally believe that if Wikipedia only allows both commercial and non-commercial uses for images, but the other websites do not, then the images have to go. There have been some flags that I redrew in the past, so we could at least avoid some of the messes we are in right now. But frankly, I am still going to continue, since these images are contradicting Wikipedia rules on images since they are non-commercial images. Zach (Sound Off) 04:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From a legal perspective, that is bullshit. FOTW and WFD simply can not assert a copyright over an image in the public domain. FOTW and WFD are making claims that we have no legal obligation to respect and hence the images should remain. Dragons flight 04:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So, because they are flag images, they are public domain no matter what? So no matter who drew it, it has to be PD? I still do not believe this. Zach (Sound Off) 04:25, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The requirement for copyright is creativity. Courts have explicitly rejected the notion that effort matters at all. If you are simply copying an image in the public domain then the result is in the public domain, period. They fact that they are reproduced to exacting standards of colors and dimensions only makes the whole thing even more mechanical. If they were drawn in unusual colors or altered in some way then they could be creative. Someone reproducing a flag by rote to match some standard can not claim a copyright any more than I get to claim copyright on a photocopy or get one for manually retyping Hamlet. Dragons flight 04:32, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Dragons flight. If the image is PD, it's still PD, doesn't matter who draw it, unless the drawer changes something. Reproduction isn't passible of copyright. Deleting the images is too drastic, just adding the FOTW template would do in my opinion. --BLOGuil 15:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That was what I have done with many of the images is add the FOTW template, but another user in the past added the {tl|noncommercial}} tag to it. The noncommercial tag is just a deletion warning, but many others I deleted were either orphans, only used on one "gallery" page or that I replaced myself with a free-er image. An example would be the Red Army flag: I drew it myself in SVG and replaced the version from FOTW. As for BLOGuil's comments, usually, FOTW images are in the height of 216 pixels, so that is what I have been looking for in the past few days. Zach (Sound Off) 15:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise posted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dragons_flight#Flag_images. Zach (Sound Off) 19:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think calling someone a "jerk" is severe enough to justify an immediate indefinite unilateral ban (I would do that in the case of a much more severe personal attack, particularly one that were sexist, racist, homophobic or anti-Semitic). An RFA would be the appropriate route - the ArbComm can look at AVD's behaviour (ie personal attacks etc) and determine the level and length of punishment. I think some sort of immediate tempban is in order, I'd suggest 48 or 72 hours. I do think AVD has clearly violated the "no personal attacks" rule and this is just the latest example so you would be quite justified in filing an RFA as well (as you know you don't have to be a direct party to the dispute to file an RFA). Homey 21:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In the note I presented when I banned AVD, he said to ban him. And since ArbCom was pretty much no help, since he was sent their twice, this was going to be his third time around, he always broke his probation, so I figured the only way it stops is with this ban. While I am not a major party of the RFC, I will be very happy to help make comments at the RFAr. Zach (Sound Off) 21:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only aware of one RFA (the one I wrote). When was the second?

To be fair, in my case AVD "resigned" from Wikipedia shortly after the RFA was commenced so the process was suspended. It was reinitiated when he returned several months later but I withdrew it for various reasons (mostly because AFD agreed to stop the behaviour that prompted the RFA - ie posting my real name - and also agreed to remove various libellous statements he'd posted about me on another site (statements he'd made because of our conflict here). Are you counting that RFA as two (understandable given the interruption of several months) or is there another one I'm unaware of?Homey 22:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok, the second RFA was the restarting of the first case. The third case would have been the one we would have started, until I banned AVD. Zach (Sound Off) 22:56, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, it's not a great practice for admins to impose indefinite bans without the ArbComm's involvement unless the violation in question is particularly egregious (eg User:Amalekite's list of "Jewish controlled" admins which he posted on Stormfront). You should at least inform the ArbComm that you have indefinitely banned AVD so they can review the banning if they see fit. Homey 22:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That was why I placed the note of the ban at the RFC page. Also, other users were banned during the process of ArbCom recently, such as user:XAL, even before the cases were closed. You are welcome to let the other parties know about this exchange. Zach (Sound Off) 23:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really interested in pursuing this, particularly as, in my judgement, AVD is an indefinite ban waiting to happen. However, you should review Wikipedia:Blocking policy carefully and make sure you're on solid ground just in case AVD puts forward a complaint against you for abusing your admin powers. If after you reviewing the policy you are unsure that an indefinite ban is supported by wikipedia policy, you should consider putting a term of one month or less on the ban (I believe one month is the usual maximum term an admin can slap on a "repeat offenders" without either some sort of ArbComm ruling or an exceptional circumstance or an especially egregious case.)Homey 23:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Homey is, I am quite confident, far more aware of the protocols around blocking than am I, so you should heed his advice. I, on the other hand, am very glad that you finally put us all out of AVD's misery. He has soaked up other people's time like a great big thirsty sponge. While I would prefer a Wikipedia in which evryone is welcoome to participate, there comes a time when you have to make the tough decision that someone is working against the broader interests of the project, and boot them out. If I can be of assistance, Zach, in defending your decision, please let me know. Ground Zero | t 23:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Homey, it says at [1] that "Though rare, there have been situations where a user has exhausted the community's patience to the point where they find themselves blocked even though there is, strictly speaking, no basis in policy for the block. Administrators who block without policy basis should be sure that there is exceptional, widespread community support for the block." Being on One RFAr already (alibet it was stoped and started up again), broke the deals he made with Slim Virgin and you, got himself into other messes that resulted in a RFC a month at the RFAr case was closed. And dispite efforts from me to help (I offered mediation, but that was not accepted), he kept on attacking people. I personally believe that there is nothing we could do and the whole cycle will just continue. I would be happy to reverse the block if the community saids I need to, but in the case, I highly doubt it. Zach (Sound Off) 23:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, as long as you're able to explain how AVD is an exception... Homey 00:13, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I should be able to. Zach (Sound Off) 00:14, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Check DojoPress.com It still says suspended on my computer. Maybe it is cached? There are some parts that you can see but you cannot see items for sale (books, memberships, tapes, etc.)

I figured with Ashida's site back up, I figured DojoPress should be back up, since I think they are hosted on the same servers by the same people. Zach (Sound Off) 00:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contribution at 2005 South Asia earthquake. Please keep it up!!! Pradeepsomani (talk)

Quite welcome. If you find any other photos that have copyright issues, come see me please. Zach (Sound Off) 03:54, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just noticed your edit on above where you replaced the flag with an SVG file. however, the latter is not representative of Indian flag (pl. see the difference in colour (saffron vs. red), alignment of the wheel and spread of the spokes in the two versions). Shall I revert? More importantly, can you make the previous flag version into the standard SVG file? Thanks, --Gurubrahma 06:53, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I could try to make the changes myself. Just show me where the correct colors are listed and I could have the image done hopefully soon. Zach (Sound Off) 07:04, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of India, which is a featured article would have most of the details you need. Thanks a ton! --Gurubrahma 10:29, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I talked to Nichalp last night, he would do it, but I can always beat him to it. Zach (Sound Off) 17:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a ton, looks much better. Gr8 work!! -Gurubrahma 05:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome. Zach (Sound Off) 05:26, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could you upload your work in commons:? Some of your work (eg. Image:Flag of the Netherlands.svg) are not available there. If you upload to commons, other wikimedia projects can share it. -- ChongDae 00:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. I mainly upload the flags here so I could get criticism before I send them to the commons. Zach (Sound Off) 01:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moved. Zach (Sound Off) 01:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please vote for our good old friend LordAmeth for his adminship here? I'm sure he would greatly appreciate having such a valued member of Wikipedia like yourself vote for him. Spawn Man 04:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Zach (Sound Off) 04:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot!!! I'll make sure LA knows... Spawn Man 05:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just have him look in the support column. Zach (Sound Off) 05:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip about tagging unsourced orphans! The images I list on WP:IFD generally haven't had the {{no source}} tag on them for a week, so I can't list them for speedy deletion straight away. (They come from WP:UI, meaning that they aren't tagged at all.) Are you saying that it's better to tag them {{no source}}, wait a week, and then mark them for speedy deletion, rather than listing them immediately on on IFD? —Caesura^(t) 08:03, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If they are orphaned and have no source/no copyright, administrators can delete them on sight. This also applies to unused fair use images. That is what we admins were told to do by Jimbo, which cut down on a lot of images sent to IFD. But, since you are doing a good job at IFD, maybe in a few days, I could nominate you to have the same admin tools that I do to make the image deletion process easier on you. :D Zach (Sound Off) 14:53, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll mark them for speedy deletion from now on. Thanks again for taking the time to let me know about this! (By the way, in case you were serious about the adminship nomination: please, there's no need to nominate me. I'd probably decline a nomination anyway. I'm sort of an on-and-off Wikipedian, and I think I have only about 1100 edits in my history anyway. But I'm flattered by the suggestion.) Cheers! —Caesura^(t) 18:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you take a quick look at this one and help get a suitable picture for the Fauna of Australia FAC? - Mgm|^(talk) 20:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the photos I could find were from Aussie schools. Zach (Sound Off) 01:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am through with ranks of China, Russia and now India...so I am going on another WikiBreak, this time not out of anger...just wanted to tell you so you can see about Saudi ranks or other. Thanks, Molotov (talk) 00:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty. I am thinking about taking a break myself. Zach (Sound Off) 02:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the image myself. I own the website that has that photo. I don't need to put my sources!

Yes, you do. Then go to the page of the image and put exactly what you put here on there. I would also include the website too. Zach (Sound Off) 02:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm just posting a friendly notice stating that I have got Brain Teasers on my user page that you're welcome to have a go at. Will post new questions one day after they have been answered. Thanks... Spawn Man 05:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What's up Zach? The article isn't bad in itself, but definitely needs more info for a FAC status. I'll try and find some additional material, even though it looks like you covered most of the things. Cheers! KNewman 14:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Zach. I have seen the block log recently and I can't help but wonder why you're leaving the wiki. The wiki has a few problems, with the dog piles, newbie biting, etc. But ever since your inception you've been a generally well liked user and an asset to the project. How many FA's do you have anyway? 5? Hopefully you'll reconsider. Cheers, Redwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?) 00:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, you're a great contributor. Your work is much appreciated throughout Wikipedia. Ral315 W_S 00:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What he said, and check your email. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No idea what the problem is – obviously something I haven't been following – but please, please don't go. You're very well liked and respected here. Honestly, we need you. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 01:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't do it, whatever it is, it isn't worth leaving. -- Essjay · Talk 01:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wha? Hey Zach man - the wiki needs people like you. Come back! Grutness...wha? 01:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, drop by on irc sometime and explain your reasons for leaving. And hopefully you can make it a wikibreak rather than a permanent break. Either way do please explain what's up so we can sort stuff out in future eh? :-) Kim Bruning 01:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I always appreciated your help on the articles I watch- you know which ones. I sincerely hope you will come back, and retroactively make this a vacation than a parting of the ways. --Maru (talk) 01:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

		An Award
		I award you this Graphic Designer's Barnstar for your graphic design work on...well... barnstars. Spawn Man 02:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was giving this award to you Zach, when I noticed you had left your user page?!? Don't go, we'll miss you too much Zachy... I'm sure it's not worth leaving & admitting defeat for what ever it is that would force you to leave? Please come back!! I'll even start the "Bring Back The Zach" fund if I have to... Spawn Man 02:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

:( --Coffee 02:19, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zach, I just wanted to let you know how much I value the work you've done on Wikipedia, and to thank you for the tremendous stuff you've done so far. I know it is something of a cliché, but, I would like to add my name to the others above to say that I do sincerely hope that you make this a temporary wikibreak rather than a permanent one, and that you do come back to Wikipedia. If you would like someone to talk to, do please find me on IRC at #wikipedia, e-mail me, or drop me a note on my talk page; I'd be pleased to be able to help you out, and I promise not to try to persuade you to come back. :-) If you really are leaving, I would like to wish you the very best for the future, and let you know that we'll be thinking of you. Peace, love, and best wishes, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) (e-mail) (cabal) 03:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind messages, but I believe this is most likely not a temp vacation. I am personally leaving the project for a few reasons:

1. Ineffectiveness of me being an adminstrator. I have swore to yall that I will not let you down when dealing with image issues. Lately, I have since I have been prevented from dealing with it effectively and quickly. No matter what course I take, I get flame mail and greetings of Sieg Heil.
2. The work I have done, lately, has been considered to be useless utter crap and when trying to make it not crappy, I get no help.
3. College. Zach (Sound Off) 04:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We don't care if your works sucks. Most of ours does too at a time, (Well not mine cause I'm soo awesome... see, I made a joke...). It's nothing to quit over. I don't think you're a quitter. At least you don't get pictures of both Hitler & Helen Clark like I do... So please Zach, come back.... (Hey it rhymes, it's meant to be...)... Spawn Man 04:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mine suck, just look at my contributions. I'm running SPATRA for the time being, and I've translated 25 KB of text from Spanish almost without any help, so you're not alone on that one. But don't quit. You haven't let us down with the images. I'm not familiar the entire issue, but go ahead and tell me why on my talk page. And just ignore flamers, they're jealous because they don't have the admin bit and you do. Someone had to do the dirty image work after Jimbo's proclamation, and you stepped up to the plate to do it. That's to be commended. Seriously, you should take a Wikibreak, or just stay away from the image namespace for a week or so. And anything I can be good for, contact me on my talk page. Titoxd^(?!?) 06:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You might think it's not a temporary vacation now, but trust me, you'll be back. Mwahahahaha!!! ;) Seriously, you do great work. I appreciate it and always have. We like having you around, as you can see by all the words of kindness left on your user page. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m, +e ] 07:07, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zach, I realize that I have been one of the people that has contributed to your stress level over the last week, but I have never doubted that you have been acting with the best of intentions. Personally, I hope that you take a wiki-break, take some time to avoid controversial or complicated issues, and then come back to the fold and find your equilibrium again. Dragons flight 07:14, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikibreaks come in all shapes and sizes, my last was twelve hours and I think Zoe's was two years. Whenever your's finishes and whatever shape it takes, the place will be poorer for your absence. See ya round like a rissole, - brenneman^(t)(c) 07:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've never really been clear on all the different Zscouts. But whether it was Zscout370, Zscout369, or even Zscout001, I always counted on having one or another Zscout around. We'll miss all 370 of you. Cheers, -Willmcw 08:32, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear the news. It was a pleasure to work with you when I had the chance. Good luck with your other endeavors. 172 | Talk 09:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Resigning as admin and leaving altogether for the first two stated reasons above - now that really would be letting us down! As for your third stated reason: if your studies are suffering, go and concentrate on them for a while - I expect that will affect your career, while this won't. Some of us take Wikipedia to be a hobby, not a life:-) No-one is expected to contribute more than they are able, and you are valued here more than somewhat. Hope to see you back contributing whatever you can, with admin "powers". With very best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk 09:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

File:Esperanza.Fhloston.jpg

I heard you are leaving, why? I know Wikipedia can be really really frustrating sometimes, but at least stay on as a user, no point in throwing everything away, it's your work and effort that went into this. Gryffindor 10:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gone for good?? Please e mail me at djuanbracey@yahoo.com and tell me about what is upsetting you. There have been times that I want to leave - I consider this a temporary stay now. Please don't leave Wikipedia. Molotov (talk) 21:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Take care, Molotov (talk) 21:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, don't leave us! Zach, truly, we need more editors like you. Even though we haven't worked together much lately, I still remember fondly as the one who really made me feel welcome here on Wikipedia, just because you left a message on my talk page about the Pope John Paul II article. Please rethink your departure, or at least take a bunch of time off, and then re-evaluate your Wikipedia status. I for one would love to see you back. Cheers, Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 03:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I still might hang around if ArbCom wants me to. There is a currently a case I had re-opened, so I am going to see if ArbCom needs anything from me or they can let me go. Thus, I seriously think people will not honor my request to be de-sysoped, so I will drop that request as of now. Plus, if yall feel like restoring my userpage, go right ahead, but still leave my "gone" notice. I am trying to make the exit as painless as possible. Zach (Sound Off) 06:05, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your reasons for leaving, and I only understand one of them (College). First off, being an administrators isn't key. We're really just normal editors with the ability to do a few extra things. You don't have to use your adminpowers to continue being an excellent user. Secondly, your work is not crap. One does not get three FA's writing crap. You do not write crap. That said, everyone still wishes you the best. Cheers, Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 18:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Zach. I really don't want to put any pressure on you, but I'd like you to consider a less drastic way of reducing wikistress. First of all, my understanding is that having admin powers is not a big deal. The success of your RfA was overwhelming, a proof of how highly you're regarded here. Since you get admin status through the votes of the people, you normally need to show beforehand that you've been busy and active, building up Wikipedia, as well as showing that you're the kind of person who won't abuse those powers. However, as long as an admin doesn't subsequently abuse his admin powers, there's absolutely no reason why he has to show that he's doing a lot of sysop chores. Many admins do, but some don't, and that's fine. You've shown us that you can be trusted. If you're busy with college work, why not come to Wikipedia once or twice a week as an editor? Whether or not you block vandals and protect pages and delete images in the next few months is entirely up to you. It doesn't matter that you have the technical ability to do these things. Just log on, do a little bit of editing on an article that you find fun or relaxing, and then go back to your college work. I often use Wikipedia as a hobby between assignments and revision. In fact, I'm going on a week-long wiki-break after posting this message. Do stay around. If you need help, ask for it. There are too many people who want you to stay – but stay in a way that doesn't take up too much time or lead to abuse. Best wishes. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 17:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Zach, please reconsider. You're far too valuable an editor to lose. Let me know if there's anything I can do. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

:( :( :( :( :( --JAranda | watz sup 17:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I come back every so often to answer questions and comments, like the meetup notice I got below. Zach (Sound Off) 00:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ZScout, in an effort to keep you from leaving, I have brought User:Jimbo_Wales to San Diego. Not really, but I do sincerely hope you don't leave. Also, Jimbo really is coming to San Diego, and he really is going to attend a Meetup. I hope you can join us. Please see my talk page for more info. Hope to see you there! Johntex\^talk 17:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry man, I got classes at Palomar. Zach (Sound Off) 00:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your long list of fans beseeches you to come back after taking a well-deserved break:

1. Ground Zero | t 17:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. —HorsePunchKid→龜 20:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. Joolz 23:43, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. Alphax ^τεχ 00:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. User:Jenmoa 04:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC) Didn't I just vote in your unanimously approved RFA? Don't go![reply]
6. Approve: But do what is best. (SEWilco 05:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
7. Take a break if you need one, but then come back. You do much useful work and - whether you believe it or not - create very good articles. (I've even broke out my "classic" sig for this support!) Grutness|^hello? 11:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
8.  Grue  12:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
9. You dont have to do the hard jobs always. Stick around and do the fun stuff. Justinc 15:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
10. Take a break if necessary, but remember that there's a lot of fun stuff to do here. Titoxd^(?!?) 22:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
11. Approve - Hope to see you around. - Tεxτurε 22:32, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    On a side note, I am glad that yall are putting my vote icons into use. Zach (Sound Off) 02:54, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

12. Bring Back The Zach, Bring Back The Zach Please come back zach....you're giving me a hernia, what ever that is... Spawn Man 03:09, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
13. 'File:Smilie.gifMolotov File:Caranimationforvmolotov.gif (talk) e
    ' 03:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC) I just saw you edit!!!![reply]
14. Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 16:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    I am still answering questions from people. Zach (Sound Off) 03:18, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I missed a few things here, so I don't know the whole the story, but I don't think you should leave altogather. I'm also in collage, and its hard to compete in collage with all these outside distractions. And the poin of putting "crap" on wikipedia is so that it will be refined in time: your not expected to created beautiful jewerly, just show us where we can find the stone and we will all work on it from their. Lastly, being an admin means you are uniquly suited to helping people. Even if you feel your contributions latly have been bad you still have a badge and gun so to speak, and your presence in the community with these tools can help us all, even if you don't see it.

At the very least, consider these points before you leave; but if you're sure you want to leave, then "Goodbye, Farewell, and Amen" TomStar81 07:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have pretty much stopped activity here and just focued more on StepMania, college and also been drawing flags for the Commons. But I am just burnt out of what has been going on here and I just need to get away from it all. I am just trying to make this as painless as I possibly can. Zach (Sound Off) 07:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing -all the criticsm of your actions has disappeared into an archive within hours! I was just posting to let you know that I have asked Jimbo to review the policy with regard to personal images, and ask his acolytes to show a bit of commonsense. jimfbleak 16:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Something similar to what you suggsted was posted onto Jimbo's talk page, but there was no response IIRC. Zach (Sound Off) 16:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your unquestioning obedience to authority figures must make you immensely popular with your teachers, but is making you no friends here. I just can't understand why you're so unwilling to give active uploaders a chance to add a tag to their own images by letting them know. Is it just laziness, or an unwillingness to deviate in any way from your master's dictats (at least he thinks you're wonderful)?

I thoroughly agree. You just removed several pics from the UNM site that came straight from the UNM web-site. If you had given any warning whatsoever, tags could have been added. Instead I have to reload everything. You are the triumph of form over substance. Your interest in Belarus must manifest itself in mindless obedience. - Laszlo Panaflex 04:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My interest in Belarus has absolutely nothing to do with the image deletions. Plus, several administrators talked to Jimbo Wales today, and he said that we have a major backlog of these images that contacting every user would not only add another waiting period and by contacting people would be wasting valuable time. Zach (Sound Off) 04:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A comment in the Discussion section would have done the trick. Simple courtesy, Zach. Laszlo Panaflex 04:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing Laszlo, please read WP:NPA. Zach (Sound Off) 04:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I never envisaged this running on and on like this, I assumed that you would be prepared to act in a reasonable way, like most contributors, but you are apparently determined to stick to the letter of your intructions, and abuse your admin status (in spirit if not in the letter). Grow up. jimfbleak 16:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just came across two of Tannin's excellent photographs of a Spangled Drongo and Red-necked Stint listed for summary deletion, despite being clearly marked as his own images. I've warned him of these, but you could do the decent thing for once, and let him know which others of his many excellent photos you are going to destroy, so that he has the chance to tag.

I'm sure he will leave Wikipedia if his valid work is savaged by you or others like you, and I know which of the two of you would be the greater loss. jimfbleak

When I went to Red-necked Stint, the photo was already removed. As for it's deletion, I am not sure yet. Zach (Sound Off) 17:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, my apology for the comment on Tannin's page. It's just that I feel more strongly about the sheer inflexibility of this damaging policy than any other Wikiissues. When you upload an image and mark it as personal, you are stating you hold the copyright. Contributions to wikipedia are, as it states, under the GFDL. If the copyright holder uploads under that condition, and establishes that it is his/her own image, where is the need for gratuitous deletion? jimfbleak 18:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Most like what happened was that while the image was tagged "I did it," but {{GFDL}} might not have been tagged on the image, so it was placed with {{nolicense}}. And, when Jimbo made the policy, me and others went in and shot down the images. As for you feeling strongly about this issue, I do not blame you. Others have voiced concern not only about my method of deletion, but mainly the policy change was done without anyone's consent. While I have no problems with Jimbo making this policy on the fly, others have issues with it. But personally, I have screwed up a lot on the early deletions. I even slowed down on the deletions unless they were orphaned or a clear copyviolation. I just think what we both need is just to calm down, think of fluffy bunnies and try to avoid this issue. I am going to draw some SVG images now, probably work on a school paper. But if you have any more questions about the whole idea, just let me know. Zach (Sound Off) 20:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I have no problem with the policy, just the means of implementation. I take note of what you've said above, and whilst I'm still not happy, I'll let it rest for now. jimfbleak 05:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And jim, you are not the only unhappy person. I am sorry if what I did made you upset, but I am taking your suggestions in mind and talking to people now. Zach (Sound Off) 05:23, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Following the archiving of this issue, it remains unclear whether the image for Yvonne Fletcher's article was "properly" deleted, and if there is any doubt that it was not, when you will be restoring it. Please clarify. 203.198.237.30 05:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you feel the deletion was not proper, then what you can do is search for that photo again, re-upload it and tag it with a license and a source. Zach (Sound Off) 05:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Forget it, I did it myself. Now, look at the new image I uploaded and see how to source an image and how to tag an image. If you still have any questions, come see me. Zach (Sound Off) 06:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are a true wikipedia hero. You'll muscle through the bad-feeling soon enough. Cowboy up! Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:08, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am just focusing on some SVG flag drawings and some school stuff. Thanks for the support. Zach (Sound Off) 20:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I mistakenly edited my page from this account. I will update this from my original Waqasfarooq account later when the page will be unlocked!

Thanks for informing me! Next time I will be careful. Regards Waqas Farooq

Edited page from Digitalsniper 27 September 2005

If you meant by your normal account being blocked, I checked http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AWaqasfarooq and it says that you are free to use the account. However, there is not a name change being done at all, since some program is down. So what I suggest is that you put a notice on the Digitalsniper account page that this is your second account. However, I also strongly advise to you that you use this second account less often, since the use of such accounts is strongly discouraged. I also suggest that you note vote with the Digitalsniper account, since voting using sockpuppets (technically, that is what your second or more accounts are called) is disallowed. Thanks you joining us and hopefully enlighten us about Pakistan and other things that you would like to share with us.

BTW, since you said you were from Pakistan,is there a website where I can get a drawing of the Pakistan flag? I like to draw flags for this website. Thanks again and if you need anything else, stop by and let me know. Zach (Sound Off) 06:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here's is the source on the Hiss photo [2]; "Alger Hiss with U. N. Charter (and its own parachute)". I don't see copyright info anywhere on the site. It's probably an old newspaper (UPI?) photo. nobs 16:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged the image as {{Fairuse}} since it is not in the public domain just yet. Zach (Sound Off) 22:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For all those tedious edits that you did (or made something else do). Kelly Martin 19:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kelly :). Zach (Sound Off) 22:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete American Chess Association claiming that it's not a real organization? It's somewhat obscure (maybe too obscure to deserve an article) and it's the subject of some controversy because of Stan Vaughan's friction with the USCF, but it's a real organization. I joined in the late 90's and they sent me a membership and TD kit (3-ring binder with score sheets, pairing charts, stuff like that) and they listed me on their web page. They have run and rated a number of events, mostly in the Las Vegas area. Opinions can of course vary on the validity of those ratings. Phr 23:26, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There was a user by the name of Sam Slone who tagged the article as a candidate for speedy deletion on August 29th and he gave his reasoning, which was quite longer than the article itself. From what I could tell earlier, it was made into a redirect, since the article was very short for a really long time and saw no additions to it. However, I deleted the article based on the CSD and it's reasoning. I know little about chess (though I play it myself on occasion) and I believe what Sam Slone said was true. While the deletion summary might have been harsh, but that is what I mainly got out of the notice was that this group did not exist. However, what I do suggest is that if there is an article on Mr. Vaughan, you could add this bit about the ACA to it. I hope this explains everything and if not, I will be welcome to undelete it and see what happens on WP:AFD. Zach (Sound Off) 23:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, please do undelete. I put a request on WP:VFU before realizing I was supposed to discuss it with you first. Sam Sloan is another controversial chess figure, on the pro-USCF side. He's knowledgeable and has written a lot of WP chess articles, some worthwhile, others not. You shouldn't consider him (or anyone) infallible. In general, as someone on VFU put it, if the "speedy" reason requires an essay longer than the article itself, it should go to AFD and not get a speedy. Phr 01:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is the thing, you and Sam know your chess, I do not. But, the page is going to be undeleted now. Zach (Sound Off) 02:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but Sam's edits are still deleted and those are probably the most interesting ones (even if they're wrong). Supposedly there was a 1.5 page essay requesting the speedy deletion. Can that be restored? See the VFU entry about the page, from today.

But his explaination is included with the speedy delete tag, as in {{db|His long comment}}. Including that restoration, people will see the speedy tag and delete it again, causing the cycle to start all over again. Zach (Sound Off) 06:03, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There was a discussion about the page on VFU so it shouldn't get speedy-deleted again. How about restoring the version with the comment so that it appears in the revision history but isn't on the current version of the article. I can find the comment in the history that way to use material from it. Does that work? Thanks. (I don't understand about the db template).

Template db is a speedy delete notice, but I could restore it later (I have classes in a little bit). Zach (Sound Off) 13:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'd appreciate that. If you're not comfortable restoring the remaining deletes, maybe you could just plop the contents onto my talk page. I'm actually interested in seeing Sloan's take on the situation. Phr 22:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I put it on the article's talk page. Zach (Sound Off) 22:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think I saw that fragment before, maybe in World Chess Federation. I may try to use some of it. I've already updated the ACA article a little bit, but some more should be said. Whether it's worth doing the research over something as inconsequential as this--shrug. Phr 03:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. Zach (Sound Off) 03:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zach. Why do you upload flags here, instead of at the Commons? I've nominated Image:Flag of Japan.svg for deletion at WP:IFD. dbenbenn | talk 05:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can test images here, get criticism and fix them before they get sent to the Commons. No need for the IFD, I will kill it now. Zach (Sound Off) 06:01, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a source for this image? Zach (Sound Off) 21:01, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately no. That's before I knew any better, and assumed it was PD. I think I had a source at the time, but think it should definately be deleted now. ∞Who?¿? 23:25, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Zach (Sound Off) 23:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious how we can fix it up to workable status. Also, SPUI seems to have some kind of grudge against it and/or me. Karmafist 01:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You can still give it out. But as for SPUI, I am not sure what he is doing, but I have not been back to the Barnstar page for a while. Zach (Sound Off) 01:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you mean [3]. I think what SPUI did might be funny to some people, but I believe that you made the right decision. He has been blocked before, most recently for moving WP:AFD back to WP:VFD. Zach (Sound Off) 01:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow the history and the page seem to have been screwed up as it had a source when I uploaded it. Fixed now. Agriculture 04:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Zach (Sound Off) 04:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, Ag, but Zach was within Jimbo's new policy; It took me a while to learn this, but I vindicated his actions and name in Jimbo's talk page. I still think a week's notice would be good -but given limited manpower ... and low rate of pay --uh, are we paid at all... ha ha. you get the picture.--GordonWatts 05:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But I know people are still unhappy with the new policy. Jimbo came into the Wikipedia chat room (#wikipedia on the Freenode IRC network) and said that we should not try to get rid of this as fast as possible, since we are dealing with over 20000 images. While I contacted some, some users have been gone for months, so those could be shot on sight. I also have been deleting orphans too. Thanks for the support Gordon. Zach (Sound Off) 05:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, Zach; PS: You gave a good and detailed answer on Jimbo's page I don't know if it will do any good, but Terri Schiavo needs support too, both in her Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Terri Schiavo nomination and Terri Schiavo's regular page -which is now locked due to edit warring. See her talk page. She is in need of assistance. So many have let her down in the past, and now her page is abused.--GordonWatts 05:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will see what I can do, since other folks are drawing SVG images of flags. Also, a similar response is on your talk page. Zach (Sound Off) 05:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded this image just to see if it is of use to you. I didn't want to simply replace your SVG flag so I thought i'd let you do it. Didn't know if this is the best way to contact you. Hope it is! Lewispb 09:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While it is a good idea, usually animated images are highly discouraged on Wikipedia. Also, the licensing is kinda bad, since Free images (GFDL, Public domain) are better than fair use images. Zach (Sound Off) 13:05, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I got that from your first message so I uploaded another! Here:

File:Belarus flag waving restaurant.jpg

Yes, perfect! Thank you! I owe you one big time! Zach (Sound Off) 22:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Zach! I haven't "seen" much of you recently, because we're no longer editing the same page so frequently as before. However, I do occasionally "snoop" at your talk page, and it seems that you've been getting quite a lot of abuse since becoming an admin. I just wanted to say you're doing a good job, and I hope you won't get discouraged! Regards. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 20:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ann, thanks for the words of encouragement. I mainly left the Benedict XVI article since while I was being attacked personally left and right, the same people were wanting my help, and I wanted no part of it. I hope the article is calm now, though with Jtdirl leaving, I think we were dealt a major blow. Zach (Sound Off) 22:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you delete this Image:Steve Jobs2.jpg no source image. Its been tagged since 12 June. I just orphaned it. Nothing personal about Jobs... Justinc 00:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Zach (Sound Off) 01:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

you're welcome, of course! and I keep forgetting I'm on wikibreak ... Antandrus (talk) 03:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

:). Zach (Sound Off) 03:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know of any tools that allow conversion of .swf (Macromedia Flash -- vector) or .swft (Swift3D -- Vector) files into SVG? That'd be nice, because I'm way too lazy to learn SVG ;) — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 04:01, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, though it will be hard to just "convert" anything into SVG. Zach (Sound Off) 04:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave a note on my talk page about whether you plan on doing the Features and admins report again this week...I'm assuming that you plan on doing it, but please confirm either way. Ral315 W_S 20:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to. Zach (Sound Off) 20:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I was orphaning this image so that it could be safely deleted (because there is an identical PNG version). One of the instances of this image is in User talk:Zscout370/Archive 2; I tried to change it, and noticed then that the page was protected. So, could you please change it? And while you're at it, could you please change also the image on this article which is also protected?
Thanks in advance. --Fibonacci 21:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Zach (Sound Off) 21:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Fibonacci 21:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing, if there is any image in my talk archive, just delete it, I will not miss it. Zach (Sound Off) 21:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good running into you again... I'm on the prowl for able researchers in history to take a look at a rather troubling category for deletion page. If you have time, please take a look. Thanks. 172 | Talk 23:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the cat should go, since from working at Belarusian related articles, many people in the West agree that Lukashenko is a dictator, but people from the CIS nations think he is great or not a dictator. It is a POV laden term, such as terrorist. As my friends use to say, One mans dictator is one man's beloved leader. Zach (Sound Off) 23:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I am glad to run into you again. Zach (Sound Off) 23:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good observation. Belarus is a particularly difficult country to categorize... Thanks for taking a look. 172 | Talk 00:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your quite welcome. Zach (Sound Off) 00:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think yet another one of these dedicated people want to leave (again) User:V. Molotov -

Who is trying to leave now? If it is me, then do not alarm. I wanted to get my talk page a new start, thats all. Zach (Sound Off) 02:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, V. Molotov, I think he is at it again Somethings must really piss him off around him. I know him personally (we met at Phillips Exeter Academy - where I used to be a dean)

Tell me what is fully going on please. Zach (Sound Off) 03:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, from what I saw on your talk page, you have tried to leave before. IMHO, I think people who leave a lot, like Ta bu, usually will get ignored if they keep on leaving and coming back. Zach (Sound Off) 03:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

According to some of his edit summaries, this stay was only quite temporary - he was planning to leave for quite some time, but says he has an "addiction" to the site. So he asked to be blocked on the help desk (I've looked at his stuff for quite a while). Four articles that he created are being questioned - and it seems to make him upset.

We cannot block for Wikibreaks, though I broke that rule myself when I blocked myself. I decided to just get a break and just quit being an admin. Zach (Sound Off) 05:58, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help :) — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-22 16:01

One thing I noticed: is this something in order to get articles to Wikipedia 1.0 standard? If that is the case, I will check the image copyrights on the FA's I have done. Most of the ones on Order of Canada cannot be used, but most of the ones at Hero of Ukraine I did, so we can use those. Zach (Sound Off) 18:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was my pleasure to copyedit the intro to Hero of the Russian Federation -- the text was good to work with :P - Fenrus 04:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of people at Wikipedia have permanantly left the project, myself included. :) Snowspinner 06:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I tried doing that myself and look at what happened. Zach (Sound Off) 06:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain what you are goals are in replacing the Venezuela flag image? I thought at first that it was vandalism, replacing the official design with something else. If you go to any Venezuelan government site, you will see that the Image:Venezuela flag 300.png design is official (with the coat of arms at top left, in the yellow banner). I don't know what your .sng design is. If you need to have an .svg file, please use the official government design (with the coat of arms). Thanks. Saravask 09:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The annon was me (no vandalism intent at all). The SVG flag is just a drawing of the flag with a new shade of colors and also the arrangement of the stars was different. The reason why I replaced the original image is that all flag images must be in SVG (see the Wikimedia Commons for that one). As for the seal, I can see what you mean and I own a flag that has the seal, but seals are impossible to draw in SVG. I will see if there is a seal I can find, but I cannot promise you a thing. On a side note, I believe that the flag images from the CIA are inaccurate in many aspects, though some of my drawings could be also inaccurate. Zach (Sound Off) 09:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried using the "trace" function in Inkscape (I think there's one)? Alphax ^τεχ 09:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Sorry about that. Feel free to change over the Venezuela flags. Saravask 09:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, there is no need to apologize man. If you feel that my flags are wrong, just tell me :). BTW, Alphax, I will try that method. Zach (Sound Off) 09:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I switched all the Venezuela pages back to using the .svg image (reverted all my reverts). Thanks Saravask 09:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome. Zach (Sound Off) 19:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've created a page, just like you said I could. The reasons are ready for you at User:Zscout370/WikiFanatic RFA. Check them out, and see what you think. Have a good day. --WikiFanatic^{Talk Contribs 6:07, 23 October 2005 (CDT)}

I have put a reference to a mp3 of the song. I am not sure about the copyright status of the song (there should be pre-1973 recordings of the song), but I can not find a recording with such date. abakharev 12:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have a couple recordings of Svyaschennaya vonya (honestly, it is one of my favorite songs) and I can search for a few online. Zach (Sound Off) 18:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some recordings can be found at http://vkpb.narod.ru/index4.html and I assume that most of them are going to fall under {{PD-USSR}}, but I think we should launch a few emails. Zach (Sound Off) 19:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zach. Long time! Could you please have a look at the article and the edit warring going on between 2 editors? I tried to mediate and even suggested that the discussions to be carried at google (which it happened around 2 months ago and stopped later on) in order to solve the conflict. Nothing helped. Thanks in advance -- Svest 21:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}[reply]

Now that the voting has officially closed, I would like to thank you very much for supporting my candidacy for adminstrator and as of 18:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC) I am an administrator. I will make sure to use the additional power judiciously and I welcome any comments you may have. --Reflex Reaction 19:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you updated the png version of the Municipal_Flag_of_Chicago to an svg version. I think the svg version currently being used could be more accurate. May I have your permission to modify the svg-file and upload it back to your original image title? Thanks. Mindfrieze 03:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you follow the terms of the GFDL, under which the image is licensed, then you can modify it to your heart's content. That's the whole point of having images at the Wikipedia released under 'free' licences. David Newton 07:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David, thanks. I've been trying to follow the license to the letter, but under Section 4 - MODIFICATIONS, subsection A, it states, 'You may use the same title as a previous version if the original publisher of that version gives permission.' I definitely want to use the same title, since I want to use the version that is already heavily linked to, but I am, by no means, an expert on licensing. Based on the excerpt above, am I wrong in thinking that I need permission? Any advice (or just permission from Zscout370) would be appreciated. Mindfrieze 14:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've nomintated Sun Yat-sen for featured article removal. Since you originally supported the nomination, your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Sun Yat-sen. --Jiang 12:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Undelete/Image:Dave_Brubeck_Quartet,_The-Time_Out-Take_Five-half_speed.ogg

"Unused fair use image. We cannot claim fair use if we are not using them"

It was being used by Talk:Take_Five#RFC:Image_choice. Doesn't bother me that it's gone, it was probably overdue for deletion when you deleted it, but it wasn't outside of fair use. ¦ Reisio 22:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up...you had participated in the arbitration case against JarlaxleArtemis. Linuxbeak has since unbanned him, saying that Jarlaxle had apologized. Just wanted to make sure you knew. Ral315 (talk) 09:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be interested in this nomination. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats, you made it into a featured article!

-- Миборовский ^U|T|C|E 00:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I made all the US Historical flags as vector files, originally. I don't really have the few hours it would take to save them all out as SVG, and upload them to new pages, but could send my Adobe Illustrator file to someone. Each flag pattern is a separate layer, so it should be relatively painless to fix them all up. It just will take a bit of effort, and I won't have the time for the forseeable future. Do you have illustrator and want the files? Or anyone else? --jacobolus (t) 09:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I am wrong, but most of the ribbons were made by you, right? I think that they should have their own page (linked from Wikipedia:Barnstar) and category. Could you take care of this? I found at least two ribbons not linked from your userspace (this is getting somewhat chaotic): Image:Odznaka za Rany.gif, Image:BoNM-Poland.png. Plus the Barnstar page should list the national versions of the medals as well, wouldn't you agree?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've noticed that folks (e.g. Li-sung) on cs.wiki began replacing png images with svg ones. Could you help me with creating an svg version of Image:Flag_of_Switzerland_within_2to3.png ? Would be based on Image:Flag_of_Switzerland.svg with transparent areas of a third the height each added left and right, so the flag is not too huge when placed in country infobox (e.g. current Švýcarsko, compare with [4])?
Thanks, best regards, wiki-vr 21:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

There is a 2:3 version already of the Swiss flag in the SVG format, but I do not know what it is called. Zach (Sound Off) 21:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please contact me on my e-mail (throught my user page)? TIA! Regards, --Klemen Kocjancic 22:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, remember me ?

I am currently working on bringing Adrienne Clarkson's page up to FA standards. I have thus far mosted worked on small things like her awards, honorary degrees and such, and have just finished beefing up the section "early career". I was wondering if you have any suggestions on how this article should be organized. Dowew 03:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you replace my old signature on User talk:Zscout370/Archive 3 to WB. Thank you, (and please delete this discussion after that's done.) -- WB 05:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It appears you are an Eagle Scout. Rebelguys2 made an Eagle Scout template. You can get it from the template page or off his or my user page. Just thought I'd mention it. PS: Did you know your line "Do not spam or you will be blocked form Wikipedia" has 'from' misspelled as 'form'? Rlevse 18:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling is fixed, but I am moving all of my activities to the Wikimedia Commons.[5] Thanks for the heads up. 68.8.237.154 04:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can't tell the copyright status. It's on a goverment's page, and the music files are hosted on a goverment page too (gob.mx is the goverment domain in mexico). As now, I?m in the middle of travel back home, so I can't do the research. The musics I think are PD now, so I could create a midi next week if it helps. However, although that page states a (C) notice, they don't have the copyright for the lyrics nor the music (it seems like an autoinserted template copyright notice for all pages ) There are other mexicans on WP you could also ask help on this (top of my head is Titoxd). In any case, tell me if you need the midi file as I have the notes for the melody (It wouldn't be a full blown arrangement as it's usually presented, though) -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 18:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I ran into Titoxd on the IRC channel last night and quoted me a few laws, saying that the Mexican Government is the ones who hold the copyright of the national symbols, including the anthem, flag and coat of arms. Based on what he told me, I uploaded two recordings of the anthem on the Commons, using recordings from the President's website and from the SECGOB. Thanks for the response, but I am just going to see what others comment. But, enjoy the recordings I uploaded and if you wish to make a midi file to be on the safe side, your welcome to do so. Zach [[User_talk:Zscout370|(Sound Off)]] 00:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back, I hope. CanadianCaesar 06:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can say I am no longer missing. Zach [[User_talk:Zscout370|(Sound Off)]] 06:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Zach! It's absolutely great to see you back, even if you just show up infrequently. I kept your userpage on my watchlist in the hope of seeing that you had made an edit to it. You're going to need to fix your signature. There was some bug or change of software at Wikipedia recently, and people had to reset their signatures as a result. What you need to do (I think!) is go to My preferences at the top of any page, and then replace your entire nickname with [[User:Zscout370|Zach]] [[User_talk:Zscout370|(Sound Off)]], making sure that the "raw signatures" box is checked. Then save. Anyway, wonderful to see you back (thanks for your e-mail, by the way), and since we worked together on Pope Benedict XVI I can probably safely say "Happy Christmas" (rather than Happy Holidays)! Regards AnnH ^(talk) 09:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ann. I updated the signature and I also added the "email this user" link back up. Zach (Sound Off) 20:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you back, Zscout370. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Zach (Sound Off) 21:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for contacting me regarding to Romanian flag. As far as I know, Romanian law is quite lax in terms of national insignia, and for the flag, all government documents simply specify the three colours: red, yellow and blue, as well as their position relative to each other. The consitution (Article 12) states:

"The flag of Romania is tricolor; the colors are arranged vertically in the following order from the flag pole: blue, yellow, and red."

I think the colours you used, however, are not the most standard representations for the flag. In Romania, there seem to be two versions of the Romanian flag in common use: one that uses a purer, brighter gamut of colours, and one that uses a richer, darker gamut, the difference being most apparent in the blue. The first one looks like this and basically uses pure-red, pure-yellow and pure-blue (according to the RGB scale). The second one looks like this, with the yellow being more towards orange, the red being darker, and the blue also darker. Personally, I prefer the second one, which is also used more commonly in digital media (physically, both are used, and the difference isn't as noticeable on cloth as on screen). The second one is more identified with Romania, though I will ask on the Romanian Wikipedians' notice board to be sure. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 10:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I might have the answer to your question. There is actually no official standard for the colors on the romanian flag. However, some time ago I found the recommendations below:

Colours recommended for the Romanian flag by Album des Pavillons (2000) are:

blue: Pantone 280c - CMYK 100-0-70-10

yellow: Pantone 116c - CMYK 0-10-95-0

red: Pantone 186c - CMYK 0-90-80-5

As you will see, they are darker than the pure RGB colors that you often find on the internet, and this is how I remember them in artifacts in Romanian history museums. I would suggest using these recommendations. Cheers. --AdiJapan 12:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks yall. I took AdiJapan's suggestion and used the CMYK codes presented. Zach]] 20:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, why did you delete the Image of the Willius Mansion that I put on the FA Willius page? I thought I clearly explained the origin of the image. Dlayiga 06:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When did this deletion occur, since according to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=Zscout370&page=, from 23 October until Dec 19th, I did no deletions. The only image that still exists of this gentleman is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fapic.jpg, and it is still up. Zach (Sound Off) 06:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zach, I'm glad to see you back. I know that you created a number of nice ribbons. In Russia, they use St George's Ribbon as a symbol of the Victory Day. Its colours are the same as featured in the Order of Glory. There is a separate webpage on this custom. Can you please help me to make such a wikiribbon for my own user page? Can I make it myself using the Photoshop? TIA, Ghirlandajo 09:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What size do you wish the ribbon to be? If you want to use the 72x30 pixel ribbon size I am using already, go ahead and stick it on your user page. But, if you wish to make the ribbon on your own, I used M$ Paint, and I converted it into a png file using Ultimate Paint. Thanks on the welcome back. Zach (Sound Off) 18:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mark your flag for deletion. I marked an old, obsolete PNG raster flag (Image:Russian Flag.PNG) for deletion, because SVG vector graphics are generally preferred for flags due to their scalability. I was not aware, when I created my version of the flag, that I was duplicating your efforts. It's fine with me if you delete the redundant image. (Nor am I an expert on what shade of blue to use.) Crotalus horridus (TALK ● CONTRIBS) 04:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the flag marked for deletion was created by you, so that was why I asked. I do not think that you were duplicating my efforts, since I know that the shade of blue is disputed, but I thank you for the prompt reply. Zach (Sound Off) 05:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem replacing a fair use image with a public domain one, but the image you posted isn't very good, cosmetically since Sharon is actually posing and professional images are defintly more suited for articles over ones that are just US government property. The problem exists for most of the world leaders, Wikipedians can only find off-cue USA State Dept images, as fair use/public domain but when we have a professional one, it should be left as it is. Also, if you look,all the other israeli PM pictures do have the same format as the main picture. Chris (Sound Off) 05:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the last statement, since Barak, Perez and Rabin, among others, posed in their office infront of the Israeli flag. I actually written to the Israeli Kenesent and see if we could get a public domain photo. Zach (Sound Off) 05:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, the image you lliked is fair use and higher resolution than both orignal pictures User:Cmc0 (Sound Off) 05:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

May I rename it to Ariel Sharon.jpg? Zach (Sound Off) 05:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Zach! Long time no see! How's everything?? I suppose you're on your Christmas break by now, right? Well, enjoy! And a Merry Christmas to you and all your family (was that too corny?? ;))! Btw, if you have some time to spare, I'd love to get your perspective on these two threads I posted at the Village Pump: n.1 and n. 2. All the best! Redux 15:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is good, I needed some time to clear my head and focus on school (it paid off).I'll look at those threads soon and I hope your holiday is very good too. Zach (Sound Off) 19:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the changes you rolled back on the Lil' Kim article. There was a bit of tag team vandalism happening there earlier this afternoon. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that, and some of the changes I rolled back were some vandalism, but I just posted on your talk page. But thanks for warning. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 02:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, the current version appears to be clean, but I would appreciate a second pair of eyes to give it a once over. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know much about Lil Kim, but with this lock, this will allow some time to correct any facts before we let the outside world try their hands at it again. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 02:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't forget to list your sprotections at WP:PP#Semi-protected. Especially important as it is new. -Splash^talk 04:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I got the Smith one done, but I will probably un-lock Lil Kim now. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 04:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At least it's not on a dark blue background. I guess that means Wikipedia's not a US state :) Happy Christmas! Grutness...wha? 04:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays to you too! :D Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 04:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't do it. :) It's against policy to fully protect the FA and it is to semi protect it too. Semi protection is not pre-emptive. It's for sustained vandalism only. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 05:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There was vandalism a lot before it was brought to the attention of me and other admins at the Wikipedia IRC chat room. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 05:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

File:CandyCane.JPG

Hi, Zach! I hope you have an enjoyable and relaxing winter break. :) Take care, Sango123 (talk) 14:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Sango. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 19:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please include this interwikis in Template:Restricted use:

bg:Шаблон:Fairuse
cs:Šablona:Fairuse
fi:Malline:Kuvakaappaus
fr:Modèle:Fair use
id:Templat:Fairuse
lt:Šablonas:Fair use
sk:Šablóna:Fairuse
sl:Predloga:Fairuse
uk:Шаблон:Fairuse

Thank you for your attemption. -- Marcelo 17:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Complete. Your welcome. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 19:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Check the talk page, the user that is deleting links (and adding unverifiable info) is a vandal. There are no rules about who can and can't add useful links to Wikipedia and the link you deleted is equivalent to all the other links in that section. It has been on the page for months (years?) with no editor finding any problem with it, as have several other links to my photos. Unless you can find a reason for why the link does not add anything to the article I will revert it. Joe D (t) 11:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I thought it might not have been appropriate to add the link, not because of it's revelence, but the location of the website domain is also your user name. I thought that was ammount to spamming, which is not a good idea. This is just my opinion, but if other editors have no problems with the photo link, then go ahead and put it back in. Also, what you can do is if you want, you can load a sample selection of photos of Sustrans onto the Wikimedia Commons so you can link to a gallery. While I would not call the guy who is changing the information a vandal, but he does bring in a lot of unsourced information. If you feel that he cannot be stopped, no matter what you guys do, then I would suggest filing a WP:RFC. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 11:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if my post sounded abrupt or rude, by the way, I'm trying to do too many things at once! I think I'll take a Wikibreak for the rest of the day and deal with it all some other time. Joe D (t) 11:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Have a christmas/holiday of your choice card!

Thanks for the Christmas card!. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 11:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, you were civil, no need to apologize. I saw that you pretty much needed help watching that article on the Wikipedia IRC channel, so I will try to watch it. It's nearly 3:30 AM here, so I guess I have a long night. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 11:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Those are Prussian Eagles of course. Merry christmas! Space Cadet 13:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok :) Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 18:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a happy New Year. --Bhadani 15:01, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 18:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zscout, first of all let me start by wishing you and your loved ones a Merry Christmas. Thank you for writing in my talk page. The reason the nominator put the image for deletion was because he believed that it was "unencyclopedic" since it was a wallpaper. Coming from a free wallpaper upload it seems only natural that it is public domain, however I'm going to take your advice and once the issue is solved I will put it in fair use. Thank you for your interest and I hope that this coming year brings you the best of everything. Your friend in Wiki Tony the Marine 20:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for the very kind wishes. I do not see how a phot of a person (I looked at it myself) is uncyclopedic, but the photo is perfectly fine. Ok, the picture might not be of the best quality, but I think we should be able to use it. One more make, make sure you put somewhere on that page where the photo is at where you got the photo from. Thanks again. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 20:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thanks for your generous offer of help. I now understand that we probably talk about different kinds of ribbons :))) I mean the kind of ribbons listed here. Thanks for your concern, anyway. --Ghirla | talk 12:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Those...errr....those are a tough. I did not even draw those :P My suggestion is ask the people who made those ribbons and talk to them. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 20:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, thanks for the heads up on those photos, the first one worked, but the second two didn't, did you get a chance to download them before they stopped working? - FrancisTyers 15:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try again. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 20:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I got them all. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 20:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you here (again). Hope you had a good Christmas. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The Christmas holiday was great. Glad to be back. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 01:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

if my user page bothers you, fix it, or stop whining. It doesn't bother me, so I won't change it. Imav 09:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What I can suggest for you to do is just write a little about yourself and just not use personal attacks on your user space. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 09:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, I'm not changing it. If you think there's something wrong with it, put to work the feature that sets wikipedia apart and fix it yourself. Imav 09:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking care of that. BBy the way, out of curiosity, what is hidden text on Wikipedia and how is it used? I have never heard of it before. Academic Challenger 10:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome. What you do is type <!-- Hi! --> Anything between the arrows will be hidden from public view, but once you click edit, you can see them. This was done in the article about the GNAA. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 10:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First, let me admit that you are pretty much King Midas in my opinion, you seem to turn every article you touch to gold. I was wondering of your thoughts concerning the above. I worked very hard on it, and so far I am the only major contributor (as in 120 changes by myself). Please help me, !Gracias! εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 05:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

King Midas...wow...thanks...I am honored. Hmm, I am working on a Mexican related article now Flag of Mexico, but I can see what I can do to that article. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 05:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Zeus, I am think it is pretty good now, but I think my work here is unappreciated anyway. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 05:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One question, on a scale of one to ten, where is this article now? εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 05:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will say an 8. I would try to introduce some inline references, do a check of the copyright of the various photos and drawings you used. And, of course, run a spell check. But, it looks pretty good, looks ready for WP:PR. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 06:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That was already done here. All the images seem do not to have violations (but I am not sure, I e-mailed some dude who created the maps, and I abided by all his wishes). I will go to the library tomorrow to do so more research. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 06:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do that and your article will look good in my eyes. Also, I think an article about Polish military history was declared an FA, look to see what they have. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 06:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you again, but I wanted to post one more thing before I go to bed (it's 1:15 a.m. where I live! : ) ), this article is what I based the above on. (It doesn't have in-line citations, but it didn't stop it from being an FA - but that shouldn't be an excuse to not have them in mine : ). I think by tomorrow I could nominate this as an FA with your suggestions and some copyedits. I hope it makes it, because Wikipedia is getting old for me now anyway. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 06:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. But, I think the article is pretty good now, just do some polishing and it will be FA material. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 06:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tomorrow, por la mañana! Now I sleep! I have to get at least one FA! It is a shame that I have not one now - especially considering the fact that I do well on school papers. Next month will be my one year anniversary of coming here. I have to do something (by the way, good luck with learning Spanish, a year ago I was speaking like a six year old, but now I am speaking all the time). It is a wonderful language (and the reason I started doing work on Spanish related articles anyway). Buenas noches. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 06:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly learn languages by listening to songs, but with Spanish, I have been watching Spanish TV, listening to music, reading Spanish websites and also talking to my girlfriend, who speaks Spanish. But yes, Spanish will be very fun to learn. Buenos noches. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 06:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you fix this up when you get the chance, because I have looked around at editors getting promoted to adms. after making racist comments, and my work is not appreciated anyway. I have thought about this a long time, and I am really tired. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 19:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I feel the same way as you did months ago. I was getting no help on articles that I wrote about Belarus and Canada. I practically had to beg in order to get help, but shortlived. I did make the spellcheck I was talking about, only found a few mistakes. Though, if I were you, I would try to put a hyphen between pre then whatever it is afterwards (pre-foo). Other than that, it looks pretty good in my eyes and should be ready for FAC. But, please be careful and watchful for the things I have mentioned previously. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 21:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use says "Fair use makes copyrighted work available to the public as raw material without the need for permission or clearance, so long as such free usage serves the purpose of copyright law, which the U.S. Constitution defines as the promotion of "the Progress of Science and useful Arts" (I.1.8), better than the legal enforcement of claims of infringement."

See [6] for further information.

"RULES OF THUMB FOR COURSEPACKS

The Classroom Guidelines that were negotiated in 1976 can provide helpful guidance and we recommend that you read them. 1. Limit coursepack materials to

• single chapters
• single articles from a journal issue
• several charts, graphs or illustrations
• other similarly small parts of a work. "

from [7] illustrates the principle of extracting part of a work being covered by fair use.

The New York Times itself quotes others.

"Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work." [8] therefore a quote that essentially lists facts isn't even covered by copywrite in the first place.

See [9] for summaries of illustrative court cases on fair use in the US.

Wikipedia primary servers are in the US.

While it would be nice to have no legal complications, the rich in this world are seeking to own everything including math equations (which is what software patents are).

Don't help memes that block the free flow of information. Help memes that promote freedom. Fair use is one such doctrine, law and meme. WAS 4.250 10:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While I thank you for this information, I was hoping you were wishing to address some of the points that I brought up. While we can never get rid of fair use on EN Wikipedia, which I have stated before, we should use it less often. While I find it hard to believe that math equations are copyrightable, I would like for you to look at my comments and see if there is any good or any bad things in there. Thank you. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 10:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am responding to " I do not see how text could be considered fair use". To me that's like saying "I don't see how water can be wet". I have no idea how to begin responding. Maybe actually read the above? maybe actually read the contents at the sites cited? WAS 4.250 12:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Quite honestly, I do know about a Wikipedia article that uses fair use text, but I believe you. However, I think at all possibility, we should be able to write out our own words and not just copy them and claim fair use. About the images, they have been addressed on the talk page and a new proposial about images is being kicked around. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 19:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-submitted the article Merit badge types (BSA) as a FAC. Any input you may have would be appreciated.Rlevse 13:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for my first-ever "Wiki Award"! And thanks for helping with Merit badge types (BSA). Good idea on the spoof ref. However, I did change it from streamwood.net to boyscoutstore.com. Streamwood, run by Chris Jensen, has gone downhill and many collectors, including me, stopped using them this year. Boyscoutstore, run by Craig McDaniel--a great guy, has more to offer--especially in MBs, and is much easier to work with. I put both as links in the external links section. Thanks again for everything.!Rlevse 21:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a problem. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 21:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please scan in one of your cards. Thank you. --Celestianpower ^háblame 18:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try and have it up before the day is out. My brother is doing schoolwork now in his room. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 19:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. What they mean by "fair use rationle" is why do we need this photo in the article? What purpose is is trying to serve. They are not saying that the information we provided is false, but we need to explain why we need it. That has already been done by another user. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 19:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Sorry for bothering you. --Celestianpower ^háblame 20:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, do not be sorry. Your still trying to figure out FAC and I am still willing to help. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 20:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's a nice XMAS present :) Glad to have you back, Z! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much I am back. While I got classes starting in a few weeks, I am going to stay on here for a little while. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 21:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete those images corresponding to the Military history of Mexico on the "Mexican Revolution" section that maybe found here. I talked to Matt White, the creator, and he said they can't stay. Hopefully we can find a substitute!εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 00:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 00:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, 65.35.196.18 04:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 04:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do like your flag - its much better quality. I'd ask one thing though - change the diagonal red stripes to orange and green as per the flag design I am currently using. The diagonal red represents Ireland, and ideally this is just England and India, with white gaps for the rest of Britain! Cheers, File:Anglo-indian.jpg Deano (Talk) 15:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you liked my drawing of it. I made the color changes that you requested. You might need to refresh your Internet cache to see the changes, but that flag is yours to use in your signature. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 19:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

File:OaklandAthleticsIcon.png

I find your POV intriguing on the ANI page. As a test since I'm implying you create alternate images for userboxes, could you find or create one for the Oakland Athletics?Gateman1997 22:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How's this. I stuck with the team colors, but I decided to change the script and also drop the small S next to the signature. What do you think? Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 22:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to replacing the ACLU logo with the statue of liberty image. My only recommendation would be to use the same portion of the statue used in the ACLU logo - but as long as the image is attractive, I will be happy. Glad that you have found the template useful! --Dschor 00:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 00:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's better if you don't include in until we have a proper heraldic description of the coat of arms. I'll do some research around for the fun of it and, if I find something useful for the article, I'll add it myself. Thanks for the effort though, highly appreciated. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 03:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome. Me and Titoxd are on the Wikipedia IRC room now and trying to work this out. He also said the heraldic definition was silly. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 03:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Insanity! Too bad I cannot access my University's Interlibrary Loan anymore :-( -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 10:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know of a few people in Mexico that could send me the book, but the US Mail is getting very bad here too. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 10:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I never thought this would even be considered. Please, have a look at http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,9075-1962714,00.html.

I object to the very idea in strongest terms. I agreed to write articles for free under an implicit condition that noone would be allowed to make money on my contributions. Otherwise, I should be entitled to a share in profits and profit distribution in this particular case is technically not feasible.

If Mr. Wales had this idea from the very beginning, I would have to reluctantly conclude that Wikipedia project is a fraud.

I will destroy my contributions as soon as the first ad is posted. Sincerely, Sashazlv 08:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was around early bit during this issue. If people are not donating, then this is what Mr. Wales will have to do. However, if you do leave this project over this, I do not expect you to be alone. But, I do not think you will be allowed to destroy your contributions. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 08:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I happen to monitor this page and saw your comment above. Please note the terms of the GFDL. You don't actually own your edits/contributions, by submitting them you have released them under the GFDL and cannot, therefor, 'destroy' your 'own contributions'. Please clarify if you are stating that you intend to vandalize Wikipedia. I understand your frustration, but this isn't the way to fix it.

Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 08:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And here comes the disillusionment. So fast... Should I conclude it was a fraud from the very beginning? To Chairboy. It seems like you try to invoke the law against morality. Yes, I do not own my contributions. But neither do you, nor Mr. Wales. It is not ethical to change the rules of the game and even consider ads, because I joined with a clear idea it would be non-commercial and ad-free. And don't threaten me with your hints about vandalism. Sashazlv 08:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I apologize if you read my message above as a threat (hardly, I'm just a normal editor), I was just trying to find out if you were announcing that you would vandalize the Wikipedia. If so, I hope you'll reconsider. In regards to morality, could you tell me what the morality of proving a point by destroying information that's meant to help people is? Also, you _did_ release your contributions under the GFDL, please explain why this license (meant to protect all of us as well as the free spread of information) does not apply to you specifically. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 09:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sashazlv, while it was a pleasure to work with you on the various Ukrainian articles, like Hero of Ukraine, but if you try to vandalize Wikipedia, I have no choice but to have you blocked by either myself or by another administrator. But, all I can suggest is just drop everything now, do not bring any undue harm or stress and just tell people to don't use us for anything or contribute anything to us if you feel cheated out. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 09:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I must agree with Zach. But I read the article you linked. It doesn't really paints the situation in the right light. It makes Jimbo and Wikipeida to be out just for money, about "the amount that is being turned down by refusing ads". Yes, it is the amount turned down, but only when it is a fact that Wikipedia needs a boatload of money to keep up with the evergrowing demand, and it's not collecting enough through donations alone. Taking on ads, in my opinion, is actually the lesser of evils. It'd be far worse if Jimbo were considering starting to charge a fee of some sort. Regards, Redux 16:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Under the terms of the GFDL, anyone is free to try to make money on the content here so long as they comply with the GFDL (which says they must allow anyone else to take their content and do whatever they'd like with it under the terms of the GFDL, including trying to make money with it). For example, Microsoft could decide Wikipedia's content is better than Encarta's and base the next version of Encarta on Wikipedia and charge whatever they think they can get for this version - the catch is if they do that, then anyone else can publish the same content and charge whatever they'd like for it (so, in theory, some competitor would end up charging roughly what a DVD costs). I seriously doubt Jimbo is thinking about turning Wikipedia into a "for profit" organization from which he (or anyone else) makes money. The point to accepting advertising would almost certainly be to fund Wikipedia's existing operations (buy more servers, etc.). -- Rick Block (talk) 18:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All your comments were quite specific and hard to misinterpret. If you think ads are a lesser evil, its your right to think that way. However, I will not be part of this. Sashazlv 20:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While it is your choice to stay with the project or not, all we ask you to do is to not vandalize Wikipedia over this. I can delete your userpage (but keep the talk page), but that is the most I could do. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 20:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Zach. I just saw you removed your name from the participants list on the Userboxes Wikiproject. You said on your edit summary that you believe they are an overkill right now. I was curious as to why you believe that. In advance, I'll say that I had been thinking of "overkill" myself, but not the userboxes themselves, but rather on the part of the users. I mean, I have a few userboxes on my user page too (recently added), but I believe that they each are there to convey a piece of information about myself that could be useful (except the two last templates in my "Secondary" list, which are jokes — or are they??). But many, many users are stuffing their user pages with boxes about all kinds of jokes, trivia or just plain unimportant data. Was that what you meant by "overkill"? Just curious. Redux^talk 16:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have no clue how many userbox there were when I left Wikipedia in October, but apparently, there are userboxes for anything and everything. I do not mind the Babel-boxes at all, they are very important to our project, but I do not want to see userboxes for a favorite television show or something. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 19:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really mind there being userboxes for more trivial subjects, although it appears that, in spite of there being a Wikiproject up and running, people are still pretty much free to start a template for a userbox on whatever topic their hearts desire. That could be problem, since pretty soon there could be userboxes for every tv show, movie and celebrity there is (a hiperbole, of course, but it wouldn't be much better). What I do mind, in a way, is the "mania" that has taken over people, who are stuffing their user pages full of userboxes that serve no purpose in providing any particular piece of information about them — it's just so that they have the "nice looking" boxes there; I don't mind if there are many userboxes on a user page, as long as they are serving the purpose of telling the visitor something about the person who owns the page, and something that is actually useful for us to understand the individual and/or his/her pattern of contributions. Then again, maybe we could address those issues from within the project, so maybe we could, at least, cut down on the creation of tv-show related userboxes and similars. Redux 21:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will probably wait before I TFD some more userboxes, since I am seeing discussion about this on the EN Wikipedia mailing list and also on the IRC chat room. I still think the Babel boxes are fine, but I just think someone or somegroup should just put their footdown and say "no mas" and get rid of these user boxes. While others do not feel the same as me, I still think we are facing an overkill of the user boxes. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 21:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to know that people are already starting to react to this. No doubt about the overkill, too. I have created a few userboxes myself, but they are all for location determination in Brazil (useful for users who might want to disclose their location without having to write a bio). I have decided, however, that if a couple of months passes and no one adds them to user pages, I will delete them (no use, no need). I was very selective about what places in Brazil could generate a demand for a template on Wikipedia, and maybe that's the key: just plain common sense, and "create as needed, delete if ends up with no use". Redux 22:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised you just did not stick with the Brazil flag :P. But, I agree, if no one uses these templates, then it should be deleted by TFD or, if an admin created it, that same admin can do it themselves and bypass TFD. Right now, I will try to focus on replacing fair use icons used in these boxes and see what free images I can find or create. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 22:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, most Brazilians would like, I suppose, to be able to reflect what state and, in some cases, what city they are from. I then selected the six main states in Brazil and their capitals (those more likely to have a demand on Wikipedia), plus one for the Federal capital and a couple of "expat templates". In "my" templates, no fair use images were used though. They were flags and, in the case of photos, they were all tagged as released in the PD. Redux 22:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I still will plan on trying to get rid of fair use icons, but right now, I gone back to drawing flags since many of the fair use icons I just cannot replace, or they are going to get whacked for some reason or another. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 22:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

. --Irpen

Thank you! Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 00:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is just to let you know that I used your NZ flag in Image:NZCAE.svg.

DiamondVertex (Talk) 05:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, glad you used it. Thanks for telling me. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 05:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the colours, I was assuming the same colours as the ones used in the UK since the colours are not explicitly defined. Imho the gif images used a sky blue that was a bit too bright. DiamondVertex (Talk) 05:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still probably have the colors on hand, but I need to check. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 05:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent admin attention needed- a User:FOR THE LAST TIME, WIKIPEDIA IS COMMUNISM! has just been created (I saw you're on-line) CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 08:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, someone got him. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 08:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got him too. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 08:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Zscout370, I wish to offer my gratitude for supporting me on my recent nomination for adminship, which passed with the final tally of 65/4/3. If you would ever desire my assistance in anything, or wish to give me feedback on any actions I take, feel free to let me know. Cheers! Elle vécut heureusement toujours dorénavant (Be eudaimonic!) 08:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 09:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year Zach! Yes it was solved by another Admin. User:Mikkalai likes to edits first then to block the pages. And yes, he did that before, e.g. Moldovan language Bonaparte talk 10:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. On a side note with that article, are the SVG flag images working for you guys or no? Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 10:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is YES. The SVG flag images are working very well thank you. You want to change them? You may if you have others better. Bonaparte talk 10:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, because y'all are using my drawings :P Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 10:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Than ...I have to admire your work. You did a great job Zach! Keep doing it! By the way how did you transform it in SVG? Bonaparte talk 10:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the civil flag, what I done is used the program called Inkscape. I drew the red background first, using colors issued by the Transnistria Government. Then, I added the green bar, again, using the same source. I made the image into 300x600 pixels and saved it. For the state flag, I took the hammer and sickle from the USSR svg flag image, and I modified it according to what Flags of the World said. I also moved it closer to the hoist, as prescribed by law. I saved it, using Inkscape again, and uploaded it. I am glad you like my work. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 10:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transnistria&diff=33468672&oldid=33468577 another push POV fork is here without any discussion on talk page first. -- Bonaparte talk 10:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I am not familiar with the dispute, if you really think that this situation is going to continue with no end in sight, ask for mediation or file a WP:RFC. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 10:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you from Belarus like Mikka? -- Bonaparte talk 11:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United States. I think Mikka is from the Russian Federation. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 11:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know this. But I mean your origin. Bonaparte talk 11:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. I am part Welsh, Swede and Sicilian. I worked on Belarusian articles before since I have done a lot of research on their flag since 2001. So I picked up a lot about the country, and once I joined here, I wrote some articles on Belarus. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 11:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to take an insight of Transnistria. Why MIkka has deleted NPOV info from BBC? and other paragraphs? -- Bonaparte talk 11:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will do what I can, but I do not know much about this region, and I have some other articles to attend to. I will also read the debate and see what the main issues are. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 11:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do so. I would like to thank you for this. Bonaparte talk 11:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page looks factual to me, but I am going to watch and see what happens. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 20:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're OK with using this in the template, would you be so kind as to remove the {{redundant}} tag? It would look odd if I did it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 22:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 23:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! There is still some history which I would like to add, will do so over the next few days. cheers, -Marcuse 22:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take your time, the article is still on peer review, so I am going to deal with those comments there. Keep up the good work. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 22:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by your summary. I personally enjoyed the previous picture because it was distinct and had a white background. If it's fair use why can't it be used on the template? Please explain this to me. Chooserr 05:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, coats of arms photos are tagged with a template saying that they fall under the license of "fair use." There was a discussion at WP:FU and it was decided that fair use pictures should stay in the article space only, no userboxes, no nothing. The WP:UB wikiproject also said no fair use icons in the template. But, if you really like the "keys" only image, I can make that into a SVG file and publish that in the public domain, if that is fine with you. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 05:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you can do that fine, but the one up now has a weird blue back ground. I'm not sure if you can do much about that. Did you really draw the coat of arms thing though? Quite good. Chooserr 00:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took the image from an SVG image of the flag and altered the arms just slightly. But since the image is in public domain, I had to change it. As for the background, what happens is that IE does not support SVG images, so I will correct that now. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 00:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy,

I note your comment at RfAr that you believe this has degenerated into a "lynchmob." I'd appreciate it if you'd read my outside view, and tell me how it constitutes such. There may be incendiary stuff at the RFC, as there often is when emotions run high, but there is also sincere comment; I offered a real suggestion for improvement, as you suggested in your RfAr had not been done. Overgeneralizations of the climate at the RfC do not help matters. Please reconsider. Best wishes, Xoloz 08:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is just my opinion about how I feel about the entire situation. While others want to take it to a positive level, some do not. I do not wish to reconsider my words and I stand by them. I nearly had it with the whole RFC and it would be just better for ArbCom to probably deal with it now, since I think the main goal of the RFC has been diluted, changed and made broken by some who want to take things to higher levels far beyond the original meansof the RFC. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 08:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough with respect to your own views. I did ask you to read and respond to my individual outside view, which you are, of course, free to decline to do. I'll ask, though, did you think my words were part of the "lynchmobbery"? Xoloz 09:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, if someone is breaking the rules, they should be called out for. As you see below, there was a deletion that I did where a user was confused about the deletion. Since I was the admin who deleted the photo, I am accountable to him for what I have done, so I explained about why I deleted his image (which I wish I did not have to delete it, but I had to due to policies). There are some users who just wanted for Kelly to apologize, which you pointed out correctly. There are some who are not part of the lynchmob, but I personally felt that some people took the RFC too far, and you see where why I used some of the words that I used, or seen some of the words that I have seen. And yes, I do believe some who are defending Kelly at the type of people who have been here for a while, but there are also plenty of veterans and admins who disaproved of her actions. I just think it will have to take people like you, who are calmer heads, to disfuse this debate, but I sadly think it might be too late. As for you, I do nto think your words are part of the lynchmob, there was some good statements you made, but I think we might be part of something that might have no end. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 09:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Zach, I will try to go and take some pics of the monumental flag here in Monterrey this week, btw it is the biggest and highest in the whole country. I don't know why you deleted the other pic I took from the State Government website. It is not illegal to do that, we can use it. Cya.

AlexCovarrubias 09:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Alex, I checked with the website that hosted the image, and their copyright rules said that all photos, graphics and text were not allowed to be distrubited on a commercial basis, and Jimbo banned those images in May of 2005. I know Drini will take some photos too of that, and also of the "El saludo civil de la bandera nacional" so that we can replace the photo we have now: not only I was told the salute is wrong, the lady depicted is a figure that is causing some problems in Mexico. While I do apologize for not letting you know about the deletion, I hope that my explaination is sufficient. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 09:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the svg of pi! I didn't notice that it was needed. I hope you won't mind if I replace it with another svg in the LaTeX font Computer Modern. Melchoir 10:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go right ahead. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 10:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any particular reason you'd like to send this for deletion? Does it offend you personally or particularly? This is a user template which is free for anyone's usage. I can see no reason for you to subject it to a TFD other than malice. Numerous people self identify as having HIV or Hepatitis C. There is nothing offensive to us about that identification. Also, bear in mind that simply because a template is not in wide usage, does not necessarily make it grounds for deletion. ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 13:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After further reading I'm given to understand that you are opening a big Pandora's Box suggesting anyone's user box be deleted simply because you personally find its content not to your liking. I find your suggestion to delete the template entirely offensive. ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 13:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do a Yahoo search for the name of her town, and you'll find the city homepage which gives a link to city boards. Click the link for her board and you'll see what I am talking about. - MacFergus 18:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

That the address is easy to find for Mrs. Plumb? Even so, we had problems in the past with people, like who were adding her address in the article, doing it to other articles on porn stars. I have been told that we cannot have addresses and phone numbers of people on their articles mainly due to privacy, though if she is part of city boards, some address will be known due to her official work. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 19:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that legal matters are usually decided by Jimbo or the Board, rather than the ArbCom. Unfortunately, neither of those is particularly responsive. I'd suggest you try IRC. Radiant_>|< 22:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm there now, but as you can see, I really, really need a lot more support/backup/teeth into trying to enforce Wikipolicy, which seems to be lost on everyone. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 00:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up on those articles, and sorry for not getting back to you earlier. I copyedited the article banderas monumentales and I think it is fairly complete (impact on Mexican culture would be nice, but I may be asking for too much here). The flag of Mexico article has improved quite a bit, which can only be good. I'll try to fix some littel style inconsistencies later myself. As of the list of "flag days" I thought you had written a separate article on that? Is it linked? -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 01:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's linked from the article, but I will provide you the link: Flag flying days in Mexico. It is linked where it says about which part of the law states flag days. I can also add about the importance about the banderas monumentals to the Mexican culture, since I mainly made that article to not make the Flag of Mexico article very, very list heavy. Thanks again. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 01:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to add those citations to the Military history of Mexico article later this week, but couldn't find replacement maps. Thanks for your help again:

Take care, εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 04:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 04:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

De nada, talvez podemos contribuir en el español. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 04:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also added it here, hope you don't mind. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 04:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to get around to it, but thanks man. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 04:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you get those ribbons from? I am getting a growing collection of my own barnstars. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 04:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I make them myself. You can borrow them if you want, I know a few users have. What I do is display one for each Barnstar type I get (like in the manner the Soviets did) and the order they go is by the Barnstar template {{barnstars}}. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 04:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidentally, I just got an e-mail back from the National Heritage Board, who administers the general use of the National Anthem from the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts, who hold the copyright. I'm trying to convince them to release it to us under a CC license with whatever conditions they want to stick on to it - but given the situation, they've understandably asked for some more time to think it over. I'll let you know once they let me know, one way or the other. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 09:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As promised, here it is. I think you're demonstrating a fine example of what adminship should be right now, and I see no reason why you should stop. You'll be (and have been) up against it from the userbox crowd, but just keep removing/replacing those images, and deleting the orphans. Cracking work; top banana! Rob Church ^Talk 20:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 20:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am SO glad you are back! While at it, is there a ribbon for this star? If not, could you make one for me? Thanks! --Irpen 01:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen, take Image:WikiDefender rib.png. Thanks again. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 02:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm contacting you about this because you uploaded the most recent version of the image a short time ago. I believe it to be tagged in error. Not all Crown copyright works are available for use as it suggests; permission must be explicitly granted by the sources. Both the current version and the previous version said they came from http://www.royal.gov.uk/ but the copyright page at that site says:

Material on this site is subject to Crown copyright protection unless otherwise indicated. The material may be downloaded to file or printer without requiring specific prior permission. Any other proposed use of the material for republishing purposes is subject to the approval of the Royal Household Web Team.

So really this ought to be permission only, and there's no indication of permission.

The first version of this file was sourced from http://www.waxmuseum.bc.ca/waxexhibitsjewels.asp and it has a clear copyright notice at the bottom of the page.

Is there any good reason why I shouldn't tag it as a copyright violation? It's unfortunately used in a great many articles, partly becuase it's used in Template:Infobox_UKkingstyles. (But not as many as it looks, because it was formerly used in Template:Royal-stub -- changed back in October! -- and the "File links" section hasn't updated yet.

By the same token, I wonder if you could speedy the scaled-down version (all revisions) I uploaded for use in Template:User Monarchist? It's at Image:Kingcrown sm.png. I relied on the original for licensing information, but since it's apparently incorrect it ought to be removed. (This is the same one you formerly marked as redundant.)

Thanks! TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

if you think the image should be removed, then that is fine with me. Thanks for telling me about this. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 05:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your prompt assistance. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's no problem. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 07:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for writing the article. I did some copyediting as well and converted the lists into tables. I'm thinking of nominating this to Featured lists sometime soon, since it is quite complete. Keep up the great work! Cheers. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 17:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awww...If you want to make it into a featured list, go right ahead. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 20:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...that you may be interested in and that is "hot off the press" from yours truly is Military ranks of the Soviet Union (which I am confused on, and I may add a {{disputed}} tag on it. I know of one person who would know something about this, but I wanted to see if you could find any errors (considering that you are pretty good when it comes to the Soviet Union). I hope it is right. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 20:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While the disputed tag is only used for conflicts, but the article looks pretty decent to me. I can go over it with a fine comb later, but I have some things to do before my dad gets shipped off to Iraq next month. :'( Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 20:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to here about that, the dispute is relatively minor (many of my articles suck at first, or at least until I can come back to them). I think I can take it off, I will stop posting here because I know (even though you haven't said) that you get sick of me giving you work : ) I hope everything will be fine with your father, I have some family in Iraq. My dad was a Lieutenant in the Navy so I get frightened about the prospect of war very often. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and take the tag up, but I will put it on a notice board about people who work on Soviet articles. Thanks for your messages. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 22:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing your interest in Scouting and the Eastern Slavic peoples, check out National Scout Association of Belarus, The Association of Belarusian Guides, Scouting in Ukraine, and Ukrainian Plast, you might see things that need improvement. Also, userbox template {{User:Kintetsubuffalo/workshop/Template:User Scout}} Chris 00:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I thank you for the information, I will see what I can do. While I know that the Belarusian youth group BRSM is not part of the World Scouting Movement, I hope that is an article that some of your folks could look at and see if that is something good or not. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 02:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Sorry for the copyright violation - are we not allowed to use fair use photos, and those from press packs, on templates? I thought provided the picture existed faily on wikipedia, and was low resolution (i.e. 60px) it was ok. Pydos 12:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use photos are not allowed to be used in user templates and userboxes at all, regardless if they met all of the rules of fair use or not. They can only be used in the article space. All I ask is that you do not use the photo again in the userbox and all will be good. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 16:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Zscout370, it's me User:Mb1000. On September 26, 2005, during my last self-nomination for adminship, you voted Neutral on my requests for adminship page stating that you would support my nomination in a few months. Like any self-respecting campaigner, I want to make sure that the support is their before launching another self-nom. I would like to know if you would now be willing to support my request for adminship. Thanks. --Mb1000 22:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have my support. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 23:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I really appreciate it. --Mb1000 23:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC) Welcome. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 23:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the image you removed from Func's page, it's not at all certain that it's "fair use". First, the artist is believed to have released it for promotional purposes, and secondly Iran is not subject to any of the major copyright treatises, and so Iranian material is apparently not protected internationally. I'm in the process of trying to get in touch with the artist and the gallery where the painting is held, so please bear with me, because with it being Iran, it's taking longer than usual. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. While, IIRC, Jimbo said that we should try to respect Iranian copyright (if one such law exists), until you and I are certain about the image not being fair use, I decided that the image shoulld stay off the user page, for the time being. Once the copyright issues are cleared, he is welcome to put it on his user page. Of course, the painting is pretty nice, but I am bound to follow the guidelines we have on image use. Sorry. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 23:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zscout370, I noticed you cropped the Quran pic to remove the adjacent woman. The problem with this is that one of the two exceptional characteristics of this Quran is that (along with the remarkable calligraphy) it is enormous. However, with the human frame removed from the picture, it is extremely difficult to appreciate the size of the folio. So I've reverted to the previous version of the picture. Thanks. Babajobu 03:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Well, someone said to crop the image, and now that you see what it looks like cropped, maybe that should help you guys on the discussion about the image. While, in my view, the woman in the photo is not really relevant in the photo, as she is a bystander, but I think what could happen too is just take the photo again, with no people around, or see what options yall come up with. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 03:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait! Stop deleting large parts of the article based on one person's comments! The coat of arms is at the heart of the flag, and it makes no sense to not mention this in the article. As far as Benito Juarez, I can find a reference. Marcuse 04:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I see your point about the arms, and if you have a non-FOTW references about the secularization, lets use it. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 04:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Argh! I hadn't even noticed it was a fair use image... no problem with you removing it, though. Thanks. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome, just looking out for my friends. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 04:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the picture was taken in 2000 it is under the Copyright law that protected for 75 years works produced while on service to the government. However, I think you can make a good case for Fair Use here: 1) shows the flag being displayed in an official setting; 2) illustrates the reverse of the flag and orientation of the Arms as officially used in such case; 3) it's got a corbata to boot; 4) non-trivial to get a free replacement (only a handful of photographers are allowed into the chamber); 5) probably one of the best pictures available to illustrate all flag elements at once. Hope this helps -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 19:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Si señor. Muchas gracias. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 19:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. I already voiced my support on the FAC, btw. ¡Buena suerte! -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 19:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zach - you wrote: while I know there is some debate over this at FOTW, but does this violate the rules that Jimbo has set down?. Good question. To be honest I'm pretty hazy as to the whole GFDL/copyright area as far as images are concerned, and I realise it can be a bit of a minefield. Looks like there are 30-40 images tagged with this template... not sure how much work it would be to re-make them, but that might be one option. Grutness...wha? 04:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is only the images that I know about, but what I am going to do is tag these as non-commercial after a while, and see what people say. I rember that some of our drawers, like Juame and Antonio, did not wish for their stuff to be PD or GFDL, while me and Juan Manuel have donated stuff, so it will be pretty confusing. Unless we have a "permissions" list, we might have to draw these ourselves. Most of them are the Union Jacks or some type of odd flag. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 04:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think that people that are intrested in the RFC will also be intrested in the elections? My link was intentionally very neutral and factual. I don't see how there is right way and a wrong way to find out about the elections. People that are instrested in the RFC have a right to vote too and hiding the vote from them is one way of stopping them from voting.--God of War 07:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I thank you for being neutral in the message, I just did not feel that her ArbCom election should have been "posted" onto the RFC talk page. If you do decide to put the link back, at least do it on the "current RFC," not on the older/archived one, since users are usually asked to not post messages on archive pages. Plus, the users can check out all of the candiates, which also has the rules, on the link that is on everyone's watchlist. I am not going to remove the link again. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 07:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the white background for images you have uploaded such as Image:Chinese Taipei Olympic Flag.svg and Image:Republic of China National Emblem.svg show up as blue on my browser. do you know what is wrong? --Jiang 08:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I need to add a background in. I will fix that now. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 08:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed an compressed the image's KB by half. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 08:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zach!

You may or may not want to add {{User FOTWer}} to your user page. --Palnatoke 09:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ole! There are several Wikipedians who are members of FOTW, like David Newton and James Dingam (User:Grutness). Talk to them, this will be fun. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 09:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the template to my user page. Nice drawing of the FOTW flag BTW. It's ironic that Wikipedia now has a vector version of the flag online before FOTW considering the discussion on the mailing list a couple of months ago! David Newton 15:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is with this vector flag is that I will probably write it out using XML and I released under the Creative Commons license, so it is not in the public domain, but free to use in userboxes. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 18:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must say your imageis not descriptive... I would suggest using a single DDR arrow as an ion. SYSS Mouse 18:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I pretty much made something up so that the DDR logo was not being used in the userbox because of the logo being under the fair use license. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 18:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reblocked User:Tony Sidaway for another 3RR breach. Because I was one of those involved in the issue (trying to stop a unilateral deletion of a template being voted on on the WP:TFD) I'm not overturning his deletion. Someone else can do that. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony came on IRC and complained about the block. We have many people who do that often, but I will not reblock either, but I will not be surprised if someone else unblocks it. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 23:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just been shown this. What the hell is he up do, screwing around like that? Is it a case of Wikisuicide or something? FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More like Administrator Jihad (c). I seen a lot of admins just risk their powers and everything over small issues, and I have no idea why Tony, Zoe, Kelly and the other admins are whacking userboxes at will. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 00:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't seem to find the actual download page, (the LoC website is really hard to search, it seems), but this seems to indicate it's a Cuban Floridian folk song of some kind. Tuf-Kat 05:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, because I was wondering if you plan to use it in an article or not. Carnildo has a list of various OGG files that are on Wikipedia and he wants to double check, making sure copyright is ok and things like that. Thanks. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 05:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Zscout370, User Husnock told me that you loaded up the "introduction flag" in the article Hitler Youth. In my opinion this flag is a wrong adaptation of the HJ-arm- band. I have never seen a historical photo displaying a HJ-flag where the white stripe was narrower than the red ones. The exact specifications of the flag are given for example in the book "Flags of the Third Reich" Vol. 3 "Party & Police Units" by Brian L. Davis, who is an expert in this matter. He positively mentions that the three stripes had all the same width. There are a lot of photos, that can prove this fact. If you haven' got contemporary sources which can support your version of the flag (which I doubt you can procure) then the "introduction flag" in the mentioned article should be replaced with the correct version consisting of three equally wide stripes. Greetings.--Gomeira 17:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your right, I did screw up. What I can suggest is talking to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Guanaco, since this user has drawn the Nazi Party flag in a new image format called SVG. He can probably easily change it for you. I hope that this helps. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 18:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I don't understand why you deleted Image:Kamelia shojaee.jpg. IAR is fine and all, but deletion of images can't be undone. Could you explain your reasoning to me? – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 20:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the history: this has been at least under several licenses, and has been sent to WP:PUI once and tagged with no source. It has been fair use for months from October 2005 until now. People are getting blocked over this image and frankly, if there is no way we can determine the true license, then we should not be able to have images like that on here. We always delete photos with no licenses or no source information, and sooner or later, it would have been deleted for one those reasons. Slim is not the major one to blame, since it should have been the original uploader's responsibility to provide a source and a license for the photo, but he did not, and now, we are paying the price. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 20:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-conflict I'm here with more or less the same question as User:Quadell. As I understand the situation the image is not recognized by the United States as having any proprietary copyright because of the peculiar situation with Iran. Further, User:SlimVirgin seems to have ascertained that even within Iran the image is not eligible for copyright. While this last point may seem trivial, it suggests, at least to me, that the artist's moral rights to the image are not being infringed upon. Even if we decide to treat Iranian art as if Tehran were a signatory to Berne, I do not think that it automatically follows that we then ignore the conditions under which material is created. What I mean by the last two sentences is that I suggest that the artist, by creating this particular kind of image was releasing the work without proprietary copyright. Finally, there a likely to be tens of thousands of images currently on WF servers that are a lot more problematic than this one, which seems to have become a problem because it was targetted for a fuss to be made about it. I'd like to ask you to reconsider your decision to delete it. Failing that, perhaps you could provide better reasoning than "It's problematic, so I will WP:IAR.", after the effort that User:SlimVirgin went to in order to clarify the situation. Thanks. Jkelly 20:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, the image has been under multiple licenses and the uploaded is not even sure about the license itself. The reason that I gave was cut off, but you can see it here: "11:05, 11 January 2006 Zscout370 deleted "Image:Kamelia shojaee.jpg" (this photo is causing a lot of more trouble than it's worth being on here. Users got blocked over it, copyright is very unsure since the beginging, so I feel that this would be better off our servers. While you might see this as WP:IAR in action, I re)." I will complete that statement: While you might see this as WP:IAR in action, I really think we should be focusing on other things. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 20:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 23:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zach, since you're the flag-man I was hoping you'd be able to tell me how to convert Pantone colour numbers to RGB and CMKY. Or if you want to do it for me - it's for Flag of Australia and the Pantone numbers are listed in a table ;). Thanks.--nixie 02:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I do is that I take a small picture (GIF or PNG) of what Pantone Shade is like, paste it into Microsoft Paint. Take the color selection dropping and put it over the blue and click. It will give you the RGB colors. To put it in CMYK, make a sqaure in Inkscape using the RGB colors you discovered. Once you do it, select Object --> Fill and Stroke --> and press the CMYK tab. If you are not able to do that, I can do it for you. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 02:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it a go when I'm on a computer with InkScape, thanks.--nixie 02:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 02:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure where to put it, and I couldn't grok the ribbons at User:Zscout370/Awards;) -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 00:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gracias por de Barnstar, Drini, mi amigo. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 00:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

File:Orden of guadalupe.jpg

I've been thinking for a while on giving out an award using this concept. With all your recent edits and article creations now you're giving me the perfect excuse! This one is intended for foreigners :D but I still have to come up with a design for fellow countrymen. (And for the record, I am no monarchist!) -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 00:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try the Order of the Mexican Eagle. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 01:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gadget850 has started User talk:Gadget850/BSA article improvements as a step toward improving the BSA section of Wikipedia. Please visit this page and participate if you are interested or cross yourself out of the "Interested Wikipedians" if you are not interested. Thank you. Rlevse 18:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and crossed myself out. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 18:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zscout370, hi.

I just installed mIRC, and I don't know how to use it. I noticed you're online, and seem to know something about IRC - can you help me, please? I clicked on that link on your page, but I don't think anyone's there. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am using chatzilla right now, but I am calling in some miRC people to my talk page to answer your question. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 06:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the request on IRC as mentioned by Zach. I would suggest checking out [| The IRC FAQ] and I can most likely answer other questions if you have them. -- That Guy, From That Show! 07:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chatzilla, is that a good one? -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it works with the Firefox browser. You still need to connect to the Freenode network once you get Chatzilla. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 06:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's getting rough to type anything on ANI with all the edit conflicts (on 4 now - going to your page), but Wikipedia:No legal threats specifically says to refrain from taking action until AFTER it is resolved. I think it's in best good faith for you to undo it and WAIT until clear consensus or legal direction or etc. DreamGuy 08:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Already undone by others. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 16:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This rule Wikipedia:No legal threats is a nice rule without any doubts. However I don't think, that this rule is allowed to rule over the european and international law. IAAL 16:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As someone said over at WP:AN/I, "this is above my pay-grade" and I will wait and see what Mr. Wales says about this. I am not going to overturn what several other administrators did. However, the page about the hacker is being voted to see if it will be deleted, and from what I can tell, it is going to be kept. It's out of my hands now. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 16:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No legal threats is community policy. It doesn't "rule over" European and international law, because making legal threats against another user, or a group of users, legitimate case or not, will warrant blocking. There is nothing illegal about blocking someone for making legal threats. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 20:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ko:User:WonYong reverted your {NonCommercial} edit at [10] . His edit summary says "Reverted. The basis [of your edit] is unclear". For the main article, it says "Reverted. Claim of copyvio is unfounded". Related discussion: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Lawfully citing copyrighted images --Yonghokim 09:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted back and I left a note explaining why this photo will fail in the United States as a "fair use image." Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 19:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I came across those images when I nominated {{CanadaCopyright}} for deletion, its a terribly ambigious template and people don't seem to be adding the necessary information for fair use of the images (most don't even have source information). Since it is also for non-commerical images it is completely useless in terms of Wikipedias current policy on images. If you're looking for a mindless job I've been working on retagging images tagged with the tag so they at leat provide some actual licence information or are marked to be deleted if none is provided.--nixie 22:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Incidently if you do decide to help out this {{Canada-politician-photo}} is a useful tag.--nixie 22:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I think the image should be deleted under this license, or have it tagged with {{Noncommercial}}, but I will try to help you out. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 22:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just blocked the same IP as you for making a legal threat, but for only 48 hours. Feel free to reblock to the week you mentioned--MONGO 22:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since it is probably an open proxy, i'll let your block stand. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 22:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was going threw the new user log and was wondering if these are inappropriate user names:

1. Let's_worship_Satan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (inappropriate user name)
2. SIim_Virgins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (posible imposter of Slim Virgin)
3. Zscout_370 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (enough said)

SWD316 ^{talk to me} 03:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked 2 and 3, but you are the second one who had serious questions about username number one. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 03:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry didn't mean to disturbe you over already blocked vandals. I didn't know they were already blocked. :-( Yeah Let's worship Satan seemed like a offense user name so I thought I would list it. SWD316 ^{talk to me} 03:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it's no biggie. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 03:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Zach!

I realise there are times were we don't thank each other enough, but now I hope to do so. Since you joined our humble little wiki you have made things better when it comes to flags and other things. I truly consider you a friend. You are the wiki version of Betsy Ross! :-) - Thanks, Hoshie | 12:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome. While I wished I could have ran into you in Havelock, NC when I was there, but I am just glad we are working together on flag images. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 18:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete File:Brains from the article brain. The image was composed by the person who uploaded it using brain images which come from an NIH site. Which means that as government sponsored work the source images are in the public domain. Nrets 15:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The website did not belong to the NIH, but to a University. Their copyright notice of the college website said that their images cannot be published and are only for educational use only. That is not compatable with our licenses, since we need an image that can be published (put on our servers) for commercial and non-commercial purposes. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 18:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It only said that the source should be acknowledged and could not be copyrighted by anyone else to prevent others from using them, and it said that it was a result of research funded by the National Institutes of Health, which puts it in the public domain. Nrets 20:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It still wanted the image to be used for educational purposes only, which does not permit it to be used commercially. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 21:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It was vague about educational use only. The statement claimed that the images could not be COPYRIGHTED. I still claim that they are in the Public Domain as works produced by the federal government. Plain and simple. Nrets 21:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do admit that the copyright is worded very funny, but I strongly suggest to try and find another image soon that it's copyright is not "fishy" as this one is. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 21:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]