User talk:Holly Cheng/Archive7

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:Latuff cartoon Israeli soldier voting.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. 555pt | msg | msg on w:pt 17:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

See Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#LOOK Magazine Photograph Collection. I think these images are GFDL-compatible, but I'd like a second opinion. Andrew Levine 17:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Howcheng. I have two questions, both related to Image:Gulf.png.

First, I uploaded this PNG version to replace a JPEG, Image:Gulf.jpg. When I did this, I copied the fair-use rationale from the image description page for the JPEG, reasoning that if the JPEG qualified as fair use, then the PNG would too. Now I realize that I would like to minimize my association with the fair-use claim for this image, so I would like to say who wrote the original fair-use rationale that I copied. Unfortunately, the JPEG has since been deleted. I can see from the log that JetsLuvver was the original uploader, but I can't tell what copyright claims were made at the time of the original upload and who wrote the rationale. Would it be possible for you as an administrator to retrieve the history of the image description page, so that I can give a more complete history of who has made what claims?

Second, I have removed this image twice from Betelgeuse incident, because I think the image fails point 8 of the Wikipedia fair-use policy by contributing nothing significant to the article. Both times the logo has been restored, so I brought up my concerns at Talk:Betelgeuse incident#Gulf Oil logo. I would appreciate your opinion on this issue.

Thank you for your help. —Bkell (talk) 07:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

According to the history, the rationale was initially written by an anon (68.39.174.238) and then cleaned by User:Gnangarra. howcheng {chat} 16:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Cheath4.jpeg was obviously supported enough and the nomination was 9 days old. Plus that who doesn't like to see his nominations are promoted? But that doesn't mean I'll promote something that is obviously not supported. And I still think that the picture Yummyfruitbar didn't promoted was actually supported enough. You can say whatever you want, but that's what i think. Although your comment wasn't rude at all it had no point except telling me that your an amateur who wants to promote his own images. Anyway, I don't care about it and i really want to take break from wiki and concentrate at my study. Thank you for any other reasons and have a nice day. Arad 21:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

And for promotion of cheetah4.jpeg i did every step as said without any problem. Arad 21:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please forgive me if my message is rude in anyway because I'm sort of tired right now. And I can assure you i wont promote anymore images and i leave the work to you. Arad 21:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Howcheng, as you requested on my talk page, I've added FP Image:Anser cygnoides.jpg to Swan Goose, with some text that is a start towards reconciling the differences between wild/domestic. –Outriggr § 23:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I was going through the IFD pages for September 5 and found some entries that weren't deleted. They weren't kept, either, as the IFD tags are still on the image description page itself. So what's a happening here? Hbdragon88 06:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I believe you're referring to the uploads by User:Victor van Poppelen? I gave him a chance on his talk page to move his stuff to Commons, to which he hasn't responded, so I guess I can dump them now. howcheng {chat} 06:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

That and Image:Darwin_fish.png. Hbdragon88 06:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

The description reflects this conversation. What changes are you suggesting? Regards SeanMack 11:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello Howcheng - I took another pass at editing the symmetry group caption for the main page. If you have a moment, I'd appreciate your thoughts or edits of the new version: October 26, 2006. Debivort 19:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well I think you look like a disembodied dog head... ;) just kidding it was my first pic that i uploaded i just wanted to see the reaction it would get.

I disagree with you lifting the protection on this article - but I'll let it rest for now. The user concerned, Ebnaumann, has contributions consisting almost entirely of the same edits to this article (Canadian Goose instead of Canada Goose) and has ignored all discussions and reversions. I chose to protect the page to put an end to this.

Although it is true that I am involved in editing this page, there is a clear consensus on this, it's not just a difference between two editors, where to protect would be wrong.

I'm not a great subscriber to the "let the vandals play philosophy" so beloved of wikipedia, but in this case I thought that protecion was preferable to blocking the perpetrator. jimfbleak 19:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Per your comment, and because it was not being used, I deleted the "Draft/Ramakrishna" page. In general, draft pages should not be in the main article space, but rather should be created as subpages of the talk pages. Cheers, -Will Beback 23:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for removing that watermark on Very Vivid Flower. The pic is by me, and it would have looked worse if I had removed the watermark.

P.S. How did you remove it?, and I feel bad that your cat died. Your cat was very cute.

Koolgiy 03:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Howard,

I noticed you adding the placeholders for the column format of POTD to Wikipedia:Picture of the day/November 2006. Is the column format being used at all these days? If I recall, we introduced the column layout back in ~April during the redesign that put POTD on the MainPage for the first time. The redesign working group needed the column format to test alternative MainPage layouts. Now that it has settled on a layout that uses the row version, I suspect no one actually uses the column format anymore. -- Solipsist 22:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

The column format is still used in the alternate Main Page layouts, accessible from Wikipedia:Main Page alternatives and it's transcluded on a few user pages as well. It's in very low demand, but it's there, and it only takes me a few seconds to create anyway. howcheng {chat} 22:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ah so that's what happened to all the MainPage designs that didn't make it past the winning post. I must admit, I rather felt the final design remained conservatively similar to the previous version. -- Solipsist 22:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Howcheng. With all due respect, could you revise and provide some rationale for not deleting this image on ifd? I understand it's a hard decision taking process to arbitrate such discussions, and I plan to respect your decision. But I fear this case may represent a dangerous precedent for upcomming cases.

As stated on the ifd disscussion, the image lacks source information (it is only know that it once appeard in a magazine and that it very likely belongs to Universal Television). And as it's simply used to illustrate a tv-series character, it could be easly replaced by a screenshot showing this character (whose source and copyright holder would be the series and it's producer, the publishing date would be the airing date, etc.).

This image was at first tagged as {{promotional}} (the most heavly abused unfree image tag) and is now tagged as {{Non-free fair use in}}. With this case as a precendent, I fear that future unsourced {{promotional}} images will be changed to {{Non-free fair use in}} when contested, making it even harder to control fair use abuse in Wikipedia.

Thanks in advance for your attention. Best regards, --Abu Badali 18:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I thought it was made clear in the discussion that this is a derivative work containing a screenshot from the episode "Return of Callisto", right after Callisto kills Perdicas and Xena arrives. That's the source of the original work, is it not? howcheng {chat} 16:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I re-read the discussion and could not find any such claim. Screenshots are mentioned when I suggested that a screenshot would be a better choice of image to illustrate the character (because it wouldn't be an unsourced image). And "Return of Calisto" is mentioned in "Furthermore, the episode is from the episode "Return of Callisto",...", that I didn't really understood. Am I missing something? Thanks for your attention on this regard! --Abu Badali 20:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Howcheng. Any developments on this matter? Thanks. --Abu Badali 16:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, I assumed he meant, "the image is from the episode..." which would make it a screenshot. I suppose I could clarify it with OP though. howcheng {chat} 23:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

The image doesn't seems a screenshot to me, as it is 395x500 and even has some sort of emblem on it's lower right. Sorry, what's OP?

By the way, congrats for your work on cleaning up the ifd backlog! I can see you're being busy in this tedious but highly necessary task. Best regards, --Abu Badali 23:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

It's likely a derivative of a screenshot, probably cropped and then the logo thing added. I've asked DrBat for clarification. Also, OP = "original poster". howcheng {chat} 23:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that is what I meant (though I got the chronology a little mixed up. In the scene, Callisto is trying to kill Gabrielle, Xena arrives, she fights Callisto, during which Callisto makes the pose seen in the image. Then she kills Perdicas, before riding off.) --DrBat 02:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Do you know where I can find image tags? Like the "Featured Picture Candidate" tag. I was looking for a tag, just for fun, "This was a candidate, but was turned down"

Koolgiy 20:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

There is no such tag for "failed Featured Picture candidate". I think there's one for articles, so it might be worth making it, but there are so many that to go and add them retroactively would be real PITA. howcheng {chat} 03:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

(I'm sorry if I'm being rude but I really need the support) you said on my images FIC that you would support my image on wikipedia commons.I just wanted to remind you.You can find it here[1].I corrected the image 3 times and currently version 3 is doing really well =) If you could add one more vote I would be extremely grateful.Thank you for your support (or oppose) Blind14 03:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

How should I tag these uploads? If they are not promotional. I was just trying it out and I thought promotional was the right one. Some feedback may interest me =) thanks Cs-wolves 07:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

The problem here is that Wikipedia has a very strict policy regarding fair use images (WP:FUC). See criteria #1: "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information" (emphasis mine). In this case, a photo of a living person who is constantly in the public eye should not be that difficult to get. Anyone who attends an Arsenal game should be able to get a photo of Henry. Get there early for training, stay late to wait for the team to leave, whatever. I'm sure he makes public appearances in and around London for autograph signings or team events too, so getting a photo is not impossible (see Arsène Wenger and Dennis Bergkamp). So I don't really have an answer to your question because you shouldn't even upload these images in the first place. Regards, howcheng {chat} 16:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

OK, but a picture of Julio Baptista, is from the very same Arsenal website, and is currently in use on his article. Regards Cs-wolves 16:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Did not know that. I'll nominate it for deletion as well. howcheng {chat} 16:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

If i knew how to work the star-things, i'd give you one for your effort on images =) Keep it up. Cs-wolves 16:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm at a loss as to how Wikipe-tan ended up on the front page of Wikipedia on October 2. The front page, moreso than most other parts of the encyclopedia has very strict notability requirements. Yet somehow an image of something entirely non-notable ended up on the front page? Wikipe-tan is already unknown to most Wikipedians, and I can assure you virtually no one out there in the real world knows of it. The point is, POTD doesn't have notability requirements like, say, articles. That's okay, because not all pictures are necessarily part of the encyclopedic content. But we need to keep this in mind and make sure we exercise appropriate judgement when deciding which images should be on the front page. All featured articles would be appropriate for the front page. This is not the case with featured images. Do you understand my point? --Cyde Weys 21:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think you're missing an understanding of how images get promoted to featured status. There may not be a notability requirement for images, but per WP:WIAFP Featured Pictures need to be representative of an article and be the whole "picture worth a thousand words" thing. Sometimes the images themselves are indeed notable, such as Image:View from the Window at Le Gras, Joseph Nicéphore Niépce.jpg, the first photograph ever. Sometimes they have enough emotional impact on their own despite not really representing a topic very well, such as Image:TamarackMiners CopperCountryMI sepia.jpg which was paired to Mining. In the majority of the cases, however, images get promoted because they are well executed and illustrate a particular concept well, which is what we have here. Wikipe-tan is a prime example of (and happens to be one of the few, if not the only one, that is also available under a free license) moé anthropomorphism and you'll notice that the POTD blurb focuses mostly on this concept. The image qualifies under all the criteria set in WP:WIAFP and all FPs are to be PsOTD eventually, so that's how Wikipe-tan ended up on the Main Page. One question -- if for some reason this had been an OS-tan or Moezilla that got promoted to FP status, would you even be raising these concerns? howcheng {chat} 22:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello, You have made several comments about poor stitching on a picture that I placed on the WP:FPC. I've been using photo shop to stitch. I've tried a couple of different programs: Autopano-Hugin-Enblend which have yielded poor results. Do you have any suggestions? What do you usually do to stitch together images? Buphoff 19:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I don't -- I've never stitched photos to make a big panorama pic. You should talk to Diliff. howcheng {chat} 20:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Zipper animated.gif, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Fir0002 10:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for nominating these! --Fir0002 10:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'd like to inform you that I asked for the undeletion of this article. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me} 13:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your message.--Panarjedde 20:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

The only thing I've EVER been warned for was for my uncivil messages against this particular user. This user just so happens to have broken every single WP rule there is several times, wasted countless hours of posters and administrators trying to calm him down/barter with him/undo his edits, and you're lecturing ME? Do you know anything about this person? You don't. You don't know what kind of stuff this person has caused. I can gather at least 30 users within a day who would plead with the admins to get this person off Wikipedia. So don't give me your tough guy spiel when I say something that you know nothing about. Perhaps you and the rest of admins start acting on dealing with the real nusaisances on WP rather than the people who actually contribute to the project. --Palffy 08:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Howcheng, about this not deletion of Image:Motherhood 18.jpg, notice we can't say the image is a derivative from a screenshot. It is more likely a picture taken in set. But as we lack a complete (and verifiable) source information, we can't say what was the original intended use for this image, and can't be sure our use won't be competitive of the original's work (as the original work is the image itself, and not the tv-series).

I believe this image should be deleted for lacking verifiable source information and, if needed, a real screenshot should be uploaded to be used in it's place.

As a side-note suggestion, you should more oftenly take part in ifd's discussions in these cases where you have an opinion that diverts from all opinions so far stated. Best regards, --Abu Badali 18:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

But it is verifiable: All someone has to do is watch the episode in question. As for your suggestion, thanks, but I usually don't get to the discussions until I'm processing them. howcheng {chat} 19:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

The point is that you were the first one to claim it's a screenshot, and I don't believe we have enough evidence to say that.

As of not taking part on the discussions, I see this as a problem in cases like this, where you take an ifd decision that is diferent of any other outcome suggested during the 7 days discussion timeframe. You abdict the opportunity to state an opinion but not the opportunity to make a non-discussed decision. Don't you think this nulls the purpose of the 7 days open discussion? What if someone has a counter argument to your point? A new ifd nomination should be made?

Ifd-closing decisions should be based on consensus gathering and policy application. Opinions and are highly welcome in the discussions, but when they come as non-debated rulings, they ruin the purpose of discussing in the first place. --Abu Badali 20:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I really would appreciate if you could state your position on this matter. --Abu Badali 14:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

You are correct in that deletion discussions are a mixture of consensus and policy, except that policy trumps consensus every time. One of the jobs in being an administrator is deciding when policy is being applied correctly and in this case, in my opinion the image is admissible. Please keep in mind that no closings are ever "non-debatable" -- WP:DRV exists for this purpose. howcheng {chat} 16:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Deciding an image is a screenshot is not policy application. Such "conclusions" should be avoided when closing ifds. --Abu Badali 16:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Except that DrBat declared it to be a screenshot when he originally uploaded it. Maybe he didn't use the exact word "screenshot", but it clearly states that it's from an episode, thus making it a screenshot. howcheng {chat} 16:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Would you be kind enough to move Image:Pi-unrolled-720.gif off FPC? I think it's done cooking now. Thank you. John Reid 05:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi! As I was delisting Image:Lake Fryxell.jpg from FP I noticed that it was not listed on any of the subpages of the new version of Wikipedia:Featured pictures (and I don't know if it was included in the FP count). Could it be that other images are also missing from the new pages? --KFP (talk | contribs) 22:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Actually, I pre-empted you on that one. I figured it was going to be delisted so when I was refactoring the FP page, I just left it out. :) howcheng {chat} 22:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Okay :) I subtracted the FP count by one so if you pre-empted that too, the subtraction should be reverted... And thanks for refactoring, by the way, FPV was getting a bit heavy. --KFP (talk | contribs) 22:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

He has requested an unblock now, and I think we should lift the block. _→AzaToth 20:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. Said image was originally uploaded as fair use, but someone's managed to take their own picture of the subject (and, in part, before I was aware of what 'fair use' completely meant). Speedy delete as far as I'm concerned; it's not needed anymore. Skybunny 01:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Why add the age in the info box? I've seen this on other players and I personally don't see the point. It means you'll have to update every player on his birthday unless in automated, which I doubt. PLus it looks messy and people can work out how old he is from his date of birth. Jimmmmmmmmm 19:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ah it is automated. Still think it looks messy and pointless though. Jimmmmmmmmm 20:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I've been using your adaptation of the Commons tool a lot for work over here. One thing I've seen lately that would be nice to add to the tool would be "Mark as Replaceable Fair Use" ({{rfu}}) as this seems to be about as common as ORFU tagging. Thanks (oh and thanks for the Flickr reviewing too) :D--Nilfanion (talk) 23:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

That's pretty new, so I haven't gotten around to adding it yet, but I'll put it in as soon as I get a chance. howcheng {chat} 00:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for letting me know that one of my nominees for FP pictures is scheduled for pic of the day. And if it was you who added the little text for it, then thanks again. Arad 00:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've uploaded the Chrismas Tree cluster picture to the Commons. Will the nomination be cancelled after you delete the picture? And also, should I upload the Map of Jupiter picture (being nominated just below the Christmas Tree Cluster) to the Commons? | AndonicO Talk 13:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the help and correcting me, I made a subpage with the picture - feel free to nominate it if you feel it should be :)! SINFUL OCTOPUS 00:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have a question for you as the admin who seems to handle a lot of the image deletions at IfD. You may have noticed that I have been nominating a large number of images of late (how could you not). Most of these are orhpaned images. I have been getting quite a bit of flack for these nominations, both on my talk page and in the nomination itself. As someone who would likely have advised me if the nominations were out of turn, I take the lack of any notification as a positive sign (dispite the increased workload for you).

I am going to take a break from image tagging, but could you please provide your thoughts on the tagging for deletion of orphan images. Thanks.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 17:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

It's perfectly fine to nominate orphaned images for deletion. After all, Wikipedia is not Imageshack or some other free web host. If they seem potentially useful, you could mark them as candidates to move to Commons with {{Move to Commons}} instead. howcheng {chat} 16:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Howcheng, you are invited to participate in the (definitely less structured than WP:SRNC) WT:CASH infobox discussion. Please feel free to share your thoughts and ideas. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

A Google search of his name produces 922,000 hits. He is one of the most famous producers in Hollywood. I see him out all the time with different celebs: Oprah, Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, P Diddy, Paris Hilton, etc. He's the real deal.

208.251.92.63 10:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

If you can provide information from reliable sources then I suggest you post it on Talk:Brian Quintana and an administrator will unprotect the page so that the article can be re-created. howcheng {chat} 16:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

It looks like you moved those image to the wrong area, I fixed it, please make sure I did it correctly. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for cleaning up my mess. howcheng {chat} 16:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

No problem, thanks for the tireless work you have done maintaining FPC. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I see that a block of text is required of recently promoted Pi-unrolled.gif. I'm sure many editors could write this but I'm not sure that it's anybody else's responsibility. Can you point me to the place in which I should write this? I can follow existing FPs for general format but I don't know exactly where to put it. Thank you. John Reid 10:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Do you mean the blurb for the Picture of the day? Don't worry, I'll take care of it, but if you want to write something, add it to the image description page and I'll just copy it when it comes time for it to be POTD. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 15:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Okay, that's what I'll do. Thanks. John Reid 09:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

In reference to your message, I found this image floating on the net, and requested permission to use it on Wikipedia (which was granted). I hope you can do something with it, I've been out of the Wiki too long to remember how to properly license it now ;)

The Sun isn't an average-sized star. It's above-average sized. Average-sized stars are classed as red dwarfs. Please can you fix this? --Jrothwell ^(talk) 17:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I copied this from the article ... see Sun#Structure. If this is incorrect, then it needs to be fixed in the article first. howcheng {chat} 18:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

"The fair use image you uploaded is replaceable by a free one" Where? Timeshift 19:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

That statement doesn't mean one is currently available online -- it means that someone, an Australian Wikipedian or someone on Flickr, could possibly take an image of him. He's a public figure, isn't he? Just because an image doesn't exist now doesn't mean we should be lazy and use a copyrighted image. howcheng {chat} 19:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

'Replaceable fair use disputed' and discussion added. Timeshift 19:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I found an image for you per your request on WP:RP. I think this is what you're looking for: Image:Pimpmobile.jpg. Regards, howcheng {chat} 19:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Yes, that's just about exactly what I was looking for. I'll remove my request. --Zantastik talk 20:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've moved both images to the English Wikipedia and changed the article to reflect the change. Sorry for the trouble, I'm not a lawyer. Dismas|^(talk) 21:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading Image:1928LincolnHwyMarker.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Train wreck at Montparnasse 1895.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. -- tariqabjotu 03:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

By the way, are you sure about the author of that image? I have a copy of the image that I bought several years ago and it states the image comes from Agence Roger-Viollet. -- tariqabjotu 03:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

The Agence Roger-Viollet one is from the reverse angle. I just went to their site and searched for "Gare Montparnasse" and found the image they claim credit for. howcheng {chat} 07:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello Howcheng

I am not sure why a note has been placed on a photo I uploaded (Oomaste.jpg) which is in the page for the LaPerm. Are you asking for more info? It is a picture of a cat which I own. A photographer did some free photos for me of my cats and this is one of them. I have permission to use them as I want.

Quincunxcats 23:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC) quincunxcatsReply

Are you sure you own the rights to the photo? For most professional photographers I know, you have to go back to them to purchase reprints and whatnot. Unless you bought the negatives or digital files so that you can do your own, I'm afraid you don't own the copyright on them. howcheng {chat} 00:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes I am sure I own the rights to the photo. I know the photographer and he did the shoot for me for free as a favour. Thanks. Quincunxcats 00:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Howcheng for seeing my little point about the Pic of the Day today. Just wanted to make folk awares - hope it didn't sound bumptious. BTW: Jules Verne made a bigger boo-boo over this in From the Earth to the Moon - I'll stick a not on that discussion page. It was reading the footnotes of a copy when I got the point (I ain't that clever). --Eddie | Talk 08:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I just read one of the silliest comments I've seen in a while: "Is this really copyrightable?... It's just math." Are photographs really copyrightable? They're just photographs, not paintings. Tell you tell what: tell me whether this looks copyrightable to you. Michael Hardy 18:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

In order for copyright to be applicable, some sort of creative aspect is required. Your treatise indeed copyrightable, but what about the proof? Are you saying that nobody else can prove this theorem without paying you royalties? What if I were a mathematician and somehow came up with the exact same proof on my own without even knowing about the existence of yours and then I published it -- would you sue me for copyright infringement? Your comment is in reference to quadratic integral, in which I argued that if anyone who was an expert in the subject were to write this article, wouldn't it come out basically the same? How many ways are there to derive a quadratic integral? howcheng {chat} 19:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Writing the same proof doesn't imply copyright infringement; writing it in the same words verbatim might. With really simple things like this article, similarity of phrasing may not mean much if anything. But your comment seemed completely general, as if it's not intended only for the occasion of this one article. Michael Hardy 19:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Would you mind look at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Zabriskie Point Panorama again. I believe I've fixed the stiching errors. Thanks for your consideration.--Andrew c 15:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

You deleted this image because someone removed it from an article and then declared it an orphan. See here. Could you please undelete it so that we can return it to the article? Uris 18:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

You had tagged this PD-old-50, but that doesn't apply here -- it's only good for when the item in question was published before 1923 in US AND the creator has been dead 50+ years. Thus, it's only applicable under fair use. What article was it removed from? I don't see in User:Gay Cdn's contributions him having removed this image from an article on October 6. howcheng {chat} 19:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I did not remove the image from any page (or any image to make it an orphan). When I came across the image it was already an orphan; perhaps by vandalism, but not by me.--Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 20:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

It was removed from Cavalier Marching Band... in this edit on October 6. I'd like to justify it as Fair Use if you could undelete it, as it is the only image in existance showing the band from that era. Also, if you could undelete the other image removed from the article on the same date, it would be appreciated. Uris 20:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Both images have been restored. Enjoy. howcheng {chat} 22:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

On 4 November, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Brother Jonathan (steamer), which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 18:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Moved to user page.

I hope that this isn't too intrusive, but I wanted you to know that I left a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day a couple of days ago, suggesting some minor changes to the text template. I saw that you are the one who does most of the stuff with the picture of the day, so I wanted to see what you thought. Thank you,  Shardsofmetal   T   C  20:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Herostratus 19:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Howard,

I think you hit the wrong talkpage for the notification of Wikipedia:Picture of the day/December 9, 2006. AFIK the image credit on the POTD page itself is correct, and its User:Moumine who should be notified.

I remember that one going through FPC. Its a shame it got missed off WP:FPT the first time around. Anyhow... keep up the good work. -- Solipsist 18:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Actually, since you nominated the image, you get a notice too. howcheng {chat} 18:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ahh I see - you are making a rod for your own back there :-) I used to only notify the image contributor, but if you can cope with the extra effort, and it helps to encourage editors to nominate more FPCs, then it can only be a good thing. -- Solipsist 20:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I have been notified notified, thank you Howard and Solipsist. Best regards Moumine 22:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm sure there are free licensed images. I found the image in the Arabic Wikipedia, with the free use license. Hehe, it was a featured article, too. Anyways, I'm sorry, you can delete the image my friend, please. Thanks. ↔ ANAS - Talk 16:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Image:Thierry-henry-arsenal.jpg

Thanks for your interest in helping to resolve this matter. The reason you dont see an entire article at California Least Tern is that the (non-admin) user who destroyed the article on "California Least Tern" also destroyed the histories on "California least tern" and "California Least Tern". The article can easily be re-created, but what is needed here is admin assistance to make sure the substantive history is restored. Here is a link to the original article as published (at the end of its first day on Wikpedia). Regards Covalent 17:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Most of the stuff is in C:\Documents and Settings\[name]\Application Data\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles. Copy everything out from the profile folder and you should be able to move it back after you re-install, although it might take some tweaking. I remember doing this to copy my profile stuff from my work computer to my home computer, but it wasn't 100% accurate. In the end, I recall not everything was transferable, but most of it went OK. howcheng {chat} 22:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Nice idea, but remember that I am moving towards a Windows XP system. I don't have a "Documents and Settings" directory yet. What directories are extensions and themes kept in in Windows 98 systems? - 131.211.210.14 08:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
  • I don't remember that, but you should be find the information somewhere on the http://www.mozilla.org/ site. howcheng {chat} 16:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I did nothing on a whim. I was just trying to help. Your posting on my page was presumptive and arrogant. Apparently, I did confuse Commons and Wikipedia. The distinctions are rather subtile. Rfrisbie^talk 17:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello Howcheng. You seem like a picture bod so you're probably an appropriate person to ask. The TV serial Bleak House had lots and lots of prominent British TV actors in it. I have just bought the DVD of said show. Would I be right in thinking that if I screenshotted the show I could place pictures of the actors on their pages (most of them are pictureless)? Cheers, HornetMike 23:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Actually, you would be incorrect. The appropriate places for these types of screenshots would be in articles about the characters themselves (if such articles exist). If you use them for the actors, they will be quickly tagged with {{Replaceable fair use}} and soon deleted, as this is a violation of WP:FUC #1. Regards, howcheng {chat} 23:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Aha, OK. Thanks! HornetMike 23:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, just out of interest that would presumably mean that most of the pictures on, say Judi Dench and Christopher Eccleston, are not fair-use? I just want to get a grasp on it as I'll remove them from now if that's the case. HornetMike 00:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, it's a little complicated. Most of these are illustrating the actor as they appear in a role, which would be OK if there was some discussion about the role and some reason why we need to see them as they are in that role. The one in the infobox for Judi Dench is definitely not OK, because that's the one that serves to identify her. As a rule of thumb, the text has to describe the image in question for it to be valid fair use. An example of a valid use can be found in Nicole Kidman, where she put on a prosthetic nose for The Hours -- it's hard to understand the change she made without actually seeing a picture of it. Does that make sense? howcheng {chat} 00:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

OK, I think I get it. So the pictures have to demonstrate something. I.e. with Nicole Kidman you're told she played Virginia Woolf and the picture demonstrates how she looked etc. Therefore, relating it back it to my original point, presumably screenshots of actors in Bleak House who already have a photo detailing what they look like in real-life would be OK, as it's demonstrating how they looked in a particular role (e.g. period dress, massive beards, in the case of Phil Davis a wheelchair) (Bleak House example: Catherine Tate) but not if they haven't got a picture on their page, as then the screenshot would be the actors "this is what they look like" photo, which would be deceptive. (Bleak House example Carey Mulligan) Urggh, horrible description. Sorry - it's late! Cheers, HornetMike 01:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, you've got the gist of it. howcheng {chat} 16:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Super, cheers. HornetMike 19:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

hallo howcheng! thank you very much for promoting my salmon larvae image Uwe Kils   12:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yup, it looks like I tagged that image before the May 19th thing went into effect, and several weeks before the {{CopyrightedNotForProfitUseProvidedThat}} template was updated to reflect that. Anyhow, rereading the quoted email, the {{attribution}} tag seems appropriate. --Alan Au 21:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I would like to ask a silly question. How to find out the number of edits, a person has made. I cudnt find in the contribution section. I wud like to put a pointer in my homepage and want this value to automatically keep getting updated as I make new editsBalajiviswanathan 18:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

See http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate. howcheng {chat} 19:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Howcheng,
Thanks for the notice, can you give me a couple of days to organise something? When is it due up? --Fir0002 10:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

OK I've written a stub: Orthetrum caledonicum --Fir0002 00:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

You have added a View the Animation link to the POTD in the past. Please comment about it here. Cheers, NoSeptember 13:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you love cats? Here you have three, for your collection of pictures  ,  ,  . :-) Alvesgaspar 19:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

On 21 November, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Harry Love (lawman), which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 14:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for that. I'm not sure about a full table, but I think having a graph showing the positions of champions/runners-up/playoff winners in their first top flight season would be good. Oldelpaso 19:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for letting me know that the picture I nominated will be POTD. On Christmas Eve, wow. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 17:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

If you havn't already noticed, Fir has cleaned up the picture I nominated, hopefully addressing your concerns. Would you care to reconsider your oppose vote? Thank you for your comments. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 01:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Moved to user page.

Hello, thank you for informing me that the animation Image:Muybridge_race_horse_animated.gif is scheduled to be Wikipedia:Picture of the day/December 21, 2006. As I have seen, the description there "Muybridge used a series of fifty cameras lined along a track, and each of the camera shutters was controlled by a trip wire which was triggered by the horse's hooves." is not correct. The animation is made of frames of plate 626 of Muybridge's Human and Animal Locomotion. Plate 626 consists of 16 frames of which the first and the sixteenth are identic as the motion comes again to the same point. So for the animation I used only the frames nr. 2 to 16.

Together with the pictures in Human and Animal Locomotion was published a "Prospectus and Catalogue of Plates" by Muybridge where he describes the apparatus and method of working he used. If he took only lateral pictures, he used a battery of 24 automatic electro-photographic cameras arranged parallel with the line of motion. Sometimes he took lateral pictures and pictures from the front and/or from the rear at the same time. In this case, he used a battery of only 12 lateral cameras, a battery of 12 front cameras arranged at an angle of 30° to the line of motion and a battery of 12 cameras taking pictures from behind. Trip wires might be used for the shutters in earlier tries. In the catalogue Muybridge wrote that he used an electric apparatus to take the exposures. He had to estimate the interval of time needed between each photographic exposure. When the person or animal arrived in front of the first camera he had to press a button to start the first picture and the rest was made automatically by the apparatus.

So in the picture of the day description the "50 cameras" and the "trip wire shutter mechanism" are not correct. I don't change the description myself because I am not shure if my English is good enough. Would you please be so kind and correct it? --wau > 14:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Done. Thanks for notifying me about this. howcheng {chat} 17:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Howcheng, as you suggested I have published a rough redraft of my original California State Normal School article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Michaelch7/California_State_Normal_School. I have already made a few changes, but please give me a little more time with it. I will notify you when it's ready for consideration for reinstatement and inclusion as part of the Wikipedia Project California. Thanks again for your open-mindedness and refreshing attitude toward helping preserve California history. Michaelch7 14:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello Howcheng, I was wondering whether it would be possible for you to crop an image for me, please? It's Image:Fountains Abbey view 2005-08-27.jpg, which seems to be too big for me to edit on my computer programme. It has been commented at the peer review that there is too much shadowy space on the right hand side of the image, which I agree with, so if you could just reduce it a little that would be excellent. Thanks! Bob talk 22:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

• I agree that the banding you describe is most likely due to the scanning equipment you use rather than any particular setting or technique you employ. However (ignoring the banding issue) getting a good scan does require a certain amount of knowledge on the part of the person doing the scanning. I scanned most of my 35mm slides and negatives on an old Minolta Dimage Scan Dual, back when I was shooting a lot more film than I do now. I wouldn't recommend looking for one now, as it was one of the cheaper models at the time, lacking many of the features and performance of higher-end scanners. If you'd like to get a better scanner now, I'd look for a used but good condition Nikon or Polaroid scanner.

• If you don't have too many images you need scanned it might make more sense to have them commercially scanned. There are many web-based companies that will do a good job scanning slides and negatives and write them to a CD in various formats. -- Moondigger 19:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

• The auction you linked to has a model similar to the one I used; I'm not sure if it's exactly the same model. I was satisfied with its performance for the price, and have not had any problems with banding. However you could probably get a used Nikon or Polaroid scanner for a good price -- they had better features and higher resolution, I think. Good luck. -- Moondigger 04:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I saw that you had removed this image from the article Billy Ripken, and I wanted to explain why I reverted your action. If you examine the article in question, a paragraph of text concerns his appearance on the cover, and the use of his image as an iconic placeholder for the Orioles' historic futility at the start of that season. As such, the image of the cover is not mere decoration or illustration of the cover's subject, and the fair use claim should be legitimate.

That's how I see it, anyway. I'd welcome discussion on the issue if you disagree. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 23:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, OK. However, its placement makes it look like it's being used for identification purposes. I moved it so that it's near the point it's illustrating. howcheng {chat} 01:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Good idea. I think the current placement is an improvement. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I, your Emperor, will create a svg version of the euro sign. --Walter Humala - Emperor of West Wikipedia  |wanna Talk? 02:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Uhhh, ok. I don't know why you're telling ME about it, though. howcheng {chat} 02:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

User talk:Howcheng/quickimgdelete.js#Redirects - *flees* - Hbdragon88 22:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

On 6 December, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ka Lae, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 15:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey there...

Have not seen you around lately, so welcome back. I posted the following on the village pump page, but I think you would be a very good person to ask, so here goes...

I am asking someone to please review the following, [2], as I do not want to be in violation of WP:3RR. An anon user deleted and then continued to revert the deletion of a nomination on the IfD page. Any thoughts? Would this be considered vandalism? Thanks.--Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 21:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks.--Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 21:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

A combination of work and IFD burnout was keeping me off IFD, but I'm doing jury duty today with nothing else to do, so I figured I'd help clean out IFD. Anyway, removal of the IFD nomination can be considered vandalism, so you would not be subject to 3RR for this. Regards, howcheng {chat} 21:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey,

Thanks for the note :) Can you point me at a source that'll better educate me in re. issues of image orphanage, and provide specific guidelines for such? Thanks in advance.

— Adrian~enwiki (talk) 02:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello again,

Since the time of my post, I have located working guidelines at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. These guidelines have been built by the community, and reflect a consensus amongst editors as to how the wikitorial process should work.

On the allegation of OR, or orphanage, I once again produce the image itself. Since my post on IFD, thirty-party users have linked this image from User:WJBscribe, the mainspace article page Adrian Lamo, rendering moot User:Howcheng's creative reading that userspace linkage is still orphanage.

As to the image being 'UE' or unencyclopedic, the image as at all times material, and does remain now, and artistic likeness of an individual considered "notable" within the colloquial parlance of Wikipedia, for acts, deeds, and other reasons beyond the scope of this note. Whether this image is appropriate for the Adrian Lamo article is not here addressed, and remains now and forever more beyond the subject matter jurisdiction of WP:IFD

I look forward to learning more about aspects of Wikipedia which I had neglected previously, and thank User:Howcheng for bringing this matter to my attention. I apologize for any inconvenience which I may have caused during the course of my existence.

— Adrian~enwiki (talk) 02:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Bigfoot?? Where??? Damn, I'm gullible. howcheng {chat} 02:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, my mistake. Won't happen again. Wikiwoohoo 18:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand why fair use is not applicable to this case. It is the only example of how this event was seen in the West, thus it is valuable for the article, and besides, the small local journal that published it 70 years ago has disappeared 40 years ago, it's one of the 'nobody knows who has the copyright and will care' cases. As far as I can tell, it meets all 10 criteria at WP:FA Images - policy' section.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

No, it fails criterion #8. I've explained in more detail on Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 November 30. howcheng {chat} 17:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Point #8 states: The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose.. I believe that the picture contributes significantly to the article, illustrating Western reception to this event?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

At the end of WP:FUC, it says, "As a quick test, ask yourself: 'Can this image be replaced by a different one, while still having the same effect?' If the answer is yes, then the image probably doesn't meet the criteria above and should not be used." The answer in this case is yes -- you could use any other editorial cartoon on the same topic and have exactly the same effect. You need to discuss this exact cartoon and the significance of this specific one. In such a case, no other cartoon could conceivably replace it. I realize this is a rather subtle point, but does that make sense to you? howcheng {chat} 19:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading Image:NewBidwellBarBridge.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Howcheng! Thank you for signing in my autograph book. I didn't think you would ever sign, as you are a double-admin, and are very busy. Thanks for signing again. :-) | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 19:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Reply