User talk:71Demon/Archive 2

Please click here to leave me a new message.

Welcome to my Archived Talk Page. Please use the box above to return to my active talk page.

US State related ships

I did not understand your question about my reservations. Could youn please explain? Thank you, Dr. Submillimeter 21:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The articles on the various ships are unrelated except for the name. For example, the ships in Category:Missouri Related Ships include two modern-day destroyers; a WWII destroyer escort; a modern-day carrier; and a WWII battleship. I understand that other people see this as an opportunity to explore local/state history, but in my mind, it does not make much sense to group these unrelated ships together. (You talk archive works very fast.) Dr. Submillimeter 22:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cfd/Cfr State Related Ships

re: your comments on Fabartus--> Very nice posting. Thank You --71Demon 14:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice posting. Thank You --71Demon 14:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

De nada -- de tanks appreciated, but unneeded -- Tis all truish at te' bery least. <g>
Or was ye admiring de {{indent}} generated whitespacing? <g>
Picking on something today for not having tomarrow's contents is just asking to waste time and have dozens of such cat fights over and over.
Better to settle the size context and scope now and show how silly that complaint is and will be -- and while the wikilawyers can pick on 'US' and non-hypens, such cat fights only waste the time of all of us.
I've looked on with admiration at the systematic way those groups have hammered together some very nice to great articles and so just called the spade a spade.
The thanks are appreciated, though! Cheers! // FrankB 16:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xpost fm Fabartus #2

- Some admins/editors tend to miss the forest for the trees. I can't stand when some puts an afd on an article with a reason, doesn't have enough information. Or this article needs Wikified. They will take the time to look at the article long enough to find fault, but will not take the time to do a little research and fix it. I just do the research. It is extremely rare that I ask someone else to do it. I don't know if they would like me as an admin, I would be objective. LOL. --71Demon 16:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may then appreciate and so desire to contribute some suggestions on User:Fabartus/Wet noodle award... I've got an overall slow burn on all thoughtless actions which have major time implications going forward. We need to raise the standards and bar somehow, as with the size of the population, sometimes half our time is spent with needless remediation and talk after the fact. Not efficient, nor effective. Best regards // FrankB 17:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category talk:Tennessee Related Ships‎ ... also Medal of Honor winners by state

My comment about category size at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 4#State ship-related categories was not intended to poke a stick in your eye. Rather, I was trying to respond to the concern that there were so many states that each category might be too puny to deserve being a category.

Wikipedia is all about incrementalism -- folks work on an article for a few minutes or an hour here or there, then others add more content, etc. Nobody expects on editor to go through and categorize hundreds of ships by state -- especially before a CfD closes.

Big projects like this is one reason there are WikiProjects -- they help share out the load. They also build consensus for new categories and articles before someone puts a lot of work into them. A category or article born out of a Wikiproject will instantly have a number of editors interested in sheltering it from arbitrary deletion.

Whether or not the categories are deleted in favor of list-type articles for each state, you've at least gotten one other editor to knock out one to two hours of research on Tennessee ships.

On a separate topic, you might consider (after a light afternoon's work categorizing 200+ years of U.S. Navy ships by state) doing something about Medals of Honor by state. You could probably get help from one or more Wikiprojects. I think this would be even more meaningful to folks in West Virginia or Rhode Island than the state ship-related categories. Also, the military to a certain extent already tracks and "assigns" MoH winners to states (sometimes incorrectly).

In fact, the whole MoH category is hit-or-miss. Marine MoH recipients get loving attention from Semper Fi types, but there are lots of MoH winners from other services that don't yet have a stub. Here's one I caught without an article after driving over a bridge with his name on it: James Ernest Karnes. I think there are hundreds more. --A. B. ^(talk) 18:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Already posted again

Yes it gets pretty damn annoying when people keep redoing their objection to it. I'll probably edit them so that people can read the discussions regarding the approval to keep so that people don't be idiots and go debate it for deletion again. ViriiK 22:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Potomac River redirect

Hey there, thanks for the heads up on the attempt to merge Pohick Creek to the Potomac River article. People don't seem to get the point of stubs...they are created so that information can be added slowly over time creating a solid article with a diverse array of sources. It doesn't always happen over night, and besides, what would the benefit be in adding a random Pohick Creek section on the already too long Potomac River page? A lot of the tributary streams of the Potomac River are stubs. It's a good thing you and I have definitely taken care of the tributaries in Maryland, West Virginia, and Virginia. Thanks again! --Caponer 00:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

US State Related Ships

Sorry I haven't been of much help on this issue; I'm not really familiar with the material and how to categorize a ship with the appropriate state origin. For example, Hampshire County (the ship) is named for Hampshire County in Massachusetts and not West Virginia. It's hard to make sure we're categorizing them with the correct states. It's a slippery slope. I'll check out the deletion log and see if I can be of any help with stopping the speedy deletion. You're definitely right about the WikiNazis...they are most likely taking their frustrations from their dull lives out on many good and decent editors like us! --Caponer 00:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin

I started a Notable Hampshire County residents section at the bottom of the Hampshire County article....of course it is just a beginning. I'm going to try and fix up his article as there is too much emphasis on the controversy and none on his political career. Admins may tag it with a bias template. Thanks for the heads up! I've linked him to Hampshire County, Hampshire High School, and will find anywhere else where his name link would be applicable! --Caponer 23:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm online right now! --Caponer 23:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:USS Barbour County.jpg

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OrphanBot is FUBAR, the image was labeled {PD-USGov-Military-Navy-NHC} before it said it wasn't labeled. I requested they fix the bot.--71Demon 15:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How to link to categories

To link to categories, use a standard Wikilink with a : after the opening brackets. For example, to link to Category:Republic of Vietnam Navy ships, type [[:Category:Republic of Vietnam Navy ships]]. This also works for images; to link to Image:Flag of the United States.svg, type [[:Image:Flag of the United States.svg]]. TomTheHand 23:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tip: FYI- Can also use {{Cat see also}}, which will list cats, and does not need category spelt for any category in the list. // FrankB 05:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the bad image

Have you tried overwriting the image? If that doesn't work, I'm sure there's a page for request for deletion of image which you got a good reason. ViriiK 09:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category links

I would appreciate it if you'd stop putting your category links on articles until we find a consensus; I disagree with your change. TomTheHand 20:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:USS_Wood_County.JPG

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing "no copyright holder" tags

71Demon, please do not remove those tags without adding source information. For an example of an image with source information, check out Image:Matthew_C._Perry.jpg. It uses {PD-USGov-Military-Navy-NHC}, plus it contains the sentence "PD photo of Matthew C. Perry, collected from http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/teach/pearl/kanagawa/friends4.htm". You need to do something similar for the images you've uploaded. If your images are not from the web, but rather from a book, please state which book you scanned them from. Wherever you got the photos, you must state the source.

Note that removing copyright tags without providing copyright information is vandalism, and I will treat it as such; consider this a warning. TomTheHand 22:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is your final warning. If you continue to remove copyright tags from images without source information, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. TomTheHand 22:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the bogus warning. The proper tag is there, OrphanBot should be called VandalBot, because it is not programmed correctly. {PD-USGov-Military-Navy-NHC} is the proper tag from a photo from the US Navy. I got the photo from the US Navy, and I put the proper tag on it. Imagin that? --71Demon 23:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Image talk:USS Barbour County.jpg, where I explain what you need to add to the image. TomTheHand 23:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this; {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy-NHC}} and it tells me where the photo came from when I read it. It said This image courtesy of the U.S. Navy Naval Historical Center And then I knew it came from the U.S. Navy Naval Historical Center because the {PD-USGov-Military-Navy-NHC} generated a template that says, {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy-NHC}} and written in that template it says,

This image courtesy of the U.S. Navy Naval Historical Center and since I'm a

en

This user is a native speaker of the English language.

I knew what that ment. Pretty Cool, huh? --71Demon 00:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)|}[reply]

You may be a native speaker of English, but you appear to be having trouble understanding Wikipedia's image use policies. Perhaps you should refrain from uploading any further images until you have read and understood Wikipedia:Image use policy. --Carnildo 00:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is use that doesn't understand. So when I goto the Mariners Musuem outside Norfolk and get the photos, and I put I got these from teh Mariners Musuem, are you going to call them up and ask them to check their guest registry everytime a post them? What about the ones I got from the National Archives. Should I post a picture of me walking out of the National Archives, of course how do I verify, that the picture I posted of me walking out of the national archives carrying the photos is released into the public domain? How do you know it is even me? I think therefore I am? Is that good enough? Just fix your bot, so people can get on editing with the non-sense. Thanks--71Demon 00:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The photos

That isn't an editor, per se, but a bot, and automated account that takes alot of the manual slogging out of Wikipedia. When you upload a photo, in addition to the tag, make sure to just put a comment like "Public domain photo taken by an employee of the US Govt during their duties." If you still have issues, talk to the bot operator. Good luck. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 23:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to that phrase, you should also include some way for the image source to be verified: the URL you got the photo from, or the name of the publication you scanned it from. --Carnildo 00:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That information on where I get them is included. Fix your Bot. --71Demon 00:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:USS Barbour County (LST-1195).JPG

re: Frank can you check into this? This image is labled. It is labled as from the Defense Visual Information Center. Which is where I got it. If you goto the Defense Visual Information Center webstite and search for USS Barbour County this photo among other is one that comes up. It is properly labled as to its source, and it can be varified. What it the problem? --71Demon 01:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an image specialist, though have had a similar problem. They want a link apparently, so back track it, and remove the template and put in the reference. I'll ask Sherool to give you a second opinion, as posts to Carnildo don't seem to be getting clear answers. You'd think they'd put together a template for the BOT to give people a to-do list or references or such. // FrankB 04:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also Image_talk:USS_Barbour_County.jpg#Can_we_not_escalate_this this. Good thing I saw the above before leaving. If you can't get anywhere getting a url, give me another holler. Cheers! // FrankB 04:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that OrphanBot is not an incredebly advanced AI's it's just a script that tag images that do not contain scertain keywords and/or an url as would be expected in a source declaration. It also only recognizes "official" copyright tags, so creating your own copyright tags won't help. Anyway, after a bit of searching I did manage to track down the source, so I uploaded a high-resolution version of the image to Commons along with all the nessesary source information and deleted the image you uploaded here (better to use the high-res file from Commons). So that should take care of that. Just be sure to include as much information as possible about images you upload in the future (better to have two pages of detailed info that no one will ever read than just say "from the navy"), and use "official" copyright tags (see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags) whenever possible (also consider uploading to Commons instead of just EnWiki when uploading PD/free licensed images, that way all the other projects can use it too). Thanks. --Sherool (talk) 08:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continued removal of copyright tags (after properly sourced)

71Demon, you are continuing to remove copyright tags without providing adequate source information. Look at the way Sherool fixed Image:USS Barbour County (LST-1195).JPG, and work to provide the same information on your images. Do not remove another copyright tag without providing the same level of source information as Sherool did. It would be a good idea for you to add more information, then consult with a user with experience with image copyright tags to see if it's enough before removing the copyright tags. TomTheHand 20:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your right I removed tag after I identified where I got it from, as Sherool showed me. --71Demon 20:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You did not do anything like what Sherool showed you. Again, look at Image:USS Barbour County (LST-1195).JPG, which Sherool took care of for you, and provide a similar amount of information. TomTheHand 20:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's break it down and figure out what to put on the images. First of all, how did you get Image:USS Piedmont AD-17.jpg? Did you find it on a web site? Did you scan it from a book? Did you go to a naval museum or something, find it in their archives, and have them put it on disk for you? TomTheHand 20:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the text added to the photo, it says the source is, Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships Office of the Chief of Naval Operations Naval History Division • Washington. --71Demon 20:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm going to ask again. How did you get the image? Did you go to one of the places where DANFS is available online, did you scan it from a hard copy of DANFS, or did you physically go to the Naval Historical Center or another location and have them give you an image from their archives on disk? TomTheHand 20:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got it from the Naval History Division in Washington, as stated. I think it was on disc, it was several years ago, because the photos I got from the National Archives I requested negatives, so that I could reproduce them, and I don't have a negatives for these. --71Demon 20:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I think you mean Naval Historical Center, which is what it's been called since 1971. On the image, please include information stating that you actually physically went to the Naval Historical Center in Washington, DC and requested that they give you the images in question on disc. TomTheHand 21:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are the only one fighting for this nonsense now. Everbody else is happy. Look who removed the tag on Image:USS Grant County Stern.jpg I was follow his lead. They have been tagged properly from the beginning. Additional information was requested, I added. The tag was removed by a neutral party. With that precedent set, I labled the rest and removed the tags.

Look I know you don't agree with me on the ship article naming, but don't let that stuff spill over into this. I have a lot of editing I want to do, and this just takes me away from it. I love history, and this is a stress reliever for me. When it becomes stressfull, I say screw it and disappear for awhile. On the Republic of Vietnam Navy, I have made contact with one of the former Captians of the RVNS Chi Linh (HQ 11). He has never edited on Wiki, and is going to see if his group is interested. He thought they would be. Wiki will benefit from all this information that is not in the DANFS. They will also have good information on the ships fleaing to the Phillipines at the end of the war.

I would love to replace photos with better ones. Like replacing Image:HQ-10-NhatTao.jpg with this one. http://pcf45.com/cosgrp16/vnn-pce10.jpg but I don't know the source or the copyright, so I will not do it. I have labled the photos I have put up with where they came from. I could put anything, but that is not right. I have listed the source, everybody seems to be happy but you. Years ago I learned you can't please everybody, so I'm not going to try. --71Demon 21:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why you're being so stubborn. It's a simple request: describe exactly how you got the image. I'll do it myself. TomTheHand 21:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could ask you the same question as to why you are being stubborn. One, I think the tag is enough, because the clearly show what section of the government they came from. Two, I added the words requested. Now everybody seems satisified, but you. I don't think I can please you, so I'm not going to try. --71Demon 21:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry bout the delay. As of right now I think the sourcing of those two images are "adequate" (shows a good faith effort to identify the source, and there is little reason to doubht it's accuracy). Some more info like some kind of image ID number (most image collections have such) and info on the photographer (if available) and when it was taken and such would have been nice (try to get these for future images you get from archives and such), but I don't think the absense of these is bad enough to delete these images. For photos of "modern" military hardware from *.mil or *.gov websites a bit of caution is needed since they sometimes use photos from manifacturers / contractors that are not nessesarily free under the "US federal government work" clause, but I see no reason to be overly suspicious of photos of WWII era ships at sea gotten from a navy museum archive. --Sherool (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it works out.

Crazy day at work and a busy weekend. I hope the photo thing gets sorted out for you. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 21:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only one guy upsetting the apple cart now. Don't think he will ever be satified. Maybe if I put video of tape on Youtube of me and Sandy Berger hanging out together in the National Archieves, but not before. --71Demon 21:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ships

Thanks, but all I am doing is putting them in sort order 'S' instead of the name of the state. Hmains 23:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

river counties

with 2 exceptions, the entire county category was subcategories of counties of each state by state. I elmininated the exceptions to make the category uniform and because the exceptions were 'invisible' within the list of 50 state categories. Now there could be good reason to a have a category named something like 'Counties that border rivers in the United States' and put that category in appropriate super categories. What do you think? Thanks Hmains 01:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Example: 'Category:Ohio River counties' was in the 'Category:Counties of the United States'. I removed that connection so the 'Counties of the United States' category would not have categories other than those of the 50 states' counties by state mixed in together. Hmains 01:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I beg off on ships. I am not working on them/know not much about them other than putting the state ships under 'S'. Thanks Hmains 01:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:West-Virginia-school-stub

Hi - it has come to our notice that you have recently created a new stub type. As it clearly states at WP:STUB, at the top of most stub categories (including the one you made!), on the template page for new Wikiprojects and in many other places on Wikipedia, new stub types should be proposed prior to creation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, in order to check whether the new stub type is already covered by existing stub types, whether it is named according to stub naming guidelines, whether it reaches the standard threshold for creation of a new stub type, whether it crosses existing stub type hierarchies, and whether better use could be made of a WikiProject-specific talk page template.

In the case of your new stub type, we already have WestVirginia-school-stub. West-Virginia-school-stub - by the use of the hyphen - would indicate that it should be used for schools in the west of Virginia. Since there are currently only 32 school stubs from West Virginia (all marked with WqestVirginia-school-stub), there are not currently enough for a separate stub category and as such the existing templkate is double-upmerged into the West Virginia stubs and the Southern United States school stubs categories. Your new stub type has been propose for deletion at WP:SFD - feel free to comment there on this if you wish. Grutness...wha? 00:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WestVirginia-school-stub is empty. West Virginia is two words. Everything is in the correctly spelled one now. --71Demon 01:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WestVirginia vs. West Virginia

In the context of spelling when it comes to crafting stub template names, fusing two-word placenames is commonplace (if not standard) on Wikipedia. When I made the county templates, I was told I should create Template:MineralCountyWV as opposed to Template:Mineral County WV. I'm not sure of the rationale, but I just know that is the way these folks do it. It looks like you may have to comply with this one ;) BTW, in the county templates, instead of streams and rivers exclusively, I've been trying to rebrand that bottom portion as "Natural features" so you may want to make some additions to Template:MineralCountyWV as I'm not sure of all of the natural features to the west of Patterson Creek Mountain :) --Caponer 16:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you just like getting yourself in trouble ;) Alright, I'm off to Hampshire County for the holiday. Have a happy Martin Luther King, Jr. Day! --Caponer 16:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a bot, these images are wrongly licensed and poorly sourced

I am not a bot and I did not mark those images incorrectly. The images did not provide the URL from where they came from, and saying "Official Press Release Photo from WV Legislature" is not a sufficient source. Further, works of the state governments do not apply to the tag US-PDGov, as those are only for works of the US Federal government, and your use is likely wrong. We would need to use this images under fair use, which they would then be considered replaceable anyways, so we do not need these images. I was asking for a direct URL to confirm that these were taken from the WV state website so I could remove the Federal tag and then mark them as no license. We can avoid all this roundabout dance if you just request the images be deleted by putting {{db-author}} on each of these types of images. Lastly, the images you put on my page showed up where you likely did not want them to. To link to an image and not have it display, you just need to put a colon ( : ) in front of the Image: part of the code, like this: [[:Image:blah.jpg]]. --MECU≈talk 16:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are sourced the same

* Image:Betty Ireland, West Virginia Secretary of State.jpg

* Image:Gov Joe Manchin.jpg

Labled as the press release photos. What are you looking for? --71Demon 16:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: Thanks so much. I think the designer of the bot got offended when I told him his bot was skipping the tags. It got a little heated, and then he started stalking my photos. Instead of going tit for tat I figured it was better to get an admin involved. I will look into the Commons, I have never used it. Again thanks, so much. I added additional wordage on the other ones he marked. I'm not going to put tags on them in the future, but put where it came from. If somebody else wants to make more work for themselve retagging them, then they are welcome to. Again thanks. --71Demon 20:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xpost ans

Looks like we both need to spend some time parsing through the Help on images--i.e. the links on main help--t'would be nice if at least one facet of wikipedia was stabilized so things okay five months back are unaffected thereafter... sigh. This may be the first wave of that... these changes came down when Jimbo set POLICY, vice the nattering on talks. Guess some people just confuse action with progress, but stable policies should cut that down. Hope it's a trend by Jimbo, myself. 'Consensus' when equally valid methods or styles are the issue is awfully time wasteful. For my part, wish the energy were expended on article improvements. Take care. // FrankB 19:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

post Comment,

on the above similar issue:

I already went 'to the mattresses on that' kind of matter... looks like they've actually become more humane and less stiff on handling these.

Looks like the above is more of the same... so just read up, and cure the short coming, vice wasting the energy on arguments, or asking them to 'take care of you' by asking questions that will spoonfeed the knowledge to you. You'll likely get better and faster answers on the discussion pages on those helps than here on an individual talk.
Think of it this way... all images are under the microscope because of the recent policy change which should be a stabilizing influence over the long term, and the image focused editors and admins are a small much overworked group and picking on ALL IMAGES systematically. Work through all the images you added, and cure all of them. Then they won't have any reason to tag and you'll have heard the end of it. Better, upload all that satisfy commons licenses to the commons and put {{db-author}} on the ones here after copying over the history stuff two. Otherwise, someone will also eventually have to do also do that job for you. Bad enough someone has to respond to the 'db-author', but that's a team job too... as is helping satisfy all requirements of guidelines or policy. This one is policy, so a lot of BOT time is generating a quick change senario... work with the team. No brainer, really.
They are trying to not step on toes (ala WP:Wh) by warnings, and essentially all they are asking is that you take responsibility for curing defects of documentation that are satisfactory to the new policy. So just read up on it, and just get it done when they need something clarified. Not too hard to understand. Don't feel put upon, victimized, etc. as we are all seeing this kind of clean up. This is merely a way of notifying you that such is needed.
It happens that in the case of the two above, I put my foot in my mouth over such press release photos and argued the matter with a email and reply with Jimbo himself. Egg all over my face.(same link as above) Hadn't noticed the guideline was now the policy. BIG DIFFERENCE!!!
As I understand it, the basic position is even fair use of press release photo's can be replaced, and so are in violation of policy. Tough requirement... two solutions.
(1) Email the WVa administration (I'd try the offices of the people directly involved, or better yet, their public relations people. A phone call if you are local would be a good idea!) for a GFDL release or better yet, a Creative-Commons license. Post a copy of that into the image talks, asking that the admins wait whilst a reply is pending. (In the meantime, the PD-US is def. wrong, so change to fair-use of proper kind.)
(2) Have to get a photo that is definitely released into the PD, so the same methods will be needed, or a good camera and do it yourself.
They aren't 'taking prisoners' on this PD stuff if a reasonable substitute can be found, so if you don't want to do that kind of cure, {{db-author}} the pics and remove from the article and put it behind you. IMHO, this is a loss to the project, but it is also policy, and Jimbo himself clarified and endorsed THIS interpretation on Press Pack photos. Shrug. // FrankB 19:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: More Photos

Hi, I'm afraid those are a little less clear cut than the navy images. As I understand it state and federal governments do not use the same rules, state governments are free to retain copyright on theyr works, and most do. Not sure about West Virginia spesificaly, but generaly speaking works of state governments can not be asumed to be in the public domain (public domain does not mean "released to the public", at least not in the context of copyright, wich is often a source of some confusion. You can make something available to the public without granding them any right to copy, distribute or modify it, in fact that's rater the whole point of the copyright law). Neither does the GFDL tagging seem likely. GFDL is a very spesific legal document, it's not a generic "free to use" license, and unless something is very explicitly labeled as beeing release under the GFDL license by the copyright holder it's not (also note that public domain and GFDL are in no way interchangable terms. In the context of copyright public domain literaly means no copyright protection whatsoever (as opposed to merely "available to the public"). GFDL (and other free licenses) on the other hand work by having the copyright holder give everyone a license to use, modify and copy his work in various ways, if there was no copyright such a license could not be enforced (GFDL does have some restrictions), so saying that something is licensed under GFDL because it's in the public domain is a contradiction.) If it did say something to the effect of "This is released under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL)" on the CD then fair enough, but otherwise it's not. No one have questioned that they are official press release photos, just your claim that they are public domain and/or released under the GFDL license. Those things have spesific legal meanings, entierly unrelated to wether or not something has been release to the press. The closest fit is probably the fair use {{promophoto}} tag, unfortunately this in turn probably means we should not be using them since they are "replacable" (we should be eable to find or create images of these persons that rely are free licensed, see notice on the tag itself). I realise this stuff gets complicated fast and I won't pretend to understand half of it myself all the time, there are entire indistries of lawyers out there who make a living out of interpreting intelectual property laws and such. That is part of the reason Wikipedia is so "hardcore" on the free license stuff, we don't just want stuff we can use outselves with little legal risk (using press photos are fairly safe), we want stuff that everyone can use, modify and even turn around ald sell without worrying about copyright (they may have to worry about lots of other things, but we want to take copyright worries out of the equation as much as humanly possible. Wich unfortunately means we contributors do have to deal with these copyright issies... This got a bit long, sorry about that, but it's not a topic that's easy to sum up in 10 words or less.--Sherool (talk) 02:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sherool, long winded is fine when it is honest talk. I'm not assuming anything about the public domain, I always ask. One my best friend works in the US Patent and Trademark office, anytime I'm unsure I run things past him. Also on these photos in question, I picked them up at the state capital, off of Dave Sypolt, also a good friend. Dave is a state senator (and sometimes Wiki editor), I told Dave as part of the Wiki West Virginia project I needed photos to put up on Wiki. He gave me a disc with the Official Press Release Photos, these are diffinately released into the public domain. They are free to use for publication. Anytime a news paper writes an article on a state representative, senator, governor, etc they use these press release photos as they are public domain, and for that purpose. I just tried to call my buddy at the USPTO, but it is MLK day and he is not in his office. --71Demon 16:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be mixing up three different things here. "Free to use", "free-licensed", and "public domain" are very different copyright statuses.

A photograph of Senator Whosit is free to use if I can include it in my newsletter without paying the copyright owner.
A photograph of Senator Whosit is free-licensed if I am allowed to pencil in a moustache and goatee before including it in my newsletter.
A photograph of Senator Whosit is in the public domain if it is not copyrighted, or if the copyright has expired. Except for photographs created by the federal government, this is very rare.

I suspect what you've got is a disc of free-to-use photos. Under Wikipedia's fair-use policies, those are only useable if it is very difficult or impossible to find or make a free-licensed replacement. Photographs of deceased individuals, recluses, or people who have undergone drastic changes in appearance are acceptable, as are pictures of one-time events or buildings that have been destroyed. --Carnildo 20:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carnildo, now you have actually been helpful instead of combative and advisarial, but I still think you are wrong. I probably should have used this tag {{Copyrighted free use}} because the intent of the state to release these photo is for free use. Wiki, is not different that a news paper printing a short story, saying these are our Representatives, here is a little bio about them. Wiki is mearly electronic instead of print, but the intent of the state for these photos to be used is the same. The other point being, when I asked for these photos it was specifically for use on wiki. --71Demon 21:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In order to be a free license, they need to explicitly allow three things:

Anybody can copy the photos without restriction.
Anybody can modify the photos without restriction.
Anybody can distribute modified photos without restriction.

Promotional and press-kit photos usually only allow the first, and even then, they often are restricted further to only allow copying to promote the person or organization in question. Trying to divine the intention of the copyright holder just leads to problems, as nobody's a good mind reader.

This also demonstrates why asking for pictures that can be used on Wikipedia is tricky. Simply asking someone if the pictures can be used on Wikipedia is a problem, because the reply is usually "yes, Wikipedia can use the pictures". This isn't a grant of free license, it's simply permission for Wikipedia to use the pictures. It doesn't even permit sister projects such as Wiktionary or Wikibooks to use the images.

What you need to ask for is for the images to be released under the GFDL or under the Creative Commons Attribution or Attribution-Sharealike license, and you need to explain exactly what this means. Otherwise, we're likely to wind up with someone saying "I didn't know that's what I was agreeing to" or "He didn't have the authority to agree to that", and one of the people who help answer Wikipedia's email will need to calm down an irate copyright holder and try to fend off a lawsuit. --Carnildo 00:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Photos

re:
"I have little tolerence for people that can't see the forest for the trees. There is no way this guy read this stuff, that is why I thought it was a bot. When I looked at his page, User:Mecu I understood. He displays the very first thing on his page, how easy it is to tag photos for deletion. This is one of those people that is not interested in making Wiki better, he just wants to mess with editors. He never did respond to my question asking what he wanted. I showed him the old photos that apparently passed muster, and all he did was tag them. That is not helping Wiki, that is not even showing goodfaith of any kind. I spent a good portion of last week in Charleston for the openning of the state legislature, I visited personally with each person in those photos I posted. I took the time to get digital copies of each while I was there. They are their press release photos. I listed exactly where they came from, they don't need my personal lifes story on my trip to Charleston last week. These people will destroy Wiki in the end. --71Demon 20:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

The fact you are failing to appreciate is that there are dozens of complaints such as yours made to them each week or on each day, and they are just doing their job and didn't sign up to be a complaint department, or to tutor people that won't take the time to read the guidelines, policies, and talk pages discussing the matter... They are much like a policeman called by neighbors in a domestic dispute, they are reluctantly doing their job. Do you think 'They' want to get in the middle of a raging family squabble? Not! Do you think Sherool usually leaves typos and misspellings (signs of haste) in his writing normally, or is the least bit rude. No, he's a patient and civil guy, and shows great empathy and maturity. The others might learn from his tact, but it is tact and maturity, not an over abundance of free time that lends him his demeanor and courtesy. Kindly extend the same kind of courtesy and understanding to the others as you would like to receive. It is immature to rail about the sky being blue, it just is something we cannot affect.
Don't rage about them, abuse them, or act out as a pouting child like this is a personal attack. Instead, applaud them, understand and sympathize with them, for they are taking the heat for the foundations change in policy. But don't abuse them or think worse of them, they are far more victimized by this than you. They have got to take their free time and deal with many angry editors just like you because of this. Not something I would think they signed up to do. But they're doing it fairly maturely and without lashing back too much too often.
This is an irksome thing, as you well know, or you wouldn't be so vexed and excited about it. However, the policy is the policy. Like a law, like the copyright laws. Simply put, Wikipedia's management want only free content and zero, zippo, no risk of liability for potential copyright infringements.
Add to that the 'mission' of having an ALL FREE CONTENT website, constrained solely by the GFDL. Somewhere on your skin, at least in edit mode, there is a bold link to the GFDL, because that is part of the five pillars of wikipedia. Getting excited about it, isn't going to change it. That will require either staying a valued member in good standing long enough to help others who believe like you do (myself for one) change the base philosophy (unlikely though that may be), or voting with your feet and moving on down the road to something less vexing.
Snarling about it to others and making their job even worse (fairly bad manners by any measure--kind of like kicking a man when he's down.) won't change it, but you might see if the Village Pump has a post on it and add your voice... the powers that be do evolve things around here based on community consensus... I just don't think Jimbo will back down on this one till it works all the way through unless there is a huge growl heard from that quarter, and since this has been steadily ongoing since before November, I guess that isn't happening...
I will write Jimbo about these ill feelings that are being generated. He should perhaps do something to reward and acknowledge the heat these admins are taking on behalf of the policy. So don't piss up a stick--you won't like the wet stuff that gets on your hands, and just look ridiculous. Just act maturely and accept there are some things in life you can't change--this is much like an accident or natural disaster--deal with the aftermath, and go on with living. Be well, and get happy again. If you don't want to cure the copyright status, just let them go.
Nothing on this effort will matter to your health and happiness in ten years, so enjoy what satisfactions that you can, and work around the lack of such photos. I think it silly too, but if all the wiki articles on state figures soon get barren of figures, then perhaps they'll wake up about PR photos. I'm not going to hold my breath. But the sky is still going to be blue in the morning, no matter what you do, so do whatever well, and get on with living without sweating the small shit. Hell, you should try 30 years (or one) in the Armed Forces. That'll teach you patience about the things you can't change--that and having a kid just like you was when he's 15. <BSEG> Live long and prosper... or at least Nolo moritori coribundum! // FrankB 05:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monday

re: your last...

I agree with you whole heartedly on the way things are being handled by them. The 'rush' is totally discourteous, and I've gone off a few times myself on less grounds than that. I'm sorry you think I was taking 'the sides' of these guys, I was trying to split things down the middle, get you to cool down a little by passing along the perspective on the work load. Interfering busy body of an mediator that I am, I was just trying for some calm reasoning without the emotion, or at least with some empathy for them to counter your own emotion. If you look back at that AN/I linked above (which took me about an hour-and-a-half to run down so I could link it) my language and attitude is/was right up your alleyway. In fact, my language was far more scathing, intemperate, and far blunter--and you should see what I sent Jimbo privately-- and to an extent, so remain my feelings still. I grew up in your current neck of the woods, come from a coal mining family background, and probably say things much blunter than the more refined highly cultured types that seem to run amuck here, but you'll not fault me therein for not presented a spirited defense. (I'd rather hoped, it had you ROTFLYAO... I was not gentle. More like the shock language of pissing and sticks at acute angles. <G>)
But neither you nor I can stop elemental forces at work, the sun in the sky, or command the Moon to stay full all month. I have no clue as to how many photos we actually have on the wikipedia project, but it's got to be 100K plus, and so far as I've observed, there are about 10-12 editors working them--and that means working here and working them on the commons side when necessary both. (Adding emphasis to your point about them working them too quickly, and to some of them perhaps being on a power trip. Personally, I'm sure I'm a slower reader comparatively to some of these break-neck-speed-you-see-em-everywhere admins, but I'm also sure I have a better appreciation of the nuance and fine shades of meaning from my plodding ways. It's likely they are working using AWB or a BOT, so your point has merit. If things don't accord sufficiently, they click their little button to park their little automated pre-programmed template, and move onto to the next item in the automated feed que.) I work a lot with categories in both places, and so I merely know some of them. Nothing I said above that I recollect said that they were the best and most thoughtful of editors on wikipedia. We get a lot of that, some yahoo working too fast under automated stimulus confusing action with progress, and in the speedy process tearing down the work someone of good faith has sweated over diligently doing their best to add to the project--but that was your point--I'm merely agreeing with my own confirmation of the observation and characterization.
But! Being both of us mature men comparative to some of these youngsters, we have both seen many circumstances in our lives where people get carried away and flex their muscles on things too energetically sans sufficient long term thought. One of wikipedia's system of admins 'problems' is indeed the age and loose criteria for adminship, but the youngsters both have the time and the energy to stomp hard on vandalism, and that is the prevalent main task that keeps them busy, and good thing--but I digress, and wouldn't have the job. My additional, and I think very telling, point was however, that my appeal to Jimbo got no where, despite a quick hearing. In the final analysis, this is the way the foundation board and Jimbo want it--totally free content-PERIOD.
I very much agree that this is philosophical stupidity run to the hard stop of absurdity, but being angry at the messengers/cops, who are after all minor level flunkies, as it were, is like being mad at a dog for picking up fleas or a tick. It's just part of life in the country. Life is filled with circumstances wherein we have no control and just must pick up the pieces and go on the best we can afterwards, and hope whatever hasn't scarred us too much.
I read some of the posts you exchanged with them, and agree that they (mostly) could use a bit more empathy,patience, tact, and diplomacy as well as be far clearer with explainations, but the decision to execute and the time interval is not one in their individual control. Having been off wiki during that period, I have no true clue as to the background conversations that went about the matter, but the de facto executive marching orders are to be ruthless in enforcing that policy, so I was merely trying to calm you in an attempt to realize you were arguing with a blizzard, ticked at an avalanche, trying CPR on a patient exhumed from a grave.
SO PLEASE don't tar me with the same brush... I'm merely trying to play peacemaker, and make you feel better about the matter. I've had a couple of run-ins with Carnildo myself, but an equal number of 'got an answer' experiences, so I'm no fan of his. I will just will not twist his bedside manner into a personal feud, and urge you to do the same with the whole bunch. They're hands are forced, and thus so to are the hands of all of us sheep, for they have the distasteful task of being the shepards in this flock. So we all lemminglike are headed for the cliff, but Jimbo and the board don't see it that way. Swearing about it or them or the image police will not change that, and is also likely to make them stricter with you (yes, a petty abuse of power, but these are human beings we are discussing, not angels) and more rigid. I have by way of private email, btw, from Sherool that the Image:USS Barbour County (LST-1195).JPG documentation and justification was "borderline" and that he almost just went ahead an deleted it as well. And he's one of the good guys as you acknowledge. My best advice is to email him and figure out with his help precisely where that border is, then give a sufficiently clear message that you are well inside it. Similarly, anything further on this should probably be by email, where we can at least swear together in private together, or at each other. You're call! <G> Cheer up! Things could be worse, Virgina could invade and annex your lovely state again, the winter could last all summer, or the other NFL teams could refuse to pay the Pats until they fire Belichick. Enjoy the absurd as well as the sane, and keep on trudging on. Best wishes! // FrankB 04:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clearify, when I said I almost deleted it I was refering to the talk page (seeing as I had already deleted the image to make the Commons version appear, orphanded talk pages generaly are deleted). That image was fortunately easy enough to "fix", so I took the time to track down the info and fix it, but that's sadly not always the case (and people don't always have the time to fix other people's images (though if they look like they can be fixed I would hope people skip them and deal with the rest of the backlog fist at least...)) --Sherool (talk) 08:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two Both of You

I find you both to be reasonable. I do not agree with Frank on one point. I'm not attacking the messager for doing their job, I'm pointing out that they are not doing their job. The peons like us and them are doing the work. If we stop doing their dirty work, when we know it is wrong, then we can make a statement. I believe that one person can make a difference. --71Demon 16:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:STUB

Check out the above link. Alot of articles that you are tagging as stubs are far beyond stubby-hood. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 01:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Section refactored down to group related messages by FrankB[reply]

The WV Portal

Great work on the WV portal. It's just what it needed. Cheers. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 03:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Evans allen.jpg

Please stop removing tags from images such as you did to Image:Evans allen.jpg. We require verification of your claim that the WV Legislature has licensed this image under the GFDL. You know this already. Removing tags from images is considered vandalism. --Yamla 16:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You said: "You have repeatedly vandalised photos, by adding tags you know to be wrong. The photos were released for use on Wikipedia by State Senator David Sypot. Please stop vandalising these photos, you are in violation of Wikipolicy."

I am not. The burden of proof is on you, the uploader. You have provided absolutely no evidence that these images were released under the GFDL. Instead, they appear to be fair-use images which cannot be used to depict living people. --Yamla 16:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have completely ignored 100% release of these photos. You even have WV State Senator Dave Sypolt, expecting a phone call from you to confirm at (304) 698-5299. You have more information than 99% of the photos on Wikipedia, but you are ignoring it, like all Vandals.

Public Officials don't do much after they are dead. These photos were RELEASED!!!!! You have provided with all the documentation needed. You can even call the State Senator, --71Demon 16:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the uploader, it is your responsibility to provide evidence here. I am not about to make an international call to confirm this. However, I will email them to ensure that they released the image under the GFDL. As an aside, please do not remove content from my user talk page again. --Yamla 17:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the uploaders provided all the evidence, even went above and beyond by giving a photo number for a government official. I expect a full apology, not only to myself, but to the people of the state of West Virginia --71Demon 17:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can find absolutely no evidence that this evidence was provided to the permissions mailing list. --Yamla 17:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you bothered to call yet and verify the information, or do you just continue to vandalise the photos of West Virginia politicians with bogus tags you know are wrong? --71Demon 17:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent an email to Mr. Sypolt's office and posted a copy of that email to the image discussion page. As I have already mentioned to you, I do not plan on making an international telephone call here to confirm that the image was released under the GFDL but I believe an email should suffice here. --Yamla 17:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got a response back indicating that the image is public domain but not licensed under the GFDL. Do you care to comment? I am asking for a clarification. --Yamla 17:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll comment. TOLD YOU SO! HEHEHEHEHEHEHEEHEHE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! --71Demon 17:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You told me that the image was licensed under the GFDL. THIS WAS INCORRECT. The license you used when you uploaded the image was incorrect and it is a good thing we did not believe you. --Yamla 17:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never thought you would apologize, just play semantics. You proved me right. I even got a spite block, so I can't edit anything but my own page because I proved the admin totally wrong. Gotta love it. Any the great thing, is this hurt nobody but Wiki, they even lost contributions because of you. I hope your proud of youself. Don't for get to remove the tags from the other photos that you vandalised. --71Demon 17:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not semantics. You claimed that the images were released under the GFDL. This was not the case. Marking images with image tags is not vandalism, particularly when it turns out that they were flagged appropriately. You have been unblocked (actually, I think before you wrote that last message) and the images have been marked with an accurate copyright notice except for the two I am still confirming. I am sorry you feel that it is appropriate to mark images with false licenses but this is not the case. --Yamla 18:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never claimed anything, I put {GDFL} on them because an admin told me that was the one to use. I didn't argue, because unlike you, this admin was actually trying to be helpful. I listed where and how I got the photos. The incorrect tag is different that a false tag. I will apologize for following the advise of an admin and putting up the incorrect tag. Even though I was told the wrong tag I respect people that help editors, and he tried.

Even though you were given the correct info as to the source of the photo (wrong tag excluded) at no time did you say, You should use this tag instead. You provided no help what so ever as to tagging it properly. You mearly continued to vandalise the photo by willfully tagging it for deletion when you had the power to varify all the information. You continued to imply that I was lair, and provided no evidence to that. Only with your back to the wall knowing you were wrong did you finally do the right thing and contact Senator Dave Sypolt. And then you only did that after numours exchanges, and I honestly believe you didn't think he would reply. When he did you were proven 100% wrong and I was vindicated. You even put a spite block on me prior, to make yourself appear right.

A good admin from the begining would have removed the GDFL tag, and posted. We are working wiht the original uploader to determine the correct course of action, but not tagged it for deletion. Then you would have contacted me, and ask me for additional information if required. You would not have implied I was a lair at anytime. You then would have indepently varified my claim as you did and found it to be truthful. You now have the proof from Senator Sypolt. Had I not been truthful, then you would have listed if for deletion. At not time would have taken up an advisarial position, given me a spite block, or implied I was a liar.

In order to get respect you must show respect to others. I haven't seen that from you, so you have not earned mine. --71Demon 18:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spite Blocked

Please note that you were blocked for removing the no-license tags from the images. If you agree to stop removing tags from images, I will unblock you immediately. This is not a punitive block, it is simply to get you to stop removing warning tags until the matter is resolved. If Mr. Sypolt confirms that the image was licensed under the GFDL, I will also confirm this with the other members. --Yamla 17:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no if. When State Senator Sypolt confirms this, I expect a full and public apology from you. I know it is not a punitive block, it is spite block from some one that knows he is wrong and doesn't want to admit it. --71Demon 17:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But your choice of image license was incorrect. Can I expect a full and public apology from you now? --Yamla 17:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well Senator Sypolt Responed to you, and told you I was correct. You implied I was a liar several times. I never said the license was correct, that I was what an admin that was trying to be helpful so was the best to use. --71Demon 18:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Senator Sypolt responded and said the image was released to the public domain, not licensed under the GFDL as you explicitly claimed here and here. It was entirely appropriate to mark the images for deletion as having an incorrect license because you provided an incorrect license for these images. It was not at all clear to me that you weren't claiming these images were licensed under this license because you explicitly did claim they were licensed under the GFDL and had right from the initial upload. I had no idea that an admin had told you to claim this license even when you knew an image was not released under this license; this is not a good idea. Anyway, I'm going to leave it at that for now unless you have a specific question. I'm not preventing you from getting the last word, however. --Yamla 18:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that you incorrectly licensed these images. The burden of proof for evidence that these have been release is on you as the uploader. Ideally you should have had the originator email the foundation rather than put the onus on other editors to call the senator and do the verification on your behalf. Remember, it is up to you as the uploader to add a correct license and to prove that the images are correctly license when you upload them. I'd also suggest you refrain from doing edits like this because at the end of the day you really are not helping yourself with those sorts of claims.--Isotope23 19:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a red herring. I ask an admin how to address the, and I was told to use {GDFL}, so I did. That part falls on deaf ears. I respect someone that tries to help, even if the information is incorrect, atleast they tried. None of these admins remotely tried to help. They only wanted to find fault. I took the time to get all the information and posted it. I even posted the phone number (which could be independently varified) to contact the Senator that gave me the photos, knowing they were going on Wiki.

I hold no grudge against these people, but do relish in defeating them at their own game. I was Spite Banned for defeating them plain and simple. Anyone can look at my edits and see that I have been and editor on wiki for a long time, providing lots of content. These admins that attack editors, don't put content up. Look at the contribs, you find very littel meaningful editing of content. What you find is much to do about nothing.

I have found over the years that if you are a working, you get attacked by the lazy do nothing, because you make the look bad. --71Demon 19:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I got Spite Blocked again

I was adding how to defeat the evil admins with the truth on the vandalised photos. Got not warning, just a spite block. The dark side protect their own --71Demon 18:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spite Blocked again

Please stop posting personal comments on image decription pages. They do not belong there and such edits constitue vandalism. An image decription page should only contain its copyright tag and, if available, other relevant information about the image. In addition, please read on Wikipedia civility policies and guidelines. Thank you. - Mike Rosoft 18:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop calling actions taken against you "spite blocks"; such personal attacks are not tolerated on Wikipedia. Nobody has a personal grudge against you; the administrators are just acting to protect the integrity of Wikipedia. - Mike Rosoft 19:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What should I call them? I'm being blocked because I posted on talk page how to defeat the bad admins by being truthful, and backing everything up. You don't want that to get out, becuase it takes away your power. You don't care that by blocking me you are setting back the West Virginia Wiki Project. You can look at my edits, and tell that I don't cause problems. Yamin got you to help, because he was wrong. I have never heard of anybody being blocked for being on a talk page. You have even removed my edits from you talk page to hide the evidence. Got love it.
  - You didn't post them on talk pages, but rather on image description pages. This is not to say that these incivil comments belong anywhere on Wikipedia.
- You need to take a look at my edits. I put up a lot of content, and take very good care to make sure it is right. I posted on a talk page, of a page I created and had to fight to keep up, because of bad admins not reading the info. Only when Yamin stopped being lazy did he find I was telling the truth the whole time. The truth won, and a spite block by the dark side is only minor, when truth, justice and the American way got the over all win.
  - I did look at your edits, and this is why I had reverted them. And it appears that you weren't actually telling the truth; you claimed that the images were GFDL-licensed, but they were released to public domain (that is, allowed by the [former] copyright holder to be used for any purpose) instead.
- How much less of a monitary contribution to Wiki do you think you cost them this time? Chu ching --71Demon 19:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't happen to give any donations to Wikimedia Foundation, and it doesn't really matter whether or not you do; policies and guidelines apply to all editors. - Mike Rosoft 19:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It should matter, because Wiki is a good thing and it needs contributions for it to continue. You are taking a free ride, and will probably be the first to complain if it is gone. --71Demon 20:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No personal grudge? Lets see I tell the truth about the source of the photos, defeat the darkside admin with the truth, and get blocked. Doesn't take a genious to figure out Darkside has a grudge against me. --71Demon 19:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, it wasn't Darkside who blocked you (check your block log). Secondly, you weren't blocked out of spite, but rather for persistent removal of notices on image pages which said that their copyright status was possibly incorrect. And thirdly, the information you gave about the images was NOT correct; GFDL is not public domain. - 19:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- LOL, Darkside as in Evil, Bad, not truthful. I was told by another admin to us GFDL, otherwise I would not. The tags were removed, because the text had been updated as to the source and release, which was easily varifable. In the end, somebody finally woke up and varified as requested, and they found that I had been truthful from the begining. The admin had egg on his face. --71Demon 19:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Who and where asked you to use the GFDL tag? - Mike Rosoft 20:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - One of the admins I talk with on Instant Messenger. --71Demon 21:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Rosoft Vandalised my Talk Page

He reverted the truth because he didn't like it. The power of the Dark Side rears its ugly head. --71Demon 19:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of personal attacks or other incivil comments is not vandalism. And please stop making up these conspiracy theories; nobody is acting out of spite. If you disagree with the block, you can make a request to be unblocked using the tag {{unblock|Reason for unblocking}} but you must show that there is actually a reason to reverse it. - Mike Rosoft 19:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't make any difference if agree with the block or not. You don't care. You know right now, I'm not going to go back and edit those photos. That is why you never warned me before blocking me. You knew I would stop and you would not have a reason to block me.
- I see if you really are honest. You unblock me right now. If I Vandalise anything, then ban me forever. I'm just going to go back to putting up content, but you know that. That is why it is a Spite block. --71Demon 19:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are not in a position to make demands. And for the third time, such nonsense accusations won't help you here. - Mike Rosoft 19:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I never made demand, I just wanted to see if you were honest. It would very easily prove you wrong, because again I speak the truth. These are not accusations, they are mearly truthful observations. And each time I back them up. It is customary to warn someone before blocking them. You did not. If you had ask me to stop posting on the photo pages I corrected, I would have. You didn't give me a warning, you went right to the block. It was an effort to make me look bad, you knew if you warned me it would end their, but see that didn't allow you to express your full power of admindom (is that word?). You knew it was wrong to ban someone wiht out a warning, but you did it anyway. Power trip, man, power trip. --71Demon 19:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I never made demand ... These are not accusations, they are mearly truthful observations - call it whatever you like. It is customary to warn someone before blocking them. - Yes, but the key word is "customary"; it is left on the judgement of the administrator whether to warn the user first, or whether the situation is urgent enough to warrant an immediate block. If you had ask me to stop posting on the photo pages I corrected, I would have. ... you knew if you warned me it would end there - Look, I am not a mind reader. I saw you vandalizing the image description pages by posting incivil personal comments there, and couldn't know that you were willing to stop if told to.
        In the blocking message, I have stated that I was willing to unblock after sorting it out. I would have, if it weren't for the gross incivility you are displaying; now I believe you need a period of time to cool down. Since I have become involved, I won't personally unblock you; you can make a request to be unblocked using the template {{unblock|reason}} ; this will categorize you into requests for unblock and another admin will soon come and review the situation. (Note: whoever unblocks this account should also unblock 141.157.157.114 (talk · contribs).) - Mike Rosoft 20:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Cool more proof I'm blocked for spite. Now it is because I'm being uncivil. Forget my record as an editor. Forget I'm being attacked on my own page. Forget that my own page is being vandalised by the very people blocking me. Got a love it. I took on the admins, and their gross failures to do their job correctly, I proved them wrong, pointed it out and got banned for it. And this is supposed to be a community project, so where is the community? Nothing but attack upon attack on myself, and for what? For being right. --71Demon 20:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I'll leave it at that; if you want to ask another admin to unblock you, you know what to do. - Mike Rosoft 20:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Of course you will leave it, because you never had any intention of doing the right thing. That is why you broke protocol and never gave me a warning. You had a pretty good idea, if you gave me a friendly warning I would have stopped. But that didn't allow you to excerise internet power, so no power trip that way. I still haven't done anything wrong. --71Demon 21:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Just like I am not a mind-reader, neither you are. Don't tell me that you know my motivations better than I do. - Mike Rosoft 21:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        But the thing is you never even tried to contact me. You did no research, a simple look as the volumes of contributions I have made to Wikipedia should tell you something about my charicter. (and that I'm a bad speller) The fact that, that the photos I posted that started this mess in the end were varified for public use in the end. I may have put the wrong tag on, but I showed goodfaith the whole time in the text and even. I really do have the opinion that alot of admins do what is easy and not what is right. Read my post at the bottom, you can see how I look at this. Also, read my comments on Franks page (link is above). I hold no bad will agaist you personal, but I will continue to state my opinion on your actions, like it or not. Your actions are wrong, and at no time did I ever show anything but good faith, and I recieved no warning. --71Demon 21:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He vandalised it again. He doesn't like the truth, and this is my own talk page!!!! 1st Amendment --71Demon 20:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a technical note... the First Amendment has nothing to do with this and affords you absolutely no protection here. Wikipedia is a privately owned website. The first amendment says "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech..." A private website absolutely can restrict what you are allowed to say on that website if they so choose to do so.

What is more pertinent here is Wikipedia's policies, one of which is WP:USER, specifically the fact that you don't WP:OWN your talkpage and if you are making personal attacks (and I'm not saying you personally attacked anyone, though you some of what you said was inflammatory and decidedly uncivil) against people the may be removed. That said if you feel this block is unfair it is probably in your best interest to submit an actual request for unblock so an outside admin can take a look at the situation. Regardless I think you all need to WP:COOL down a bit here...--Isotope23 21:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is Admins constantly say personal attacks when it is just a different opinion. Your right this is a private website, but it also a 501c. --71Demon 22:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, most admins have pretty broad shoulders, we get a lot of abuse. It goes with the job (and the pay is lousy, too). Adding a rant to an image page, however, is both an unacceptable personal attack and vandalism. Please don't do that ever again. Guy (Help!) 23:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admins attacking Editors

I find it extremely interesting that Admins attack long time editors that contribute a lot of content. If you look at the contributions of the two admins that Spite Blocked me for telling the truth, you find the contribute very little to wikipedia. Almost exclusively that target articles, photos, but other editors.

By looking at the talk pages, I don't see where they actualy offer much help. Just You screwed up and move on. I defeated them, with the truth. Maybe I shouldn't have put that on the talk pages in question, but I felt it was the right thing to do.

I believe the good editors need to stick together, and share information on how to defeat the bad admins at their own game. This all started with the photos, and the information was completely truthful and accurate. They refused to except this, because they like power. Well this it the internet and you have no real power, other than anoyance.

The point is be truthful, and you will prevail, but then again you only prevail on the internet, so you didn't really gain much. Well this year, Wiki, doesn't get their $1000 contribution I gave last year. So who lost, me, the darkside admins, Wiki? No, the community at large lost --71Demon 19:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I was blocked for spite

I change the titles to reflect the truth under my first amendemnt rights. Making them read Spite Blocked which is more accurate as to the reason. Lets review

This all started because I posted pictures of the West Virignia state legislature members. The pictures were given to me by State Senator Dave Sypolt for use on Wikipedia. I asked for them. There were released for use without restriction. I posted the source, after speaking with an admin, I put {GDFL} as suggested.

As expected, someone or somebot comes along and immediately marks them for deletion. This is mainly because alot of admins don't care. Look above one of my attackers admitted that he doesn't even care about giving money to Wiki. Anyway, back to not caring, they don't bother to read. So I remove the tag, updated the text to reflect some additional data. All of which is 100% varifiable, just the admins refused to varify it.

Think about that the admins, refused to varify it. It makes no sense for me to varify it, as I'm not an independant source. It would kinda like have the same accounting firm varify their own work. That is not done is business, because that makes it to easy to embezzel money from a business. Self varification by the same person they don't trust the first varification from doesn't make a lot of sense. Even with all the text, that shows they have been released, he still will not confirm, he just bans me.

We move on, after endless implying that I have not told the truth, and admin finally sends and e@mail to Senator Dave Sypolt and he confirms everything. With egg on his face he removes the tags from all the photos he labled for deletion, and unbans me because I was 100% right. Keep in mind this stopped Wiki editors for 2 days, while this nonsense went on.

So fresh from victory, over the admins, I post on the talk pages of the photos how to beat the admins. And while not cussing I use colorful terms like, Trumph over the DarkSide etc. Maybe a bit much, but hey, I just defeated the DarkSide. So I get banned again for being at Vandal. Even thought is was nothign more than excited advise.

This was done for spite, the is nothing else I can conclude from this. First both Admins that banned me are from outside the US according to their USerpages, that in itself really means nothing. Taken in context, why should they:

Why worry about something that doesn't effect them?
Why ban me without the customary warning?
Why change (Vandalise) my personal page, for giving my opinion?

The standard response for any DarkSide Admin is No Personal Attacks problem with that is stating an opinion is not a personal attack. I testify on behalf of legislation in our state capital on a regular basis. I also have to attack the opinions of state senators and represenatives, when it is in opposition to my opinion. This is protected free speech, and it also not a personal attack. Infact the very people I was in disagreement with in chambers, I'm having a drink with at the bar later.

Stating your opinion of your motives and behavor is not a personal attack, it is the stating of an opinion. Editing somes page to take away that opinion because you don't agree with it is vandalism.

After reading the rantings of the lunatic I just wrote, check my history as an editor. Look at the content, that I have put on wiki. Am I hard headed? Damn, straight I am, but I'm honest, and fight for what is right. Problem with that is, when you win you make the Admins that are on a power trip look bad, and they don't like you. That is why I say it is a Spite Ban. --71Demon 21:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Classic Admin abuse, you proved them wrong and they didn't like it, so they got even with you. Probably a high school kid that made it to being an admin. Unfortunatly, it's no different than most of the rest of the internet. --Drunski 21:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

71Demon uploaded images with invalid licensing information, placing the project in legal jeopardy. That is unacceptable. He then chose to escalate this dispute by adding spiteful and vindictive text to the image pages. That is completely unacceptable, and it's that which constitutes blockable vandalism here. Personal attacks are forbidden. And be it known that anybody knowingly uploading images with invalid license tags is subject to blocking. Period. Anybody who chooses to portray that as rouge admin abuse is going to have a frustrating and probably quite short relationship with this project.

71Demon, please see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags as noted above and be more careful in future, Wikipedia has a high tolerance for honest mistakes as long as people learn from them.

Your comments above are, I'm afraid, completely irrelevant. Wikipedia is a private project, property of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have no right to free speech. None whatsoever. In point of fact, your rights on Wikipedia are limited to: the right to fork, and the right to leave. These are your sole enforceable rights. There is no such thing as free speech on Wikipedia, and no definitely no such thing as protected free speech, especially where it involves making personal attacks on other Wikipedians. Got that? Wikipedia is free-as-in-beer, not free-as-in-speech, this is a common mistake but one you need to correct right now before you dig the hole any deeper. I suggest you refactor this Talk page to remove some of your more aggressive assertions, or you may invite some unwelcome attention. Guy (Help!) 23:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now you want to help?

It looks like you already know how to archive a page but just in case you don't (possibly someone helped you before), WP:ARCHIVE would have this information. --Yamla 23:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm limited on what I can do until the Spite Ban is lifted. As soon as I can I will archive it. I don't mind doing that. I have always enjoyed Wikipedia, that is why I have contributed some much content, which you all ignor. --71Demon 00:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The next time you refer to your block as a spite ban, I am extending your block and protecting this page until the block expires. Enough is enough. You are not banned, you are temporarily blocked, and you have been warned about your uncivil behaviour by multiple administrators. Please think hard about how to phrase any response you leave here. You are welcome to respond, of course, but no more uncivil behaviour. --Yamla 00:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spite Block extended

You were caught using a sockpuppet, DarthAdmin (talk · contribs), to continue editing while blocked. Your block has been extended to one week for this violation of WP:SOCK. --Yamla 00:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you blocked my girlfriends IP, so now she is upset with you. You might want block my sock puppet, and not her IP. And my sock puppet created all this vandalism (sarcasim), because it was just my normal editing. Who lost, my girlfriend, because Yamla blocked her IP. BTW way, I don't live with her, but we are in the same appartment complex with static IP's. You going to block my neighbors too? And of course Wiki looses, because you never bother to check to see the amount of content I put up, because they means nothing to you obviously. --71Demon 00:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your little banner at the top so it was more accurate. I only have one, and was to avoid the ban. BUt the rule says abusive, I was never abusive with it. So why the ban? --71Demon 00:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please add my sock puppet to the list of sock puppets, as I am banned and can. --71Demon 00:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This edit clearly shows that DarthAdmin is one of your sockpuppets. If you have been using her IP address to continue editing, she may be autoblocked. Note that the use of a sockpuppet account to bypass a block is by definition, abusive. I have protected this page for the duration of your block because of your vandalism of the sockpuppeteer template. --Yamla 00:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second chance

In order to show that nobody is acting out of spite here, I am willing to lift or shorten the block, as long as you:

Apologize for the accusations and attacks you have made, and promise not to make them in the future; and
Agree to provide correct and adequate information for images you upload, and to cooperate with the rest of contributors should they be found to be insufficient.

You see, I have shown good faith here. All that it takes for you is to show good faith yourself as well. Is this a deal? - Mike Rosoft 11:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a man of principle, and I believe in standing on my principles. I do not see those as attacks. I see those stating my honest opinion. I still believe I was banned for spite. I may have put the incorrect {GFLD} tag on, but it was never on purpose and it was selected on the best advise I had at the time. The text information that I added to the photos was correct as to the source and release. The admins choose to assume that I was a lair, and demanded I varify my own statements. This is not a good policy, there is no check or balance. Had I lied the first time, then for varification I would have just lied again. I'm not a liar, and don't plan on starting now. I told the truth, the people opposed to me refused to do independent varification. Independent varification should be a corner stone of Wiki. In the end, after wasting my time and yours, somebody finally did the right thing and checked. When they did, they found that the information (tag with standing) was correct. I see this as a victory for the good guys, and by good guys I mean editors like myself that put up a lot of content. Yes like any human we will make mistakes as to the proper tagging of a photo, or missourced an article, but these are mistakes. They are not intentional, and in the end State Senator Dave Sypolt confirmed that the information I was providing, while in the wrong format was correct. I am guilty of nothing more than stepping on somebodies toes. Therfore I will not apologize for stating my opinion which I firmly believe, and I will be happy to take the week off.

On number 2, I don't have a problem working with other contributors for the betterment of Wikipedia I have done that since the beginning. I also don't have a problem with cooperating with others should they find the photo sourcing insufficient. Had they tried to work with me from the beginning, none of us would have wasted our time here. The admins that are putting up the deletion tags are doing a dis-service to Wikipedia, and the result is all of this. In the begining, had they shown goodfaith and a spirit of cooperation I believe it would have went down like this;

71Demon Talk Page; 71Demon, I don't think you have Img.X.png tagged right, could you provide me more information to help you.
Editors Talk Page; Editor, I got it from State Senator, he said it is released for publication. Here is his contact information for independent varification.
71Demon Talk Page; 71Demon, I contacted Senator X. It is released, but you should have tagged it with X.

Nomination for deletion should have never entered into it, unless the independent varification proved me wrong.

That is how it should of went down. It didn't. It was tagged for deletion, and I got the no help your on your own message on my talk page. I go look, I see that the information as to the source is there, and it is availible for independent varification. So I assume (incorrectly) that it is poorly programmed bot, that tags everything. Again I have always been willing to cooperate, but that is a two way street. And I have no problem stating I will continue to provide content, and cooperate with those that return the favor.

I appriate your effort to show goodfaith, but my honest opinion is it falls short. It is asking me to ignor my principles, and make a false statement. I believe what I have stated, I believe that I was banned because I stepped on somebodies toes. You can look at my contributions to see the content I put up as an editor.

I thank you for your offer, but I have to decline. I will not compromise my principles --71Demon 14:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

71Demon, please read over Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission to find out about the proper procedure for requesting permission. You continue to misunderstand the process. To summarize, the responsibility for proving that you have permission is yours and yours alone. You cannot say "This is so-and-so's phone number, verify it yourself." Verbal permission is worthless. You must get permission, preferably by e-mail, and forward it to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org where it will be securely archived.

Yamla did you a service by doing this work for you, because it was clear that you were refusing to do it yourself. He preferred to properly verify permission according to Wikipedia policy rather than delete the image. You've spit in his face for it, saying "I told you so!" when the failing was yours: you failed to provide any sort of hard proof of permission.

If you reply to this and argue with me about any of the above points, I will ignore it, because it will be a clear sign that you have not read the above guideline and you have no understanding of Wikipedia copyright policy and no desire to gain such an understanding. I will happily answer any questions you have about how to properly prove permission in the future and avoid the mistakes you've made in the past. TomTheHand 14:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was the link I was looking for yesterday. What TomTheHand said is absolutely correct and is what I was trying to ellude to in my earlier message to you. The onus is on you as the uploader to provide the licensing information. While it would have been nice for someone to contact you while they were tagging the images for deletion, in the end it is nobody else's responsibility to verify licensing information. I hope you take what Tom said to heart and in the future forward all permissions from the owner to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org which I think will avoid some of this in the future. WP:AGF you didn't know about the correct protocol for image licensing requests, but now you do. As an additional piece of unsolicited advice that you can take or leave as you choose, I also would strongly suggest that if you get into this sort of conflicts in the future, you refrain from using inflamatory language like calling admins "Dark Side" or creating sockpuppets. Even if you are 100% convinced you are in the right you are just compounding your problems by engaging in disruptive behavior like that. You do have many good faith edits here, but shenanigans like that are going to draw the wrong kind of attention. There is nothing wrong with saying to someone "I think your decision was wrong and here is why", but disagreeing respectfully is probably going to get you a lot further than name-calling.--Isotope23 15:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My sock puppet was called DarthAdmin, which a reference to the Dark Side. I'm more of a Star Trek fan than a Star Wars fan, but I worked.

Wiki has some common sense problems that need fixed. Asking one person to provide all of the copyright release info, is bad. It needs to have a check and balance for varification. I dishonest person could could very easily fake the required documentation, and put wiki in copyright violation. I refused to varify my own, but did provide the information on how to. The photos I uploaded, now have two sources of the information, myself and Yamla did a good job by varifying independently. In reality this makes these photos more secure, than those that were never independently varified. This is the way it should have happend from the begining. In the end Yamla did the right thing, but only after much proding. Had Yamla helped from the begining as I described above, I would not have made the comments such as Hehehehe, a win for the goodguys, because at that point a would have saw Yamla as one of the goodguys.

The bad thing with people is, they like to use Personal Attack when it is really just a difference of opinion and not a real personal attack, it is a crutch they fall back on. They do this rather that actually countering each point.

Admins and editors should not immediately take on the roll of advisary. That is bad for all concerned, and reading other threads (not out right vandalism) most of these could be avoided, and the admins/editors putting up {afd}s, etc would be making friends instead of enemies. The world has too fighting, you don't need to be adding it to wikipedia.

Try this next, do not take on the advisary role, take on the roll of a friend. Don't send an impersonal, I nominated you for deletion. Engage in coversation. Hey I think this is marked wrong, let me help you figure out what we need to do. If you can't contact them, or can't solve it, then mark it for deletion. Trying being friendly! --71Demon 16:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment

There is a Request for Comment regarding Wikipedia administrator Yamla, located at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Yamla. If you believe you have anything to add, please consider doing so. Thank you. Justen 03:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you will also consider signing under the "certifying" section ASAP, so that the RfC can proceed. (It needs at least one more person, in addition to me, to be certified.) Thanks! Justen 03:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]