User talk:Mikerussell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Add new comments below with a new heading that fits the issue.

[edit] Good luck!

Good luck! [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 06:24, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Keith Richards images

You uploaded those two pics to Keith Richards saying "out of copyright". No source, no evidence they would be out of copyright. Since they're not old enough to be public domain, they would be born copyrighted and would by default still be copyrighted. what are the sources and how are they out of copyright? - David Gerard 18:58, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The one with the hand and jewelry is from the Talk is Cheap Album art; the name of the photographer is included on the image. It is Sante D’Orazio. The older photograph and the one with his wife I just googled and they were the first images I put up. I actually did not know how to add captions, and I suppose I forgot about crediting sources. I think other authors changed the images too, so I imagined they were far from serious infractions of copyright, as I understand the GNU license. Are you suggesting these are copyright violations, or just not properly cited? Let me know please, because as I understand the GNU and educational purposes of Wikipedia, then other images I have placed on articles will need to be withdrawn. Additionally, since I have your ear and you seem to be an authority of some limited stature in this encyclopedic enterprise, what is the copyright status for taking images off google and then using software like Adobe to alter them and making a 'new' disnctive image? How does Wikipedia deal with these types of images?. --Mikerussell 00:48, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Take some time looking over Wikipedia:Images and associated pages, particularly Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. Use of images doccumented to be public domain or GFDL are prefered when possible. Most published photos of contemporary public figures will generally not fall into these categories, but we can make some use of them under Wikipedia:Fair use. If an image is under copyright, making alterations on the image does not negate the original copyright. Hope this helps, Cheers -- Infrogmation 17:35, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have reinserted several images in accordance with copyright provisions under law. After reading sections on Wikipedia fair use, and image tagging, the images have adequate information in their file- click on image to see. --Mikerussell 07:08, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for going back over the images you've uploaded. Good work. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 08:02, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Keith_Richards"

[edit] Copyright Images & My Uploads

--Mikerussell 07:54, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)I have gone back to tag all my uploaded images. Several should be deleted as soon as possible, and I have either added my own tag, or left the one present already on the file. However, others I have tagged with copyright tags and feel they are valid tags.

As of Dec 29th, 2004, all images still on articles, I sincerely believe are legal and do not violate copyright laws.

Copyright Management Center, IUPUI, 530 W. New York St., Indianapolis, IN 46202. For further information and updates please visit http://www.copyright.iupui.edu/.

[edit] talk page editing

I've reverted this edit of yours because it changed section headings and removed comments without creating an archive. You can move comments to Talk:Political science/Archive 1, but you should only do it verbatim, that is, don't change the section headings. After that, link the archive page from the top of the current talk page. --Joy [shallot] 09:42, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] re: talk page editing

You've deleted all the comments about this, so I'm not sure if I should answer those that were temporarily there, or not? --Joy [shallot] 23:39, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh, they're at that talk page now. Never mind, I'll answer there. --Joy [shallot]

[edit] Moving page errors

Not really the right place for that request, but I'll look at it for you. Noel (talk) 19:07, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

PS: I don't usually check other User_talk: pages (so that I don't have to monitor a whole long list of User_Talk: pages - one for each person with whom I am having a "conversation"), so please leave any messages for me on my talk page (above); if you leave a message for me here I probably will not see it. I know not everyone uses this style (they would rather keep all the text of a thread in one place), but I simply can't monitor all the User_talk: pages I leave messages on. Thanks!

OK, I think I got it straight.

For future reference, to create a Wikipedia:Redirect to e.g. Fact-value distinction from some other title, you just need to edit the other page so that the contents are just "#Redirect [[Fact-value distinction]]" (just that one line) and then any reference to any of the other titles will automatically take you to the target named in that line. Noel (talk) 19:26, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the help on my redirect problem --Mikerussell 05:17, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)

Sure, no problem, you're welcome. Noel (talk) 13:25, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Regina v. Richards 49 C.C.C. (2d) (1980)

I added some comments to Keith Richards article/discussion, leave any comments below if one wants.--137.207.120.143 21:48, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Heidegger

Dear Mikerussell, you have heavily attacked my comments on the Martin Heidegger - Talk page. I'm afraid this is a misunderstanding. Sam Spade had taken out the parts of the article, and I commented on them. You are right that the article is now very unneutral because the whole nazi involvement is missing. I will try to reinsert the thing. - You accuse me of having a bias, this is true as of talking privately, I heavily reject the largest parts of Heidegger's philosophy and see its connections to nazism. You accuse me of searching for an exculpation, which is ridiculous. Please read my comments and keep in mind they are not to be taken into the article, but were comments on a paragraph on the talk page taken out my someone else, Sam Spade, of whom I have no knowledge at all. The problem I had was the Spiegel interview. You ask: "What is wrong?" I have told so: in the whole interview, there is no comment anyway that links nazism to eastern German communism - this was a factual inaccuracy in the article! So I cannot have failed to address this analogy because H. never built it. Nor is there, in the interview, a reference to the holocaust comparing it to food production. Heidegger made this comment, but not in the Spiegel interview, but in a lecture, c. 1949. I wanted to clarify this. --217.93.124.204 16:44, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC) (de:Benutzer:Chef)

See, I have reinserted it. I still do not see what is the point of the whole Celan paragraph, and, by the way, the so called "conclusion" is far more POV pro-Heidegger than anything I have written.--217.236.169.247 17:15, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh, maybe I was a little cranky, and I did not know who took what out, in fact I had a difficult time knowing who- you, or Sam Spade- was making the comments. You might want to 'sign' after ever comment to make things clear. I thank you for letting me know that you are sensitive to the issues, and I wish i had more time right now to investiagte the der Speigel interview, I still think there was a reference to East Germany and the Holocaust, You say there is not, so until I can get to the library, I will defer to your judgment. I appreciate your input.--Mikerussell 21:41, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I have re-read the interview and there is no comment on East Germany at all, just a small one on communism in general and not in any closer connection or comparison to nazism. But see for yourself.--62.226.94.202 19:20, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Burford

Just wondering if you have a personal connection with Burford given the detailed (and accurate) assessment of the town you've given. I'm from the town originally. -- Matty j 19:41, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

I worked at the high school for a year. Being a 'city' person, living in or close to Toronto and Detroit all my life, I was impressed by Burford and the students. It gave me a glimpse of small town life. The little blurb in the article is just from a scrap of prose I had scribbled around with.--Mikerussell 03:04, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Librarycomputers.jpg

Image:Librarycomputers.jpg has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. If you feel that this image should not be deleted, please go there to voice your opinion. |}

Support the image needs to be deleted, and I uploaded it- before I knew better, when I first joined I went through an image upload frenzy.--Mikerussell 13:49, 2005 July 14 (UTC)

[edit] Fact-value distinction

Hi Mike, this article of yours seems to be nearly identical with Is-ought problem. Could you incorporate it into the other one and place a redirect? I will also place the appropriate merge templates. --Ozan Ayyüce 13:15, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't know why you would want to say that the Fact-Value Distinction is less known, or should be collapsed into 'Is-ought', you got things backwards, really. This article is out on the Internet in many non-wiki encyclopededia, (just do a google search to see) so it has value and should remain as such. The article is directly related to Ruth Ann Putnam's articles with the same title. If people want to expand it- fine- but to merge it is to deprive the work of a useful article, that carries much more currency than just 'Is-ought'. --Mikerussell 16:53, 2005 August 9 (UTC)

[edit] Keith Richards....

I read an interview at the time when Voodoo Lounge was coming out where Jagger stated he dug "Wicked As It Seems" and that "Love Is Strong" was inspired by it. It was also on a MuchMusic special when VL came out.

Secondly, the color schemes that I put in for the albums are the ones that have been approved and designated by Wikipedia. Orange for regular studio albums, darkseagreen for compilations and darkturquoise for live releases. I didn't choose the schemes, but that's what they are and they have to be followed for consistency.

Thanks... BGC 12:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nick Dyer-Witheford

Re-added NPOV tag along with explanations on the talk page. Thanks for pointing this out to me. (clem 12:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC))

added my response at on the article's talk page. --Mikerussell 04:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Looking for this quote

Hey dufi, nice profile, makes you seem likr you still work at UTM, why don't you confess your corporate soullessess or did you piss off another boss. This is what you may want to incorporate in the George Grant article.

"The study of philosophy is the analysis of the traditions of our society and the judgement of those traditions against our varying intuitions of the Perfections of God" circa 1950. Jorge Lima, aka Dr. Byfield's physician.--66.11.93.9 00:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, if I ever get more time I will try to add it. Why don't you do it yourself. Since when is a university not a 'corporation' too?--Mikerussell 00:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I added the quote in this section [1]--Mikerussell 18:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Mike - good job on the Grant edit. I have been working on it in my spare time, although you have done a fabulous job most recently. I would like us to add in some political activities to the article, as Grant was fundamentally opposed to Vietnam War and then had a doctrnal falling-out with the New Left. As well, Grant's excitement over the PC Win in 1984 turned sour just before his death with the announcement that Mulroney was seeking an FTA with the USA. All worth noting. TrulyTory 03:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hazel McCallion's "ideological pretensions"

I suppose this is rather belated, by six months or so, but it is the first time I read your comments and they sparked my curiousity. To say that Mayor McCallion has no ideological pretension means she does not closely or recurrently align herself with a clearly defined political party or right or left wing policy framework. You're definition must be different, at least I am assuming, so before I make a revision to the article in the future, I thought I would ask for an explanation to your problem with such an accurate assememnt. In the new edit I will add info on how she has worked with both provincial and federal parties and her own lack of a university education which may be a contributing factor in the absence of an ideological orientation. Also, the fact she is a municipal politician adds much, if not all-to-obvious, weight to her absence of defining herself as a party affliated politician. Quiet frankly, I think you are biasing the article out of your ignorance. --Mikerussell 07:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

To write that she has no ideological pretensions or orientations is meaningless opinion and cannot be proven. If it is meant to mean something else, then it should be written another way. As it was written, I could read it to mean that McCallion holds no ideology above any other -- that, for example, she'd be equally comfortable with Trotskyite Communism and Mussolini Fascism. If you wish to state "she does not closely or recurrently align herself with a clearly defined political party or right or left wing policy framework" then that's what you should write, and provide sources to prove. I myself have some doubts on the latter part, and would watch for neutral, reliable sources to back it up (as opposed to original research). Also, I respectfully request that you refrain from making assumptions about my ignorance on the subject. Cleduc 19:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

It strikes me as biased or POV to interpret the word ‘ideological’ in this article- a civic leader in Mississauga- in the fashion you have in your response. Do you seriously think the average reader would assume she is a Trotskyite? Get a grip on the language used, and not a strict, exaggerated interpretation of the word. We cannot assume every wikipedia reader is a moron; the context under which one writes cannot be debased by some irrational standard applied by a single opinionated contributor. Apart from taking a rather straightforward and frank assessment of your qualification on the topic, namely Mayor McCallion and Mississauga’s governance, too personally, you have failed to offer much in response to counter my original astonishment at the surprise I have at your edit of the article. I will try to add more and replace a picture that as taken down, but overall, unless you really think that it is prudent, logical, or good prose to make certain ‘ideology’ a word coined by Karl Marx and tied to his view of History, a word almost totally divorced from its original meaning, which currently covers a wide spectrum of political opinion, is used in some strict academic fashion, then I suspect we will meet again on the Hazel McCallion page. Thanks for the response. --Mikerussell 00:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I look forward to reading your changes on Hazel McCallion, and encourage you to look for sources which document her freedom from ideology. Words are what we have to work with, and they matter. Cleduc 00:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to pick a fight, but in re-reading this whole exchange I thought I might clarify a point. The reason why I said "Quiet frankly, I think you are biasing the article out of your ignorance" is not anyway intended as an assessment of you or your background- that is why I said you misconstrued it too personally, but perhaps I was not clear. The statement was/is based on my reading of the article and your contributions to it (as seen in history listing) which do not provide any information on what ideological position she does have. My actual comment way back when (6 months ago) was she has 'no set ideological pretensions'- italics now added, which you saw as POV, but you have not ascribed her any ideology either, thus you must be 'ignorant' of what ideology she has, yet certain she has one. Well, what it is it then? You add info about ring tones, but nothing about her ideological views, why not? That is why I claimed you were 'ignorant', it was a 'descriptive' evaluation in my mind of what the article currently states. At any rate, just thought I would make that comment clear because it may be days before I get around to getting a usable picture and updating the article. When I do, I am sure you may have comments. However, you must also be prepared with, in your words, to have "neutral, reliable sources to back it up (as opposed to original research)" to support your own opinions. Thanks for debating. --Mikerussell 05:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to congratulate you on writing a great article on HMcC. I think you've done a good job of establishing balance and giving background: lots of how, lots of why. It tells a story -- something a good article does, and so many articles unfortunately do not.

On the talk page I'm going to solicit sources for a couple of points. It is not because I believe they are untrue -- quite the contrary. I think they are important points, and I want the article to cite the sources for them. A comprehensive list of verifiable sources is one of the measures of an outstanding article. I think that with those sources, and a little expansion, this could easily become a featured article. Cleduc 03:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Kronkboxing.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Kronkboxing.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Image legality questions page. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 02:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The image is a copyrighted work from this website; [2]/] which is selling clothing for the Kronck Gym. It is a PUBLICITY PHOTO and thus fits a criteria in wikipedia to display it; although I don't know why I did not include the info originially. --Mikerussell 12:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

it is also from this website too Official Kronk Gym website

[edit] "Habssuck"

Don't worry...we all get frustrated...Hockey, she's a tough mistress...;).Habsfan|t 01:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

True.--Mikerussell 03:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Silly Old Berk aka Keef Rishids

Erm... the story relating to the parody was broadcast on both national networks of the ABC (= your CBC) and was rebroadcast several times on the ABC 24 hour news radio network (and for all I know on Radio Australia). The ABC got it from a NZ radio station. They must have thought it was funny. You must be standing too close to the US if you don't find it funny enough to include given most of the material on the insignificant twat is as tivial as they come. I don't think you should be so solemn but I won't start a revert war. Cheers Albatross2147 13:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• I just read through the discussions on the Keith Richards page. Hells bells is he your Dad or something? Maybe we should change the article to "Keith Richards (proprietor Mike Russell)" (- just kidding). But really I do think that you are possibly taking him a bit too seriously - cheers (again) Albatross2147 13:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Jeez you took the razor to the article! Albatross2147 08:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Huh? You leave odd messages on User Pages guy, I haven't the slightest iderr what you are talking about?--Mikerussell 18:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging for Image:AllanBloom.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:AllanBloom.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:

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

New Replacement photo found. I will contact the copyright holder of the new photo Image:AllanDavidBloombyPaul Merideth.jpg to confirm its use in wikipedia. I emailed him and will withdraw the photo if he wishes it to be withdrawn. I provided a link to the article in my email to him.--Mikerussell 01:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright on Image:LeoStraussfairuse.jpg

Hey there Mikerussel. Thanks for uploading the Leo Strauss image. We need to be a bit more precise on the copyright, though. For an image from the 1920s, we need to be pretty precise about who took the photo and exactly when and where it was published if we're going to claim it's copyright-expired. I retagged the image as PD-US since if we're claiming PD we can't also claim copyright and GFDL license. Can you update the image description with more detailed info about where you got this from? Thanks. Tkinias 11:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Scanned image from the cover of the book The Rebirth of Classical Political Rationalism: an introduction to the thought of Leo Strauss: Essays and lectures by Leo Strauss selected and introduced by Thomas L. Pangle. University of Chicago Press, 1989.

The cover of the paperback has the image, it was scanned many years ago by me and then altered to get the photo using Adobe and was applied in a PowerPoint presentation to demonstrate, believe it or not, copyright sourcing. The copyright I believe, although the book is not with me right now, states it is owned by Leo Strauss estate/archive- something like that. The same photo appears on many other editions of his work and it qualifies as a promotional photo too probably, at any rate, the photo is PD, and I meant to choose that when I first uploaded it. For some reason I couldn't find the correct selection in the drop down box.--Mikerussell 16:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Burroughs

Good work on the template, but why have you removed stub tags from several articles? They're still needed. 23skidoo 15:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Spoiler tags. I've been told to err on the side of caution on this one especially if the summary gives away the ending and/or major plot developments. Wikipedia has developed a culture of "better safe than sorry" (take a look at how it handles copyright issues -- very paranoiac at times). And that seems to apply to spoilers as well. I include them as a matter of rote because I've received enough complaints when I don't include them. 23skidoo 18:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UWindsor userbox

The time and effort I used to make the image for the University of Windsor box is no different than the ones for Queen's or U of Waterloo. Thus, the image was retagged and re-inserted, after reading your direction to Durin's page, I think you guys are so way off the legal path it gets scary. Policies are not enforcable by a cabal of freelance admins. Who is Durin and yourself, that you have such certainity you have insight to copyright law? you guys need to offer some valid case law, or statute, or reference to binding arbitration or judicial opinion or whatever, cause otherwise you sound like a bunch drunks in a corner bar or jailhouse inmate in the 'law library'.--Mikerussell 18:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you could refrain from personal attacks, thank you. I freely admit I have little knowledge of copyright law, however, my edits were based off of Wikipedia policy, which prohibits fair use images from being used anywhere other than articles. —Mira 19:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I'm not an administrator. —Mira 19:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

You should work to avoid personalizing comments as 'personal attacks' and listen closer to what others are saying and how you are responding in turn. The 'personal attack' is a vaild analogy to how persons ill-suited to dispense with legal opinions feel free to act as experts. If you are easily offended, I apologize. Nevertheles, you seem to completely miss the point. Whether or not it is a policy is not the issue, passing the buck is hardly a useful way of coping with fellow wiki editors. why not observe what you are doing before editing others work based on a self-appointed police authority. Learning about the reasons why a policy exists is just as important as carrying through a flawed patrolling. --Mikerussell 23:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I've missed the point again...what is so "flawed" about what I did? Mira 00:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You deleted a valid image.--Mikerussell 02:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't delete anything, but I did remove an image that was tagged as fair use from a location where fair use images are not allowed. —Mira 02:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the you miss the point, but it is getting to be a waste of time. I would ask that you respect the contribution of others, as much as you value your own power to exact policy mandates. Generally speaking, this Talk section, and the 'article' you use to 'explain' your 'reasoning' via link to User:Durin/Removal of fair use images threaten the continued contribution of readers/editors who spend time trying to make the wikipedia better for all users. A person who enforces policies has no greater right to assert they are helping wikipedia then one who disagrees with the policy. Tty to be more of a creative force than a puppet of the policy. Do you even have any reason to care about the University of Windsor's Userbox or logo? Oh right, sorry- enforcing policy. --Mikerussell 02:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I think I see now. You have a problem with the policy. In that case, I suggest you go to the policy talk page and see if you can convince people to change it. I have made no assertion that I am helping Wikipedia more or less than anyone else, and I don't believe that I have threatened anyone's contributions. If you succeed in getting the policy changed, please come back and let me know. Until then, I will continue to remove fair use images from non-article pages. —Mira 02:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:AllanDavidBloombyPaul Merideth.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:AllanDavidBloombyPaul Merideth.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kimchi.sg 07:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The source is the same as the one listed above. PAUL MEREDITH himself, and his website. P--Mikerussell 04:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)ermission granted previously as cited in earlier discussion.

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:AllanDavidBloombyPaul Merideth.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:AllanDavidBloombyPaul Merideth.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kimchi.sg 07:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:UserboxWindsor.JPG retagged as fair use

Greetings! Image:UserboxWindsor.JPG is a derivative work of Image:Uwindsorlogo.gif. As such, the University of Windsor still retains rights to the image. Therefore, it must be tagged as a fair use image unless we receive permission from them releasing the image into the public domain. I've changed the tag on the image to {{logo}} to reflect this. Since the image is not used in any main namespace article, which is a requirement for fair use images, I've placed it for deletion. It will be deleted in seven days unless it is used in a main namespace article. If you have questions about this, I'd be happy to answer. All the best, --Durin 14:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Please do not re-add this image to {{User UWindsor}} as you did here. The image is properly tagged as a fair use image as University of Windsor retains rights to the image. The use of fair use images on templates is proscribed by Wikipedia:Fair use criteria item #9. Fair use images may only be used on main namespace articles, not on templates or userpages. If you have questions about this, I'd be happy to answer. Thanks, --Durin 02:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You need to better understand your own flawed thinking here. you changed the image to FAIR USE, not GDFL, by claiming it is part of the logo used in the University of Windsor article, thus it constitutes the same image in law, as explained by wikipedia policy, and thus can be used in the userbox. You cannot argue contradictory points.--Mikerussell 02:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Since the University of Windsor retains rights to the image, the use of it here on Wikipedia is under terms of fair use. We do not otherwise have permission to use the image here, barring any communications from them to the contrary. There is no contradiction here. The image is copyrighted and may only be used on main namespace articles. I have reverted your change, again. Do not reinsert the image as doing so is a violation of policy. You are aware of the policy. Continued violations of it can lead to a temporary block of your editing privileges. I am happy to answer any questions about this matter, but constant reverting in violation of policy is not a way to resolve this. Thank you, --Durin 03:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I misunderstood the policy, since I assumed if you have called the image FAIR USE and are using it on the article, it could be used in other places. However, I will contact the university and find out wherther the first image that I called GDFL, is copywrited in law. I suspect it is a FAIR USE image and can be used elsewhere. Before you arbitrarily changed it from gdfl to FAIR USE, who did you consult, what was your source to say that shape, is copyrighted? --Mikerussell 03:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I emailed the Public Affairs and Communications (PAC) at the University tonight and will be curious to see how they answer. --Mikerussell 03:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

This isn't the correct logo for use in the userbox. Based on the template for Universities, the official crest should be placed in the userbox (see Queen's University, UWO, etc). Jc8025 18:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] As per EMAIL sent August 11th 2006

This userbox is placed here as part of an email sent to Public Affairs and Communications, so that Mrs. Mary Beaudoin can see what is asked after in the email.

DO NOT DELETE THIS IMAGE Durin until She has a chance to view it completely.

• To Ms. Beaudoin and to Mikerussell: it must be understood that there are multiple, multiple replicates of Wikipedia across a wide variety of web servers around the world, few of which are connected in any way with Wikipedia. For a list of the websites from A to C that use our content, see Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Abc. Note that there are 118 websites on that list alone.
• Our goals here are to write an encyclopedia that is free to distribute. This includes the possibility of commercial replication by other parties. We far prefer images granted to us on a free-license basis, such as Creative Commons or GNU Free Documentation License. Note that if you, Ms. Beaudoin, should release the image we are discussing for the purposes only of Wikipedia itself that we must still decline its use under anything but fair use. We do not accept images under non-commercial licenses, or use only on Wikipedia licenses. In the vast majority of cases, they must either be free licensed or used here under fair use. Thus, if you are going to release the image to us to be used in the "userbox" as shown above, it must be released under a free license entitling anyone to use it for whatever purpose they like.
• If either of you have questions about this, I'd be happy to answer. Ms. Beaudoin, you can contact me at wikidurin@hotmail.com. Thank you, --Durin 04:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• First, my compliments to you for helping this be an amicable process! I've deleted the images you requested for deletion. If you do hear from either of these parties in the future, then by all means re-upload, especially the Allan Bloom image. Don't despair at not hearing. I e-mailed the Vatican twice regarding the use of papal symbols and never heard back from them. Somewhat depressing, but there are also times when you do hear back. I know of a user who contacted the State of Nebraska regarding the use of their seal. He heard back quite rapidly. Still, as you say, not receiving word back from somebody can not be interpreted as them releasing their rights as we need to have positive affirmation of such release. Otherwise, less ethical people than you could just say "Well, I never heard back from them" and in reality they never bothered to contact them. That would open us to significant legal problems. --Durin 19:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dunedin, Florida

Nice job!User:Mikereichold | User_talk:Mikereichold 20:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Way cool, and I'm glad you liked the picture. I believe most artcile can be imrpved with a picture. Are you a BJ? User:Mikereichold | User_talk:Mikereichold 12:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Used to be, just traded to the Red Sox!

[edit] Image:Williams2.jpg listed for deletion

[edit] Image:025 1A.JPG listed for deletion

[edit] Keith Richards edits

I understand you edited the Keith Richards contributions I made, but I feel that editing ALL the information contradicts Wikipedia's purpose. I provided documentated information on Keith Richards that is relevant to the page. I did add one Keith Richards quote that I failed to cite due to not fully understanding how to properly cite quotations. I have read up on citations and feel that since the information is cited below it is relevant and worthy of inclusion on the page. If possible, is there anyway to use the information I provided if organized in a better way? If you feel that some of the information I provided was placed in wrong areas, is there anyway you can transfer the info to the proper place on Wikipedia whether that be the Keith Richards page, Rolling Stones page, Rolling Stones discography page, etc.?? The information I provided would better serve people with an interest in Keith Ricahards. Please include the text I provided. Thanks you.

Citations for the Keith Richards quote I provided:

[3] (March 12-13, 1977)

Source for the text I provided:

Bockris, Victor. [1993] (2003). Keith Richards: The Biography New York: Da Capo Press. ISBN 0-306-81278-9

Mike, thank you for reinstating the information on the Keith Richards page!! The setup you used is more effective and user friendly than what I previously posted!! Thanks for adding the source information on the Rolling Stones "Complete Recordings" book. I forgot to cite than important source information. Sorry for the problems, I am quite new at contributing to the Wikipedia page and am not very computer literate to began with.

I would like to add very brief information to support the "popular bootlegs" section (2 paragraphs at most) on the proposed "Bad Luck" solo album and include that information in the "solo recordings" part of the page. I spent quite awhile carefully wording the text and if at all possible is there anyway that you can retrieve the text I provided (the same way you did with the other information) and edit it in a fashion that is better served for the page?

When you say "as long as you try to explain it so others can understand the change", what exactly do you mean? Also, is it possible that the modified list of vocals will get taken down again and why??

Thanks again for all your help!! --JT TRASH 01:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)JTTRASH

[edit] Comerica Park

I am suggesting a gallery section for Comerica Park. There are ample photos there now, as well as more which could be added. See Sault Memorial Gardens for an arena gallery. Any thoughts? Flibirigit 05:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Do you have any that illustrate that the whale mural is no longer on that one building, as some sources are claiming? I thought I could see it on TV the other day, but it was hard to tell. Wahkeenah 08:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the photo! And it's a real shame. Rubbing out whales to push a cellphone company? Yuch. I'm guessing someone in the Detroit city government got a healthy kickback from that. One other question: have they erased the distance markers in the power alleys? Sorry about all this minutia. d:) Wahkeenah 05:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)