User talk:Rettetast/Archive 10

Hi Rettetast,

I was advised to put a post directly on your talk page so you know that ArbCom has announced a temporary injunction against the "mass delinking of dates". You can still delink dates on an occasional basis; however, you may wish to be cautious and use the script only for its non-date functions until the issue is resolved by an RFC poll. You may wish to express your view on autoformatting and date linking in the RFC at: Wikipedia:Date_formatting_and_linking_poll.

Regards Lightmouse (talk) 17:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I know. I don't mass delink. Rettetast (talk) 17:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. I just needed to be sure you knew. Have you expressed your view at the Date formatting and linking poll?
Lightmouse (talk) 20:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have. Thanks. Rettetast (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I have always opposed autoformatting as a cure that is worse than the disease. I see you voted on the second and third questions (month-day linking and year linking) but not the first (autoformatting). Your vote on the autoformatting question would be welcome. Lightmouse (talk) 17:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I am going to replace the images for the years 1980-1995 since the reason given for their removal, 'No commentary on this/these images', is inaccurate. Libro0 (talk) 23:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear Rettetast:

Thank you so much for your help/approval. 16:18 EDT US 19 April 2009 Dstlascaux (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Received your message re the Solberg page (also need your help with capitalisation of her last name -- why is this so hard?). I recently discovered Marita Solberg and created a Wikipedia entry for her with the express permission of the Artefact agency. You flagged it since it does indeed contain content provided by them.

Please let's work this out, so that English-speaking citizens of the Earth can learn about this significant soprano. Please contact either me (dstlascaux at gmail.com) or Matthias at Artefact, so this page isn't automatically removed.

If you find Artefact's prose unacceptable, perhaps you could edit this article -- which rightfully should exist. I thank you in advance for your help.

Sincerely,

David St.-Lascaux Dstlascaux (talk) 04:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Want to inform you that the picture you added to the articel Magnus Svensson is not a picture of the player in question. --> Halmstad, Charla to moi 13:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I copied it over from the bokmåls wikipedia, following the interwiki link. I will investigate. Rettetast (talk) 13:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello

My first try to add a photo/file was denied and I accept your explanation. However, if I find the proper copyright owner which ought to be the photographer, will it suffice to add his/her name or do I have to have his/hers specific consent?

How do people generally do when they add photos to wikipedia sites?

Your help is very much appreciated.

Anaita

Anaita (talk) 13:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Anaita. Like all other content images has to be released under a free license (there is something called fair use, but you ca forget that when we are talking about images of living people) like a creative commons license or as the text on wikipedia that is under GFDL. It is the copyright holder that can release the image under a free license. There is info at WP:COPYREQ on how to request permission from the copyright holder the correct way.

There is more info at Wikipedia:Uploading images. Unfortunately copyright issues are complex. Rettetast (talk) 20:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I've just been back to the Visegrad massacre and seen that the picture UCK_NLA.jpg was deleted by you. There's no way of checking what a picture is once it's deleted. Do you remember what it was? Opbeith (talk) 18:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It was a logo. Rettetast (talk) 18:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to put forward an undeletion request for the file File:StarWarsMainThemeSnippet.jpg which was deleted by you due to a missing fair use rationale. I am prepared to create a valid fair use rationale for this file as I believe it would fall under these terms in its original article. I think it was uploaded by a less experienced editor who failed to provide a rationale. Thanks for your help -- Wikidwitch (talk) 10:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Undeleted. Rettetast (talk) 11:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I have added licensing info and a rationale which I believe to be acceptable, but will keep an eye on it in case there are further issues. Wikidwitch (talk) 13:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Dette får meg til å forstå hvorfor jeg aldri har vært en særdeles aktiv bidragsyter til en.wiki. Hvor mye energi ville det tatt for deg å sjekke sannhetsgehalten i de ganske elementære sannhetene om Christian Schibsted? Slike tagger gjør ikke annet enn å forringe kvaliteten på artiklene, og du burde heller påpeke direkte de påstandene du mener trenger referanse. --Eivind (t) 20:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Artiklene våre er ikke bedre enn de refereansene vi gir. Å påpeke og å være åpen om et problem med en artikkel forringer ikke kvaliteten, men er en av de egenskapene wikipedia blir rost for. Eg for min del synes det er en ukultur på nowiki at svært mange artikler er uten referanser. Rettetast (talk) 22:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

English is the only acceptable language on this Wiki, so even though all three of us understand Norwegian, that is not to be used on talk pages. The above relates to an edit (linked) made by Rettetast which EivindJ is offended by. EivindJ asserts that Rettetast should have checked out the facts himself (or herself) instead of tagging the article with a clean-up tag.

As for the matter at hand I find EivindJ's complaint unreasonable. Rettetast is in my opinion well within established practice in tagging the article as unreferenced. __meco (talk) 08:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Rettetast. All articles should have references. To counter the question, how much energy would it take to add a reference in the first place? Punkmorten (talk) 08:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, references are important, but established users should use common sense. If I claim that Kennedy was assasinated November 22, 1963, I don't need any reference for that. However, if I give you the reason to why he was assasinated, a reference would be necessary. Punkmorten, I would use twice the time if I was to find references accessible for the average en.wiki reader.

"Å påpeke og å være åpen om et problem med en artikkel forringer ikke kvaliteten" (nei, Meco, jeg gidder ikke oversette det) – I agree, therefore please point out which claims you think should have references. Those general "this article is totally unreferenced" tags implies that the article is not reliable at all ... that's a mistake. If your reply to that is all claims need references, I'm afraid I'm done on this project. I don't waste my time on hair-splitting when I could write an encyclopedia. --Eivind (t) 09:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know the guideline WP:TALK but I hear so often the excuse that something is just a guideline, and that you don't have to care about it, that I'll use that excuse this one time.

Eivind. I can see the sentiment in the argument that you should not tag and run. I can also see that tags are not great to have put on your article. However we should acknowledge that wikipedia is not reliable in itself. Articles that are totally unreferenced is in my mind, not something that our readers benefit from. There is also no problem with Norwegian sources, when they are better than English sources. In this instance we have an excellent source in NBL. I`ll add that. Rettetast (talk) 11:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source? Can it be expected not to contain major holes? Punkmorten (talk) 08:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I find nifs very good for later years, and a good source for current standings. I would not use it for older things though. I would however like you opinion on tis since this is your area of expertice. You probably saw that i have made a template to easy the use as a source. I took the idea for your stortinget-bio template. Would it be a good idea to make a similar template for SNL and NBL? Rettetast (talk) 11:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. This little note is just to let you know that a proposal to merge the projects Wikipedia:WikiProject Free images, Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use, Wikipedia:WikiProject Moving free images to Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia:WikiProject Illustration into the newly formed Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media has met with general support at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Files. In addition, I'm proposing merging Wikipedia:WikiProject Image Monitoring Group, because their aims seem to be very similar. Since you're on the rosters of membership in at least one of those projects, I thought you might be interested. Discussion about redirecting those projects is located here. Thanks. PhilKnight (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Why do you think it should be deleted? It's not a copyrighted photo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by B64 (talk • contribs)

See Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 April 27. Rettetast (talk) 20:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

you made came of copyright infirment but failed to show and prove of it.B64 (talk) 01:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Have now added the exact url for each picture caption, hope that is OK?? if not, do feel free to revise the pics themselves, thank you Peter morrell 13:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You should add the url to the image description page. Rettetast (talk) 13:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks...now all done! cheers Peter morrell 13:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Great. You'll see that I have revised the image descriptions, The license was slightly wrong, and there eas no attribution to the copyright holder.See [1] and [2]. Rettetast (talk) 13:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Being that I do not feel comfortable using e-mail, I am asking if you could please review these images and tell me if they are: A. Appropriate B. Able to use because tof the fact that they are from Picasa Web Google and Flickr If you like you can narrow them down to 20, 16 or 12 so i can use for his(Josh Ohl) article. Thank you--Electroide (talk) 22:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Image:Josh Ohl.jpg Image:Josh Ohl 2.jpg Image:Josh Ohl 3.jpg Image:Josh Ohl 4.jpg Image:Josh Ohl.jpg Image:Josh Ohl 6.jpg Image:Josh Ohl 7.jpg Image:Josh Ohl 8.jpg Image:Josh Ohl 9.jpg Image:Josh Ohl 10.jpg Image:Josh Ohl 11.jpg Image:Josh Ohl 12.jpg Image:Josh Ohl 13.jpg Image:Josh Ohl 14.jpg Image:Josh Ohl 15.jpg Image:Josh Ohl 16.jpg Image:Josh Ohl 17.jpg Image:Josh Ohl 18.jpg Image:Josh Ohl 19.jpg Image:Josh Ohl 20.jpg Image:Josh Ohl 21.jpg Image:Josh Ohl 22.jpg Image:Josh Ohl 23.jpg Image:Josh Ohl 24.jpg Image:Josh Ohl 25.jpg Image:Josh Ohl 26.png Image:Josh Ohl 27.jpg Image:Josh Ohl 28.jpg

Do you own the copyright to any of these images? Rettetast (talk) 23:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

No I found them from Flickr and Picasa Web under the man's name.--Electroide (talk) 02:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Then the images are under someones copyright and they can not be used if they are not released under a free license by the copright holder. Read up on [[Free liscenses and try to request pemission from the copyright holder. See WP:COPYREQ. Good luck. Rettetast (talk) 02:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

flags for managers are used on over 95% of the Wikipedia articles abour soccer teams. Check it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.157.33 (talk) 19:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

No, 95% of the articles does not use flags. However many does, but only because users like you keeps adding them in good faith because you think it looks nice. The problem with the flags is that we expect every reader to know all the world flags. People don't and a better solution would be to write the name of the country. Some flags are so similar that the small icons are indistinguishable. The flags adds an undue weight on the manager and his nationality in the infobox, but this fact is not any more important than other facts. Flags have also started a lot of edit wars in the past. Also, the manual of style for football clubs do not use flags Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs. I really can't see any good reason to add these flags. There are better things on wikipedia to clean up. Find images using [FIST for instance.

I have removed the {{di-no permission}} tag from this image as that tag requires the image to be sourced to someone other than the uploader, which it isn't. Stifle (talk) 11:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed that you added {{unsourced BLP}} to a number of articles such as Claudio Bieler that do cite one or more reliable sources in the External link section. Perhaps in these circumstances you would consider using {{nofootnotes}} instead? Regards King of the North East 21:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes of course. I was going through an editors edit history and copying the template and reference section where fit. Must have missed the links in this article. Rettetast (talk) 21:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

I notice that you deleted my photo "Aat_telescope.jpg" -- what was the reason for deleting this photo? I took the photo myself.

Best wishes,

Rnt20 (talk) 18:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi. i deleted the image in 2007 because it was moved to commons. It was deleted on commons by someone else. See the commons deletion log. 09:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi! Just a tip... not everyone might understand "or" in an edit summary.. better say WP:OR. Punkmorten (talk) 20:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

What. Do they not understand something that obvious... I agree. And your advice is noted. Rettetast (talk) 20:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you know of any site that has lectures of Dr. Zakir Naik in written format (eg- .pdf or .doc)?- Verycuriousboy (talk) 12:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

...thanks! --Merbabu (talk) 16:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, have done now. Was just making a lot of pages on former players from Luton Town and forgot to put the refs on that one. Thanks for bringing it to my attention :)

All the best Cliftonian • talk 06:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Right, I'll get on it. Cheers fella. :) Cliftonian • talk 12:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, could you please remove the protection of the Defunct teams template? The talk page seems to suggest that there is agreement on what the template should now look like. Stu.W UK (talk) 19:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, unfortunately the edit warring on this template has started again. Stu.W UK (talk) 21:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I don't have the time to investigate now, but I'll lift it to WP:ANI. Rettetast (talk) 21:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Amazing what gets people angry! Stu.W UK (talk) 22:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. Was responding to an unblock request by Chandler (talk · contribs) and noticed that while he did engage in the dispute, he argues that he and MusicInTheHouse (talk · contribs) were mainly responding to disruptive editing by Fasach Nua (talk · contribs). Given the nature of this edit by Fasach Nua (talk · contribs), I tend to agree that while Fasach Nua should be blocked, I don't feel that the other two need to be blocked in this instance, since there seems to be more consensus against User:Fasach Nua's edits, and the actions taken by other editors since the protection have expired have primarily been in opposition to his edits. If you get a chance, please respond over at User:Chandler. Thanks a million =) --slakr^\ talk / 03:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I have responded there and will watch that page. Rettetast (talk) 17:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Stavanger Aftenblad tax data - good catch. Punkmorten (talk) 16:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, more reliable source for dob is hard to imagine. Rettetast (talk) 17:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I will keep working on them as time permits! Camw (talk) 03:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello there. Thanks for protecting the Indonesia article. Perhaps it is time protection be lifted. What do you think? many thanks --Merbabu (talk) 08:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The protection will run out later today. Rettetast (talk) 11:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi/ Maybe it would be better if you find a set of articles on non professional footballers and list them together rather than doing each one individually? It would be more efficicient if you root out the non pro ones and list them together. When I stubbed these articles, naturally I assumed that the first division was notable. Thanks Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Naa. They are very few. I am looking for ureferenced BLPs and AFDing some that I come over. Rettetast (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Rettetast. I wonder, if you could add that Norwegian sources are verified to the talk page of this articleMelhus church and controversy of the Petter Dass portrait? Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is my expertise, so I think I will have too pass on this. I like the article however. Glad it is moved back where it should be. Thanks for using so much time on it. Rettetast (talk) 19:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Rettetast. I am sorry for the troubles I created, when I nominated the article to be deleted. When I asked you to verify Norwegian sources, I ment simply to confirm that translation from Norwegian is correct, but of course, if you do not feel comfortabale doing this, it's OK. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I am the uploader of the the image "Cindy crawford water bottle.jpg" which was deleted by you, but I was not notified. Why not? Also, could you please explain or direct me to the explanation of why you felt the fair use rationale I provided was invalid. I think I would like to challenge the deletion. Thank you. Diderot's dreams (talk) 03:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Images of living people are generally considered replaceable and thus fail WP:NFCC#1. A free image of Cindy Crawford could be created. You were notified on the upload screen when you selected fair use image of a living person. Rettetast (talk) 03:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I listed a fair-use rationale that addressed the replacablility of the image and therefore gave a justification. I think in Crawford's case a free use one cannot be "reasonably found". Isn't deleting in 48 hours for files that have no justification listed? This seems to be what CSD F7 says. Diderot's dreams (talk) 15:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

There are images on flickr of Cindy crawford. Not under a free license though, but that shows that it is clearly replaceable. You can take it to WP:DRV, but you'll get nowhere. Rettetast (talk) 15:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi I saw your notice on my talk page, and just wanted to say that it would be appreciated if you could take the picture as you offered. Regards, -GabaG (talk) 19:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Give me half an hour. Rettetast (talk) 19:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

commons:Category:Muren. Rettetast (talk) 20:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

For gjenopprettingen av diskusjonssiden min! NorwegianBlue ^talk 21:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You are happy? why delete flags only in spanish competitions? delete also norwegian flags. and english flags. --Raymond Cruise (talk) 15:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. They should go. Will you help? Rettetast (talk) 15:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

A couple of points. First off you've gone on a campaign of mass edits without the couresty of initiating any discussion with folks who might be interested. Tch. And in the second place, in many instances it is not patently obvious what the national affiliation of a given league is. The flags, rather than merely being decorative, met that need quite simply. So now someone (maybe you?) is up for a fair bit of work to fix that. Finally the example you've cited in the flags MOS is not directly relevant. It talks about a person not an organization whose connection to a nation - its Englishness or Germaness - is more directly relevant to the topic at hand. There arguably is a good reason to use a national flag. I'm disappointed with your approach. Wiggy! (talk) 17:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. I'll stop for now. Flags are used in the minority of these these templates. I was trying to get them up to the same standard. A sole flag does not help. If they are accompanied by the name of the country they are redundant and if there is no name of the country they violate Wikipedia:MOSFLAG#Accompany_flags_with_country_names. Flags are useful for long list where the flag can help you quickly find an entry. Not for the identification of the nationality of a single item. Rettetast (talk) 17:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Det var jo bedre sent enn aldri, og definitivt hyggelig at det var en fra Norge som gjorde jobben. Takk skal du ha! :) Nettrom (talk) 21:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, Saw a comment on the Norwegian wiki, that you had not been welcomed here. Just had to. Anyway, you are welcome.

Could you be interested in adding Category:Wikipedians in Norway to your user page? We also have our own WikiProject. See WikiProject Norway --Rettetast (talk) 21:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a look at the Wiki Project. With regards to the category, is it for those who live in Norway, or for those who are Norwegian? Currently I'm mostly not located in Norway, you see. Nettrom (talk) 14:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rettetast, I've left a response to your message on my talk page -- Marek.69 ^talk 02:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I've replied again on my talk page -- Marek.69 ^talk 02:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi again Rettetast,

First of all, sorry about my recent edit to Bergen. It was not my intention to repeat a previous edit (which we've already discussed) There appears to be something in the article that triggers AWB off (and I clicked save before realising). Please accept that this was purely unintentional and not that I disagreed with your opinion.

I saw it and AGFed. Of course. --Rettetast (talk) 15:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Secondly, I would like to discuss the reasoning behind not having flag icons in the town twinning sections of articles such as Bergen and Oslo. WP:MOSFLAG states that flag icons should not be used in the article body, as in, "...and after her third novel was published, Jackson moved to Bristol,   England, in April 2004. The 'town twinning' or 'sister cities' section is usually an entirely separate section and often takes the form of a table or list. In my experience of these sections, I would say that the great majority (95%+) of these lists/tables use flag icons and I cannot see anything in WP:MOS to contradict this.

Kind Regards Marek.69 ^talk 15:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

These flags does not add anything too the article. They are just decorative cruft that people in good faith put in because they think that is should be that way. MOS:FLAG say that you should not emphasize nationality without good reason. There are no good reason in these sections. The country names are there, and the list is so short that you don't need flags too find a specific entry. --Rettetast (talk) 15:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, fair enough.

More importantly, I'd your opinion on what we should do on the Oslo article. I started editing because I felt that some of Baltic Soul's edits were a bit off. I didn't want to wholly revert all his 16 edits (although in hind-site, It probably would have been better) as he was new. It turns out now that he was a sock puppet of Historian19 (someone I have had a lot of dealings with) and has been blocked indefinitely. Unfortunately, since he started editing a lot of work has been done (by myself and yourself) so I am hesitant to restore to a previous version. Instead, I think I will carefully try to remove his edits manually, keeping any new changes made since.

Also, a note of caution: it is worth keeping an eye on the pages this character (Baltic Soul) has edited, as in my experience he has a nasty habit of coming back, over and over, with different names.

Kind Regards Marek.69 ^talk 16:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

In the former players section, if criteria was players playeded in the Primera and Segunda Divisiones okay? What would be considered famous? Raul17 (talk) 19:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a excellent criteria. Do you have an idea how many players this would include. The criteria should be included in the text. Rettetast (talk) 19:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Since I'm not barca fan, I would have no ideal. But being Real Madrid fan, the third team would have about seventy players. Raul17 (talk) 21:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

has replied at my talk page. (ESkog)^(Talk) 03:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you reverted my edits to the UK template. I've got no problem with that, but would it be possible to edit the template to include the UK coat of arms and a more relaxed colour scheme, and apply that to UK-related templates? I'm thinking of what's been done with Template:Canada topics. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 14:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the colours should be consistent with most other templates and would not recommend the canadian style. What are you thinking of in terms of colour. As for the CoA that could be ok, but it should not be in the header since it there would be so small that it would just be clutter. Why don't you make a suggestion on the templates talk page. I'll watchlist it. Rettetast (talk) 22:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I added the Coa as it in my view should be. Maybe a bit smaller? Rettetast (talk) 23:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Ayo Rettetast is this image ok to upload as it says 'some right reserved' , and the Peter Crouch image says 'some rights reserved' , so is it ok to upload? The-Real-ZEUS (talk) 00:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

No, sorry. The license for this image is CC-BY-NC-SA 2.0. That will say Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.0 Generic. Wikipedia does not alllow images with the Noncommercial-part. You can ask the flick uploader to change the licensing. See WP:COPYREQ for tips.

You can use a tool called Fist to systematicly search for acceptable Flick images. Rettetast (talk) 00:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is an image with a license that is acceptable. Notice the difference? Rettetast (talk) 00:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• So if i find an image that just says 'Atribution' i can upload it? The-Real-ZEUS (talk) 00:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

As long s ot does not say NonCommercial or NoDerivatives it should be ok. Rettetast (talk) 16:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• OK nice one mate, i'll come back and show you the image if i find one just to be safe, dont want to be suspended for another 4 months :P The-Real-ZEUS (talk) 01:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for working on Wikipedia:Database reports/Recently-created unreferenced biographies of living people. Your work is very appreciated. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Re Rettetastm is there anything you can do about this member, he/she keeps making false edit on this page and others. The-Real-ZEUS (talk) 18:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

At this point the best thing is to discuss it at the IPs talk page like you have done. WP:BRD is a good guideline. Also note my edit and editsummary. Rettetast (talk) 19:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, could you give a reason as to why you're supporting the proposal? As it is a request for comment, some clarification would be nice (even if the reason is obvious). Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rettetast

I am writing in response with the subject mentioned above.

The picture can be found here: ^[1]

I find that, it is relevant to the current situation in Singapore of the current 2009 Flu Pandemic, so i am reqyesting that you and your team do not delete the picture, as many people will be viewing that page mentioned: ^[2]

Thanks again, for the reminder.

Timothy J. Lea (talk) 02:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Sir,

Thanks for your message. The owner of the uploaded image (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Yenibiyometrikpasaportlar.jpg) is ItuSozluk.

URL: http://www.itusozluk.com/gorseller.php/yeni+t%FCrk+pasaportlar%FD/55171

I tried but couldn't add the copyright info. How can i do that?

Best regards. --Ozguroot (talk) 14:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Go to the image page and press edit at the top. If you have questions about lisencing they can be asked at WP:IMAGEHELP. Rettetast (talk) 20:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

the content of that page was not submitted by george b george. i was mistakenly under the impression that i had to use that name to create a contribution. there is no current information about him any where and i thought there should be. again, i am not george b george and he has no knowledge of this, although i have known him for a very long time.George b george (talk) 19:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The page was deleted because you blanked it. If you want to create a new article you are free to do that, but you should read Wikipedia:Your first article. Rettetast (talk) 19:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, you removed speedy deletion template from this article. In Polish Wikipedia this article has been speedy deleted on a basis of misspelling - correctly spelled article exists and it's not a village - it's a former village which is now a part of Olecko. Please, could you add appropriate for this wiki template so this article can be removed - maybe on a basis of hoax? Thanks, Lukasz Lukomski (talk) 00:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I have redirected it. If you tink it should be deleted you can propose it for deletion by using {{subst:prod}}. Rettetast (talk) 18:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Giants27 (c|s) 14:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Up an running :) Jeepday (talk) 11:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Falsewords333 (talk) 06:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)falsewords333Falsewords333 (talk) 06:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC) I have requested the permission you require from the owner of this photograph and forwarded it to the admin email you listed. Thank you very much for your message.

Hey Rettetast, how would i go about uploading this image?, the current logo used in the Super League Greece page is out of date, as you can see it says 2008, so i just removed the 2008, how can i upload it without getting banned? Alexandros (talk) 13:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Just upload the image. We can review it later. Rettetast (talk) 19:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the Autorviewer rights. I have read the article, but what exactly is this right, why did I get it, and how did I deserve this if you do not mind my asking? Chris (talk) 15:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Autoreviewer status keeps your new article out of the queue of unreviewed new articles and help newpage patrollers. I gave it to you because there were several unpatrolled new articles from you on the list of new articles and I recognized you name as an editor hat could be truusted to add sources etc. You don't have to do anything different from now on. Just keep up your good work. Rettetast (talk) 16:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Chris (talk) 19:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

And what makes you say that the image was an unfree file ? Even after quoting all the reliable sources the image was deleted under Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files, without discussing with the editors. One has to first study and then delete the image. The world possible may sometimes be deceptive. You as an administrator have not acted responsibly. I'll see what I can do in this case. Let me study the whole case again. Nefirious (talk) 12:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I did not delete the image. Someone else did. Ask them. Rettetast (talk) 13:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Regarding the sockpuppetry issue, I had previously mentioned this, along with contesting the original block of User:Larbkai, with User:Daniel Case, the blocking admin. (1, 2), where Daniel Case suggested to "Let's give him another chance with a new name." Taking into account the potential confusion stemming from the usual treatment of sockpuppets, however, maybe unblocking the original user would be appropriate? You'd see from the conversation that Daniel Case acknowledges the merits of allowing the user to continue editing. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 10:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I did not investigate the first block when I blocked the sock. I agree that the user deserved a new chance, but he has not shown any willingness to communicate with other users, as Megazawa07. However I am always willing to give another chance. I suspect that this user has poor knowledge of English so there is no point in asking if the user actually understand what we are trying to say. I agree with your proposal to unblock the original account and try to communicate with the user. I'll ask for User:Daniel Case's opinion on the matter before I act. Rettetast (talk) 13:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I would also note that the sockpuppet account was created long before Daniel Case mad the suggested to give him a new chance under a new name. Rettetast (talk) 13:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

That does complicate the situation, unless he only started using it after the unblock.

But in any case let's put it to him that he has to pick one account and stick to it. Daniel Case (talk) 15:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I am Megazawa07. I'm so sorry about my disruptive editing and it's appropriate to be blocked. You can freely delete my account as i intend not continue editing wikipedia article anymore because my edit cause many troubles to everyone, so i will leave for good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.128.5.36 (talk) 18:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Why did you delete the "Logos" and "Notable former players" and the "Starting Eleven picture"?

Is there a problem with the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taruafc (talk • contribs) 16:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The gallery of logos are a blatant violation of our non-free content policy. We use copyrighted images as little as possible. This use is not needed. The notable former player section and the starting eleven picture are nreferenced, and probably original research. Who are we as wikipedians to say which former players that is notable. Either have a specific criteria for inclusion/exclusion, like 100 games for the club, or loose the list. Rettetast (talk) 22:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, if I understand you right, than it is possible to have a list of famous or former players, if there is a certain criteria mentioned related to the list? --Lokomotive74 (talk) 11:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

You are correct. As long as the criteria is verifiabe such a list should be ok. Rettetast (talk) 19:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

PS: One more, if a line up is reported on an website or in a Stadionmagazine, isn't it allowed to put in a starting line up in Wikipedia? --Lokomotive74 (talk) 11:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

If it is sourced it is allowed, but is the starting line up of one game really needed in an encyclopedia? Rettetast (talk) 19:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. What about my first question? And Can I ask some more? I know you are a Admin. Are you interested in Football in real life? --Lokomotive74 (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It is answered above. Of course you can ask questions. And yes, my club is Brann. Rettetast (talk) 05:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, just overlooked the answer above. It's nice to see that you are a football fan as admin. So we are talking on the same base. And you are not one of those admins, interested in classic music, and like to judge about football related articles. I guess you know what I want to say. I get into this discussion, because, I do have the feeling that all these Thaifootball related articles, are judged with two different eyes. Nearly 1.5 year ago, there had been nearly no information about Thaifootball to be found in the Wikipedia. A few guys, me as well, started to create articles about the football there. In the meantime there are a few more now, what I do really appreciate. But from my point of view, it is not fair to whirl all over these articles, and the persons which did some entries and edits. For more than year, only BOT's had been talking to them. So how they could learn how and what to do? They looked around, and simply did the same, like others did in the english wiki. They had simply no assistance. Espacially on picture related lisence issues. When pictures got deleted but nobody was able to help realy, guid them or even assist. Now, after long time they facing this diffuclties, and it looks like they runnig against a wall. The english Wiki has so many articles, with all these failures you are claimaing now to Thaifootball articles. And they even of bigger interest for people from all over they world, than the Thaifootball. Start there, I would suggest. There is a lot of work to do!! To find related sources and informations about Thaifootball is very tough to find. Espacially if you follow strictly the rules you had pointed out. Yes, the wiki is an encyclopedia, but sometimes, something needs time to get developed and improved. And the Thaifootball related articles, have improved over the last year! At least in my oppinion. Help the people which are working on thaifootball articles, guide them and assist them. But not act like a whirlwind over a small Island! And realted to Worldfootball, Thaifootball is a small Island. --Lokomotive74 (talk) 17:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Please weigh in on a formal poll that has been set up on Wikipedia talk:CiterSquad, a page you commented on on 1 Aug 2009. Thanks. N2e (talk) 05:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You have removed the Bowdoin Logo from its nav template, citing no rational use for this. That template structure has an image logo spot precisely because it is useful. It is an identifying symbol of the school. Look at UCSB or Indiana University's nav templates.-- 22:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Identification is not a good rationale. Please link your examples. Those images may be public domain. Rettetast (talk) 23:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Why did you remove their logo? You removed Barcelona C, but left Barcelona B. Are you going to delete the other 48 reserve teams that share a logo with their parent club? Raul17 (talk) 21:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I removed the image from all the articles it did not have a rationale for per WP:NFCC. If you believie the image satisfiees the non free content criteria you are free to add a rationale for that article. Rettetast (talk) 21:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I try reading the WP:NFCC, but I must admit I haven't a clue of what's going on. However, as I asked before, why was Madrid B & C removed, but the other reserve clubs remain? I don't understand why Barcelona B can its logo while Barcelona C can not (forgetting that it's no longer active). I remember that one of the bots removed the logo from Castilla, but left it for Madrid C sited the same reason you used. Raul17 (talk) 19:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

A rationale is an explanation for why a non-free image complies with the non-free criteria. The image did not have such an explanation for the aricles I removed it from. You can see WP:FURG for a guide to writing a non free rationale. Rettetast (talk) 16:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so that means that the articles for Barcelona B and the rest of the reserves had the rationale, right? Raul17 (talk) 19:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Rettetast (talk) 21:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Contrary to your edit summary, there is indeed a rationale for that use at the file page. I have uncommented it. Daniel Case (talk) 15:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I ment to remove it from Fritz Koenig. Rettetast (talk) 07:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha. Saw you did that, and yes, I never wrote a rationale for that one so that's the one it should have been removed from. Daniel Case (talk) 14:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi! Seems that the problem with this article is better solved with editing rather than deletion? Geschichte (talk) 08:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

If someone rescues it, nothing is better. It could be an interesting article, but we are better of with no article than an article full of errors. I could do it but it would take a lot of time to find references to create a reasonable article, and I should not do that right now. Rettetast (talk) 08:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand how File:InstrumentOfSurrender.jpg is merely an image of text. A historical document includes more than just text. The handwritten signatures, the fact that the date was inked in after it was typed up, and possibly even the spacing, layout, and indendation of the document are part of history.

True, everything but the penciled-in dates and signature can be described by a combination of text and page-description language, such as PostScript, but you would still need images of the dates and signatures and a description of their placement on the page.

Besides, even though the file claims to be covered under copyright, there is no indication of who controls the copyright or even anything to back up the claim that it is. While it is not safe to assume it is not copyrighted, the fact that it is an official document at least makes that argument credible until proven otherwise. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Why did you remove all the images of the "Highway Markers" from the British_Columbia_Highway_7 page. Really that's quite foolish. You claim "No rationale for fair use" These are highway markers, not trademarked images by some corporation.

See the fair use rationale here for BC Highway signs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bc7.png

Next time, actually look at what you do before you do it, because from your actions, it is clear you have no idea what the context of your actions were. I am restoring the markers. TotallyTempo (talk) 01:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I have asked uninvolved people their opinion on this matter at Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#British_Columbia_route_images. Thank you --Admrboltz (talk) 04:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Please note that I am indeed an Episcopalian, and that that's my rationale for the use of the ECUSA Shield on my user page. kencf0618 (talk) 21:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

I have noticed that you have recently been deleting images in the articles IntelliStar and The Weather Channel under non free use. While I'll admit I don't have the best knowledge of Wikipedia policy, could you please explain (on one of the article's talk pages) how you believe these screenshots and logos violate non free use? It would definately help prevent a big edit war. Thanks!

Weatherstar4000 (talk) 16:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Not to criticize or anything, but if you're going to remove a "non-free" gallery, at least have the decency to put the images in seperate thumbnails. Thanks for your time in reading this section. Mbrstooge (talk) 21:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow. It is not about how you violate policy. Using a bunc of thumbnails does not change anything. Rettetast (talk) 09:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Also, I looked at the history for The Weather Channel and noticed that wasn't you. Oops!

Weatherstar4000 (talk) 00:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I am going to list these images at FFD. Rettetast (talk) 09:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Your summary for the removal is "Removing instances of image The Motherland Calls.jpg because "No rationale for this use" "

What do you mean by 'No rationale for this use' ? That statue is the ultimate modern representation of the Battle of Stalingrad, sited at one of the most highly contested battles for Stalingrad. I fail to see why you think there is no rationale for its use. Cadae (talk) 02:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

There s non rationale for that use per WP:NFCC#10. See WP:FURG for guidelines. Rettetast (talk) 08:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - now I understand. The reason for not permitting the image in the battle of Stalingrad article is because the fair use claim for that image is "To specifically identify the work of art identified in an encyclopedic article on it.", and the Battle of Stalingrad article is outside the scope of that claim.

To meet the Wikipedia criteria for this image, we would need to extend the fair use claim. In your experience, do you think we could make a fair use claim for the Battle of Stalingrad article ? The sole reason for that statue is, afer all, the Battle of Stalingrad, so it would make sense to include it there. Any suggestion as to what the wording for the claim could be will be gratefully received.

Cadae (talk) 12:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Since there is an article about the spesific statue I would advice that we only use a non free image on that article. I can't see that the image is detrimental to the understanding of the Battle of Stalingrad article. WP:NFCC Rettetast (talk) 09:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough - I'll not pursue its re-instatement. Thank you for your assistance. Cadae (talk) 12:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

why was this image contested, the beriv aircraft company, and the russian govt ( which owns the company) released that image into the public domain. the russian govt releases all their images into the public domain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Midgetman433 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any reference for that? Rettetast (talk) 17:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

the beriev aircraft company or russian governmant? Midgetman433 (talk —Preceding undated comment added 17:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC).

Both. Rettetast (talk) 17:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

go to the link that i provided, and and go under contacts to verify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Midgetman433 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

That page says nothing about the copyright status of images. Rettetast (talk) 21:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

no, i meant contact one of the people to verify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Midgetman433 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It does not work that way. Follow theinstructions I gave you and forward an e-mail from them to OTRS. Rettetast (talk) 06:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer, Rettetast. No, I wasn't aware of that. Quite useful tool, that. Good to see that I've got all the recent DYKs covered on the list which I keep and use to update Portal:Norway/DYK on a monthly basis. I like your work, by the way. Manxruler (talk) 20:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I am surprised that you chose to delete the book covers from Sam Haskins article.

The author himself is aware of the image use and fully sanctioned and endorsed the use of his images in this way. These book covers are universally referenced on the web and fair use rules allows for reproduction of book covers.

Please contact me if you have any questions.

Thank you

Camera5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camera5 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Images that are not released under a free license has to comply wit Wikipedias policy on non-free content. This policy is much stricter than fair use under US-law. One of the main components is that we use as little as possible, and only when there are critical commentary about the specific image(s). The images in Sam Haskins does not comply with this. Rettetast (talk) 17:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, i kindly do not agree with your assessment that the images on Glen Campbell videos have to be removed according to that guideline, so for now I have restored them.Lumdeloo (talk) 07:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I see you deleted the images again. I disagree that use of these images fails point 8 "Contextual significance". The article describes all the original video released by Glen Campbell. As there have been many re-releases of those videos available one of the few ways to clearly identify the original release is by showing the (original) front cover. Looking forward to your reply.Lumdeloo (talk) 12:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Identification is not a good rationale for including non-free images on Wikipedia. We allow it when it identifies the whole subject of the article, but we don't use them for individual entries in lists etc. Rettetast (talk) 18:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

A few remarks

1. On which guideline is your last statement ("Identification is not a good rationale for including non-free images on Wikipedia. We allow it when it identifies the whole subject of the article, but we don't use them for individual entries in lists etc.") based?
2. This article has more than one subject, namely all original videos by Glen Campbell. The entries in this article used to be separate articles but have been merged into one article recently. I don't think the sole fact that the articles have been merged into one means that showing the front cover of those releases is not allowed anymore. I agree that adding (free or non-free) images should not be done for every item in a list but this is not a list, this is a merged article with content on every seperate release.
3. I have temporarily restored the links to the images, not to be stubborn or to irritate you but to avoid the images being automatically removed while the discussion is ongoing. Hope you understand. Lumdeloo (talk) 19:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I ave listed the article for review at WP:FUR. Rettetast (talk) 10:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this a hardline rule and policy? While I am aware that the guidelines state one article per rational, I could just add the rational to the upload pages for the second use.....right? This is a similar situation as happening on Carmel-by-the-Sea. If this editor can get away with overuse of Fair use images and uploading images under fair use that could be found free, why can't I just add the rationals per policy. Movie posters are considered promotional and their copyright may be expired under current US law.....but that would tak far too much work....that I partly began then gave up on. It does turn out that some artwork is still copyrighted while others show no record of it today.

Anyway, I will not be adding any images back that were removed. However if you could look at Carmel-by the- Sea and let me know if the page is within guidelines there I would much appreciate it.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:NFCC is a policy that every editor should follow. Furthermore there are board resolutions fron the wikimedia foundation that limits the use of non-free content. Having rationales for every use of a non-free file is just one of three requirements in criteria number 10 of WP:NFCC. I don't have the time to look at that article no, but if you want answers about non-free images you can ask for opinions at WP:FUR. Rettetast (talk) 22:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I consider your behavior on the page to be a 'Breach of basic policies (attacks, biting/civility, edit warring, privacy, etc)'. Opinions vary on the topic you're supporting, and the issue has been discussed at length by many people before you arrived on the scene. If you have something new to add to the discussion, I welcome your input. But don't come in and start a reversion battle. Being an admin doesn't give you that privilege, and unfortunately I would have hoped you'd know better than that. Without pushback on passing whims every FA would be destroyed in a matter of days. You and the two new editors who seem to move in sequence have added no new content to the page, but rather have undone previously reviewed and 'blessed' page elements. If it's wrong, discuss it and justify it. Otherwise you are overturning a majority. ...and I'm pretty sure wikipedia doesn't work like that.--Elred (talk) 02:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I am astonished by the ownish attitude you have, reverting every edit to your article.

1. Enforcing WP:NFCC is not edit warring.
2. There are no special policies for FAs.
3. This is obviously a violation of WP:NFCC. Sure it is nice to use others copyrighted works, but we do tat only to a bare minimum, and certainly not in a decorative way like tat. Especially not when one of these images are used, properly, longer down in the article. Not that it it matters, but the images don't even have a rationale for why they can be used in this infobox.
4. You can not discuss yourself out of violating WP:NFCC.
5. Continuously addition of violations of WP:NFCC is a blockable offense. Rettetast (talk) 08:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

There's no 'ownish' attitude. ...and don't threaten me with 'blockable offense'. You are out of line as an administrator. I'm simply working to protect the integrity of the article. You're right, you can't discuss 'yourself' out of violating WP:NFCC. The discussion is whether or not it IS actually a violation. That discussion has raged on without your input and was left tipped in our direction before. So just because you recently decided to care doesn't mean it tips back the other direction. Go look at the other big 12 schools pages and you'll fine the same exact "violation" present (and I'm sure you will with 3/4ths of other university pages as well). The majority has thus far come down on the side that those images are NOT in violation. Your one vote (and that's all you have my friend) doesn't sway the debate. I'd give you more room for judgment had you not shown up simultaneously with a little group of 3 other editors (one of whom has caused a problem about this issue before on this page and many others).--Elred (talk) 11:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Rettetest, I think your removals are absolutely perfectly in line with the highest ideals of Wikipedia. I don't think you've acted out of line in any respect with regards to this issue. It's clearly an NFCC violation, and also violates WP:MOSLOGO. An article being FA doesn't confer special rights to it, and NFCC doesn't get suspended because some people disagree with it. People will always disagree with it. Kudos. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Hahah. Hammersoft. Ok since your post actually made me laugh and I don't have time to mess with this crap, I'll go ahead and concede on the basis that I obviously care far less than you four do. I'll be eagerly waiting to see you guys enforce the same rules throughout project university. ...unless there was some kind of grudge here right? If the rest of the big 12 schools have not been locked into conformity by the end of the month, I'll put TTUs logos back in there. Fair? If you're right you're right.--Elred (talk) 12:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Making demands like that constitutes a threat-response editing scenario. Also, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't a valid reason to violate our NFCC policy. I have done a number of these removals before, long before the current TTU debate (example) and other types of articles too (example). The use of fair use images in this way, especially as icons, is inappropriate and not acceptable under our policies. Threatening us to fix everything, or else you'll violate policy again isn't the right path. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Can you clarify the words "our" and "us" as you used them in context here Hammersoft? ...our, in my understanding, generally implies some sort of possession or ownership. When you say "us", who exactly is the group?--Elred (talk) 17:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Is there more than one NFCC policy? No. Obviously then, "our" means all of us. I should think this is blatantly obvious. As to who you are threatening, also blatantly obvious; the people on this talk page who disagree with you. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I've created a user script to help with deleting resized non-free images. Basically, when installed, a new tab labeled "Rescaled" is added to each image page. Clicking this button A) Deletes all revisions of the image other than the current one, and B) removes {{Non-free reduced}} from the page. It isn't very elegant right now (there's no status display or anything; once you click the button the page doesn't seem to do anything for a little while before it jumps into edit mode and then saves the page). Additionally, clicking the button by accident will cause it to run on any image page. But, since I saw that you were working in the reduced-image-deletion area a little, I thought I'd mention it. It isn't fully documented yet (and I haven't tested it for Internet Explorer), but you should be able to use it by adding

importScript('User:Drilnoth/delresized.js');

to your monobook.js page, assuming that you use the default monobook skin. If you try it out and encounter any bugs, please let me know! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I love it. I'll report bugs if I encounter them. Rettetast (talk) 17:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rettetast,

You recently put a {{non-free}} template on an article, Comparison of rapid transit systems, which I've been working on as well as removing one of the images, File:Lametro.svg. I do not intend to violate copyright laws, however I think that it is important to have the logos for the different metro systems because they are readily identifiable and make the table friendlier and less technical. Can you help me? I've started to do a bit of research into which images are copyrighted and I've opened a discussion on the talk page and I'd welcome your input and help. Thanks, — sligocki (talk) 21:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that you've recently removed (using TW) the AC Milan badge from the A.C. Milan Primavera article, citing "invalid fair use". Let's assume you are right, then why similar articles such as Arsenal F.C. Reserves, Chelsea F.C. Reserves and Youth Team and Manchester United F.C. Reserves and Academy all display the team badge? I would be glad if you could make it clear to me. Cheers. — Luxic (talk) 15:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

the image was used in a lot of places where it should not have bin including userpages etc. I removed it from all articles it had no rationale for, hence the generic edit summary. If you provide a rationale you could probably use it. Rettetast (talk) 10:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

In fact, I'm NOT complaining about you removing it (along with other logos) from my userpage. That was my mistake and you simply did your job. I was just wondering why you removed it ALSO from the article about the team. Anyway, I'll try to provide a valid rationale and see what happens. Bye. — Luxic (talk) 14:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you know the answer to this: As I understand it, photographs by Norwegians or taken in Norway are released into the public domain (in the free) fifty years after they were taken, given that the author has been deceased for fifteen years (please correct me if I am wrong). However, 1) if an image was taken as a work for hire, 2) the author is unknown or 3) both, does an image fall into the public domain after fifty years then? Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll anwer in Norwegian since there are some difficult legal terms.

Du tenker på åndsverkslovens §43a om fotografier. {{PD-Norway50}} på Commons. Etter denne har fotografen eneretten i de år som du riktig beskriver. Det er imidlertid viktig at et fotografi også kan være beskyttet av opphavsretten i §40. Da er fotografiet beskyttet i dødsår + 70. Skillet her er vanskelig og "verkshøyde" er stikkordet. Denne diskusjonen på Commons tar opp problemet.

Hvis vi forutsetter at fotografiet ikke har verkshøyde. Dette er ikke eg noen ekspert på, men eg tenker slik. Etter åndsverksloven §43a er det fotografen som har enerett til fotografiet. Det er et velkjent prinsipp i norsk rett at en ikke kan overføre større rett en en selv har. Eneretten etter §43 vil derfor ikke endres av at det er et såkalt "workfor hire". Verre er det imidlertid med ukjente fotografer. For foto med verkshøyde er dette regulert i §41, men eg kan ikke se at det er tilsvarende reguleringer for eneretten til fotografier. Siden §43a eksplisitt sier hvilke regler som gjelder tilsvarende for eneretten kan eg heller ikke se at vi kan trekke noen analogier. Det eneste eg kan falle tilbake på er at en må legge til grunn det som er mest sannsynelig. Et bilde av motstandsbevegelsen under krigen tatt av en soldat hvis en vet at over halvparten av avdelingen omkom på slutten av krigen eller frem til og med 1993 er mest sannsynelig falt i det fri. Om dette blir godtatt på Commons er eg imidlertid usikker på.

Eg må imidlertid bare få presisere at norsk opphavsrett ikke er mitt spesialfelt, og at eg ikke har lest åndsverkslovens forarbeider eller andre kilder som kunne ha belyst problemstillingene. Når du lurer på en juridisk problemstilling er lovteksten imidlertid det beste stedet å begynne...etter telefonen. Rettetast (talk) 12:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I was hoping for an easy answer, but I guess my professor in intellectual property management was right when he stated that no-one can do anything with intellectual property because it is all in a fog of legal doubt. Guess I'll just have to brush the dust off Peder Ås and Lars Holm and study the laws myself. Thanks for the help :) Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I have received a message saying this picture will be removed. I own the copyright, so could you tell me how I go about ensuring it is not removed. Also, all the pictures of album and single covers have been removed. How do I put them back so that they are not taken down again? Thanks Cronk69 (talk) 17:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You should specify that you are th creator on the image description page, and send an e-mail confirming the release of the image to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org. Rettetast (talk) 17:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

sorry, is that permissions-en@wikimedia.org? I've added {{cc-by-3.0}} to the file details; is that right (it is my own photo)

What do I have to add to the file details for the album/single covers? ThanksCronk69 (talk) 17:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The adress is correct. You have to say that you are the copyright owner. Rettetast (talk) 17:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

sorry to be slow (!) but what do I have to add to the album/single cover files ? I do not own the copyright to the artwork, but I did take the photos of them myself? I thought album artowrk could be used in reference to the album (which is what this is) thanksCronk69 (talk) 17:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

If you don't own the copy right use of the images is regulated by WP:NFCC. It is not possible to give an exact answer of where you can use of non-free images, but it is generally accepted in the article about the specific album. Rettetast (talk) 18:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I think I agree with your edit to here [3] to List of Jewish American entertainers. But if that is correct, there is no justification for any photos in that article. Yes? Piano non troppo (talk) 18:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. There should not be any non-free images in a list like this. I have removed some more. Rettetast (talk) 18:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree. I will remove the rest, if you like, so we share responsibility. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 18:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Why was the Port Authority of NY/NJ logo removed from the article List of HOT lanes in the United States? All bullet items in that list have at least one image to graphically introduce the user to the entry. --Tim Sabin (talk) 19:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It is a non-free image with no rationale for use in that article. See WP:NFCC#10c. Rettetast (talk) 19:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The image is a facsimile of a publicly available government document, impressed with the seal of the state of Hawaii and U.S. How did you want me to make that clearer so as to prevent deletion? THanks Mrdthree (talk) 19:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The image is non-free and need to comply wit WP:NFCC. One of the criterias is that it needs a rationale, an exlnation why it meets WP:NFCC for each time it is used on wikipedia. WP:FURG may help you in writing rationales. Rettetast (talk) 19:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Its a government docment. Perhaps I filed it wrong when I uploaded it. I posted the question on the media page Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Altered_Image_of_Hawaii_State_Voting_Results:_Free_or_Unfree.3F . Why is it unfree? I thought government documents were public domain.Mrdthree (talk) 19:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

changed it to a PD image again. Mrdthree (talk) 03:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The editor that flagged it as fair use resinded his edit (see my talk page). I deleted your notice of deletion. Is there anything else I need to do? Mrdthree (talk) 20:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't noticed that JeremyWJ had been blocked. Quite honestly, I don't think it was appropriate for JPS to block him, but I've unprotected WFFT-TV regardless. --Aqwis (talk) 11:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Understood that. I would not have blocked myself and he should have had someone else do the block, but a block was valid and i'll support that now. Rettetast (talk) 11:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Rettetast. On reflection, I've unblocked him -- perhaps you'd might like to keep an eye on him? Also, I unprotected the articles myself. The JPS^{talk to me} 12:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear Rettetast, please revert your edits back to the previous versions, as referring plainly to Wikipedia rules does not mean a valid argument per se. You need to specify which point, which image, which capture text is not satisfactory in your view. For example, all the images were explained and cited in the article Chervona Ruta (film), but you have deleted them with no justification whatsoever. Like I said, plainly citing a wiki rule in abstracto does not mean that it is applicable in concreto. Otherwise this seems to be an unfounded deletion, with an unknown goal to me. You are welcome to discuss the changes you would like to make on the talk page of the relevant articles, or files (I guess on the talk page of articles would be better). Moreover, for your convenience, I have cited all the rules to which you refer, to make sure you point out concretely the paragraphs and make the necessary link and explanation for each file. --Rubikonchik (talk) 14:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you want. My removal have been explained in my edit summaries and on the articles talk page. Ant it is not like this is a grey area of the policy. This is obvious violations. Rettetast (talk) 14:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid you got confused and speak of some other articles which you edited. None of your edits, related to articles with images of Sofia Rotaru movies, explains in concreto 1) which file, 2) which text capture (or its absence), 3) violates which rule exactly. I think twice you have indicated the number of the paragraph, but have never answered Nos 1) and 2). For all of the other of your edits related to this matter, none of your edits responds to either of Nos 1), 2), or 3). All you do is simply plainly refer to a wiki rule long of many pages with no further precision.--Rubikonchik (talk) 14:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I left a reply for you here: Talk:List of human evolution fossils. Nowimnthing (talk) 14:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

another reply. Nowimnthing (talk) 00:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

one more question. Nowimnthing (talk) 18:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello Rettetast:

Can we revert to the fair use (according to Wiki at least) screenshots which were originally included in the article BookWars?

The reason we included them in the first place is that Wikipedia states screenshots from the movie may be used as per fair use for educational purposes.

Aside from this, the reason for the removal given was "too many" images used - why not just remove enough images to make it "not too many", versus removing *all* of them?

Along these lines: what number of screenshots is not "too many" - could not find this figure in the help section.

Thanks,

JCM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johncmorley (talk • contribs) 02:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

When I removed the screenshots I could not see a single one that complied with our non-free content policy. Note that this policy is much stricter than US laws about fair use. There was none of the screenshots there was critical commentary on and that was necessary to understand the article. Rettetast (talk) 10:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. You've removed the Air New Zealand Cup Logo (Image:Air New Zealand Cup Logo.jpg) three times from the article 2009 Air New Zealand Cup. Each time you have justified it with "No rationale for this use," and haven't either explained on the talk page, or put any further description in your edit summary. I would understand this once if you thought your action was obvious and clear to all, but after three times, it seems pretty clear that others disagree with your stance, so can you let others know what's going on? I can't understand this. This is the second-most logical place (after the general article on the competition itself) in the whole encyclopedia for this image. The fair use rationale specifically says: " From http://www.allblacks.com/airnewzealandcup/ for fair use on Air New Zealand Cup and all related articles" (my emphasis). It significantly adds to the article. I don't get it... ??? AshleyMorton (talk) 12:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:NFCC#10c. Rettetast (talk) 13:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I think I can fix this. However, can I recommend that you modify the text you put into your edit summary to "No rationale for this use given on image page" ? It might seem like a small thing, but I've been around Wikipedia a bit, though admittedly not into the world of image use, and I didn't really have a clue what you were saying - at first glance, I assumed that something had to be fixed on the article page itself, not the image page. Anyway, off to work...AshleyMorton (talk) 16:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I see that you have commented out the screenshot Image:AmigaOS 4.1.png in the AmigaOS article with the following motivation "(Removing instances of image AmigaOS 4.1.png because "{{subst:nsd}}"; using TW)". But I can not see why you have commented it away, it has an url to its source. What is wrong showing it on the article? Marko75 (talk) 18:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The edit summary was a copy paste error. I removed the images because it had no rationale for that use per WP:NFCC#10c. Rettetast (talk) 18:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. I'll fix the "rationale" then, thank you. Marko75 (talk) 19:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, you got it right, i was new on wikipedia and did not know much abt copyright rules, I am waiting for the 7 days grace period to end to rid myself from the files you tagged. i will replace all the files in due time. about the low resolution picture of the grand serail, i "saved" it form a now defunct web site. All the others are dispensable and i will replace them adequately in the future. Eli+ 19:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, you've warned User:Owenhatherley about replaceability of existing FU Image:Zuev_club.jpg.

Are you positively sure it can be replaced? The building itself is copyrighted for 70 years PMA (2015). I can upload scores of own photographs but en-wiki upload form demands subscribing to "Entirely my own work - I created it, own all the rights to it, and have not used anyone else's work in making it" statement. Yes, the image may be used on en-wiki (copyright of the original work is not protected in the US - good for en-wiki, banned on commons); no, it may not because the person who pressed the shutter button doed not own all the rights until 2015.

What would you recommend - abide with the language of the upload form and stay aside or go ahead and replace? (I've already trolled up this Q on WT:NFCC and Lupo's talkpage but all proposed solutions so far disregard the language of upload form). TIA, NVO (talk) 10:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

A free image i definatly better than an unfree image since we then only would have to justify fair use for the design of the building and not the photograph as well. Fo #d objects we normally prefer user created photographs over publicity shots. Rettetast (talk) 09:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

there's the catch - a user-created image is allowed on English wikipedia but it is not free because the subject is not. NVO (talk) 19:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

But is still better than an all copyrighted photo. At least that is former practice on wikipedia. For example toys. If their design is copyrighted we need a rationale for using images of them, but we still use user-created images since they are, if not free as in free content, they are freer. Both the architecht has created a work that is over the threshold of originality and therefore created a copyrighted work. Even if the subject is copyrighted WP:NFCC#1 also applies for the work of the photographer. Rettetast (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Once_Upon_a_Midnight - the previous edit was much stronger, prior to your revision. You've cited "minimal usage" in your edit, but the picture left (Kelsey and Vultures) is unsuitable and does not successfully convey the production aesthetic. None of the images included in the previous edit violate the non-free content policy, other than the fact that you have decided there were too many of them. As compromise, would you consider returning at least one that portrays the lead character (pic marked Nozomi vs Yoshiki) to better balance the look of this article? If policy dictates that only one image may be chosen to represent the subject, then that is a stronger image. Thank you. (129.96.114.75 (talk))

If you want to change the current image with one of those I removed, then do it. Rettetast (talk) 18:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rettetast. You've deleted all of the screenshots from the Mercenary (computer game) article stating "rm overuse of non-free content per WP:NFCC#3 and #8". I've got a couple of questions. First of all, "overuse" implies that mere use is acceptable, but you deleted all of the screenshots (this seems related to WP:NFCC#3a): can some be restored? Secondly, if not WP:NFCC#3a, is WP:NFCC#3b being violated? And if so, is resolution reduction a route to restore (some of) them? Thirdly, since (a limited number of) screenshots provide the most straightforward way to illustrate a videogame subject, WP:NFCC#8 seems tangential: can a decreased number of screenshots be used here to illustrate this subject? If not, can you explain how this subject is judged different from other videogames where screenshots (sometimes several of them) are used for illustration? Best regards, --PLUMBAGO 08:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

We don't allow screenshots just because their screenshots. And you are correct that there is many such images here that violates our nonn-free content policy. You can use non-free images when there are sources commentary on the image itself. We don't allow them for illustration. None of the images in Mercenary were subject of this. Rettetast (talk) 18:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. Thanks very much for taking the time to get back to me. Yes, I'm well aware that many articles violate non-free use, but it's hard to understand the rules when even featured articles seemingly do this. What is it about their images, which have presumably undergone a high degree of scrutiny, that makes use acceptable? Also, when you say, "You can use non-free images when there are sources commentary on the image itself", do you mean that screenshots that are reproduced elsewhere (with some commentary) are acceptable? I took the images from an external website whose owner I had contacted for permission (and this is recorded in the images' non-free use rationale statements). Sorry to be a pest about this — it just seems that the WP:NFCC rules are sometimes applied quite arbitrarily, and I still don't (entirely) see why rules 3 and 8 apply here (beyond there perhaps being too many images). Anyway, apologies again for taking up your time. --PLUMBAGO 10:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.78.59.117 (talk) 13:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

May I ask why you consider the lighthouse route logo to have been a violation of WP:NFCC #1 and #8?

In terms of #8, I would argue that it is contextually significant, because the highway marker signs that identify the highway include the Lighthouse route logo, so the logo is an essential tool in identifying the route's course.

In terms of #1, I don't see any possible alternative in which a free version of the logo could be produced: Any attempt to create a faithful reproduction of the logo would simply be a derivative work of the original artwork. Thus, whether the contributor claims it to be free or not, it would still be subject to the original artwork's copyright. This would create an even more complicated situation in terms of licensing, because we'd have two copyright licenses to contend with: the free copyright license of the person who created the derivative work, and the non-free copyright license of the image faithfully depicted, without permission, in the derivative.

If you fundamentally disagree with me on this issue, then I believe that to be even-handed in the application of the policy, all references to the logos of the Evangeline Trail, the Glooscap Trail, and the Marine Drive, should be removed from all Nova Scotia numbered highway articles. Goosnarrggh (talk) 14:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The logo is fine on the article about the route but we can not spread it around to all the highway article. It is not needed to understand those article. This has to do with WP:NFCC#3, we use as little non-free content as possible, and WP:NFCC#8, contextual significance. If there are similar violations on other articles thos should be fixed. Rettetast (talk) 14:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rettetast
Replied at User talk:Amalthea#cite web etc..
Cheers, Amalthea 15:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I realise you've undone something because the change broke something, but a lot of stuff is still broke. Has there been a change to citation/core that needs fixing or something? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems fine now. Try purging. Amalthea is working on it. Rettetast (talk) 15:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed that you added Birgit Dalland to living people from possibly living people with the summary "She is in the lates published Norwegian taxlists". Could you provide a link or a citation for that so that she can be added to List of centenarians. Thanks and Cheers, CP 16:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The Norwegian taxlist lists her for 2007. That means she as atleast lived until 2007, but it does not prove that she became a centenarian. Taxists for 2008 come out in a couple of weeks. Rettetast (talk) 14:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! Is there a website where I can check them when they do come out, or is it an offline/need a special access source only? Cheers, CP 02:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is a link. All the major newspapers publish the income, the net wealth, and what taxes people have paid in the last year. Rettetast (talk) 08:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Why did you remove the flags from Bergen with an edit summarised as 'ce'? I'm guessing it's something to do with MOS:FLAG? I'm just curious because every other city/town article I've seen has included flags in the sister cities/twin towns section. Thanks, Hayden120 (talk) 22:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. The flags are redundant since the countryname is there and the list is so short that the reasons given in MOS:FLAG for including flags does not apply. Flags has a remarable way of spreading around wikipedia when someone has found a way to use them, so I don't think other articles show any established consensus. Ideally the section should be in prose since there is much more important stuff than these trivial sister cities. Rettetast (talk) 01:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Tried to delete all images and leave just one as requested by you. I'd like to move that one further to the top but don't know how. Hope that is ok. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.96.114.174 (talk) 00:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Jus cut and paste the image to where you want it. Rettetast (talk) 01:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Non free images can not be used in templates. That can not be discussed. Rettetast (talk) 12:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't have time to discuss the matter.
However, the template is a tool for use in the article space
NFCC#9 says they CAN be used if they are not displayed. I'm trying to work out how to not-display them. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thats all good, but don't revert policy upholding edits. Rettetast (talk) 12:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I don't think I fully understand either of your postings.
However, as I said, I have to be elsewhere very soon. Can we continue this conversation at a later time please?
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Please mind your own business and stop reverting my own userboxes. If you have a problem with it, don't use the photo on your own profile. As for mine, this is my own business. --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ^[talk] 02:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see this diff. I am now being harassed by User:Иван Богданов and can not stop it. He asked me to stop posting on his talk page. I did. Now, if I simply ignore him, he refuses to walk away. He has insulted me a number of times, broken fair use policy, badgered me, and now demands an apology for what I know not. This needs to stop. Now. Some of his insults and other comments available at [4]. Discussion regarding some of this at his talk page, and also at Golbez's talk page. Your assistance, please. Regards, --Hammersoft (talk) 15:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I have seen it. Lets hope my revert makes him go away. I'll trust you stay away from him. Let me know of any NFCC-violations. Rettetast (talk) 15:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• There already have been reverts on his part. I have little faith the hounding will stop. I hope it does, but I wouldn't bet it will. I'm ignoring him, and not responding, but I will be watching his edits now for future violations of policy. If found, I'll report elsewhere for someone else to handle, as opposed to handling it myself. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Rettetast, you should also listen to my story. THIS GUY removed himself non-free image from my user page on 9th of November, instead of telling me to do that. Next, he is attempting to ignore me, by removing my notes from his talk page (completely aganist rules of Wikipedia). I didn't deleted any of his messages from my talk page (if you want, you can see that by yourself). After that, he went around talking that I am "bad guy" and even talking that he'll be watching my edits now for future "violations of policy". From the start, he was unfair to me. I demand his apology because all of this what he done. If he refuse to do that, this will escalate into an all-out war!! --Иван Богданов (talk) 18:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me just make this clear directly to you. 1. Violations of our non-free content policy can and should be removed on sight by anyone. 2. WP:TALK says that "users may freely remove comments from their own talk". I suggest that you'll back away from this situation. You are near a block for disruption and personal attacks. Rettetast (talk) 17:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I want justice for me in this situation, and I'll not back down as a "bad guy", because I am not. If there are some consquences for my part in this issue, I'll accept them. I am ready. --Иван Богданов (talk) 18:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• There isn't any "justice" to be had here. This isn't a court of law. As to the issues; one, You had a non-free image on your userpage. It was removed, according to policy. Your userpage is now free of non-free content, and you don't appear to be continuing to place non-free content on your userpage. You appear to understand our policy on that issue now. Thus, that matter is resolved. Two, you engaged in a number of personal attacks against myself and Masem. You were repeatedly warned about this. Subsequently, you appear to have ceased your personal attacks against your fellow editors. You appear to now understand our no personal attacks policy. Thus, that matter is resolved too. Three, you made a claim that I was operating against the rules by ignoring you and removing your comments from my talk page. You were shown and quoted Wikipedia:TALK#User_talk_pages which shows that I am permitted to remove your comments from my talk page. You seem to understand that guideline now too. Four, you want an apology from me, but I have nothing to apologize about and you've not indicated anything specifically that I should apologize for, except removing non-free content from your userpage. Several editors have informed you that such action is perfectly allowable. There's nothing further to debate here, or seek justice about. You understand the policies and guidelines in question, and appear to be operating within them now. There's nothing left to resolve or seek "justice" about. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Il'l accept this as your apology (although you can't say that). This matter is now over for me (it really last too long). Bye, Bye, man, never to see you again. --Иван Богданов (talk) 18:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the block on this user. In discussions (see my talk page) with the person whose userpage he was vandalizing, it turns out that User:Иван Богданов was engaging in a series of insults towards him. We of course were not able to ascertain this as the discussion was in a non-English language, most likely Serbian, which most of us do not speak.

Post block, User:Иван Богданов has made a long posting on his own talk page (see here) again using a non-English language. I have asked User:FkpCascais for a translation, since it seems he speaks this language.

Meanwhile, I note that Wikipedia:Talk#Good_practices says "No matter to whom you address a comment, it is preferred that you use English on English Wikipedia talk pages". I'd like to ask you to post to User talk:Иван Богданов a request that from now on he use English on this language Wikipedia in any talk page posts that he makes. He's banned me from his talk page, else I'd do it myself. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 13:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted the edit. I have tried to use Google translate and while it isn't perfect, I don't like what I see. I'll wait for a translation and will consider extending the block to indefinite. As for wp:talk I agree, but am not the person to throw the first stone. Rettetast (talk) 14:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah I did the same and just noted that he posted his address in that posting. Perhaps some oversight is in order? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Is that name actually used by any reliable sources? We shouldn't invent artifical English names - if there is no English name that is used by reliable sources, the native Norwegian name should be used instead. --Aqwis (talk) 13:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I just saw bymuseets webpages using that name. I thought of bringeing it to the talk page first, but decided to be bold.. Please feel free to revert if you disagree. Rettetast (talk) 13:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I have begun tagging the articles I create - if you want to tag them, you can do that, but please don't forget relevant parameters such as |living=yes, work groups, and the football project tag +++. Geschichte (talk) 13:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I do the different categories with WP:AWB and try to get as many parameters as possible in one run. For instance I tag all articles in Category:Norwegian people stubs with WP:BIO and wp:norway and assess as stubs. At some later point i will go through Category:Norwegian football biography stubs and add the more specific tag {{Fotball}} and work groups for wp:bio. I find this way more efficient than looking at every article, but of course it is not as accurate and take some more edits. |living=yes is taken care of by a bot that looks in Category:Living people.If you find it annoying please say so. I don't want to annoy anyone. Rettetast (talk) 13:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way you did a very good job sweeping the category of B-class articles. Geschichte (talk) 14:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Well done for your excellent work cleaning up infoboxes, I don't know how many times I've made that edit manually. Regards King of the North East 19:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it has annoyed me for a while. When i got the idea that google could help finding such flaws, I went on a little spree. Thanks for the nice message. Rettetast (talk) 19:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey Rettetast,

Thanks for the help and intro! Anything I should know upfront about going about editing... (Lots of work needs to be done on Anglican pages in South Africa.) Seems you get a lot of flak for doing quality control.

(Stmarcusthelessor (talk) 13:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC))

Always great to see newcomers. One thing you should know. Be bold, and don't mind that other editors can be a bit rude at times:-) Rettetast (talk) 13:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Taqi Haider (talk) 16:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean, I made the Bakugan Darkus. I'm also Shipwreck2. You said you removed the tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mech2 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

What are you referring to? Rettetast (talk) 16:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I see you have recently downgraded the article Norway women's national handball team from B to Start class. You mention "recentism" in the edit summary but a longer more constructive comment would be appreciated. Thank you. Aikurn (talk) 18:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course. Glad too see that there are editors watching the article. Rettetast (talk) 19:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello. It appears from the cited source that Guntveit has 78 (not 75) apps in the first part of his Brann career, and 4 goals, 3 in 1998 and 1 in 1999. Unless there's something I'm misunderstanding about the stats table? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Oops. My bad. Did not see 1999. Rettetast (talk) 11:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It is nice to see a good article about Helland; an interesting part of Hareide's "Scandinavian revolution" that never really succeeded (initially bought as a "non-risk" player, but being discarded because he wasn't a "ball-playing" defender..). At one point I was planning on starting the article myself, but those six months at Brøndby just weren't much to go by ;)

I've added some details on his time in Brøndby, mostly from Danish newspapers. I've tried to keep it relatively short, at it only was a fraction of his career. Poulsen (talk) 10:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Rettetast. I appreciate the work you have done to create the project subpages (and tagging the unreferenced articles). I also realize that in many cases I am just adding one or two references (and some of these may not be sufficient for WP:RS), but at least it makes the information verifiable.

Another important step is warning new users about WP:V and WP:BIO so they will stop creating unreferenced BLP articles. I know you do a great job with these warnings, and I've been trying to do it as well. There are a few people that don't listen (probably because they don't read English well), but most of them make an effort to help. It's quite difficult to patrol the new articles every day and some new users are able to create hundreds of unreferenced BLPs in just a few days. That's why I expect that the number of unreferenced articles has grown (but many of them are probably not yet tagged).

Best regards and keep up the great work! Jogurney (talk) 16:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

That is fantastic news! I was very worried about the new unreferenced BLPs, but it appears that they are slowing down. It should be possible to remove another 500 or so from the backlog each month, so we may actually eliminate the backlog in one year's time. Jogurney (talk) 18:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Rettetast - please explain why you declined the speedy delete on Avery Clifton. This meets the criteria very easily. [Belinrahs|^talktome⁄ _ididit] 21:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

There was a credible assertion of notability. Of course the article fails WP:BIO, but such articles should not be speedy deleted. Rettetast (talk) 21:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Unless I'm wrong, this is still protected. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I upped it to [edit=sysop] instead of removing the protection. Fixed now. Rettetast (talk) 11:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Materialscientist (talk) 12:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the images that you removed in Cthulhu Mythos anthology. Your edit cited Wikipedia:NFCC and mentioned "overuse of non free images" as the rational for the removal. I suspect you are referencing #3a "Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." In this case, I'm not sure that a single image could convey equivalent significant information, so I don't think the images are outside rule. The article in question is a combination of several single articles. If each of the individual articles were to be split off into its own article, they would each have their own image without objection. Please let me know if you still feel that the images violate NFCC and if so specifically how. Thanks. --Rtrace (talk) 14:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting that page move out. It all got a bit of a tangle, and it didn't help when I missed a space out on the reverting! I'm not sure that the talk page is fixed yet. It appears as a redirection loop to me. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I have fixed the double redirect. Rettetast (talk) 17:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The image you deleted was acceptable by Wikipedia's Non-free content criteria after all. It states: "No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense, or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available; "acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. (As a quick test, before adding non-free content requiring a rationale, ask yourself: "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all?" If the answer to either is yes, the non-free content probably does not meet this criterion.)" I was not able to found any free image that can replace the image. Since the building is not yet completed neither under-construction, it is obviously impossible to find a free image. I have uploaded the image again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zuanzuanfuwa (talk • contribs) 07:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

You are going through removing Template:R uncategorized from pages, I see. Are you going to remove it from all ~4600 pages? If so, I'll discontinue the bot that I am building to do that. tedder (talk) 15:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

No don't do that. I was just testing what AWB speeds i could get and this was a great task for that before someone destroyed it with a bot:-) I don't think I am able to click through 4500 redirects::-) Rettetast (talk) 15:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Heh, okay. I have no problem if you want to do it, but didn't want to go through the bot approval process if you would be done before it was ready to go. tedder (talk) 15:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)`

Hi Rettetast. Brilliant work on the Norsk krigsleksikon ex links. On the same matter we have links like http://lotus.uib.no/norgeslexi/krigslex/n/n1.html#nasjonale-regjering, which need to be changed to http://mediabase1.uib.no/krigslex/n/n1.html#nasjonale-regjering. Could AWB be used for that as well? Manxruler (talk) 21:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

All done. Pleas ask me if there find any such tasks in the future. Dong it manually is a pain and it is very easy to do it with AWB. Rettetast (talk) 22:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I certainly will. Manxruler (talk) 23:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for the work. I saw your changing of living=yes to living=no, which is also good. However, some talk pages, like Talk:Bonifacio Ondó Edu, still contain another parameter called |blp=yes. That way the BLP banner is still rendered. Geschichte (talk) 09:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Geschichte for spotting that one. I thought i got most of those manually, but I should do some automatic find and replace for them. The problem is that there are so many variants. I'll look into it. Rettetast (talk) 12:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Why does it even exist, I wonder. The old version of living=yes, perhaps. Geschichte (talk) 10:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It is for use with {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} since the wikiProject templates are collapsed and you wont see the living=yes part of {{WikiProject Biography}}. I think i have taken care of most of these. Rettetast (talk) 11:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for finishing what I started. I closed the discussion, replied to the ANI thread, and then totally spaced on removing the notice! --RL0919 (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

There's the template {{SCOTUSCase}}, which creates links which are not visible as links - how can that be? Look for Stuart v. Laird and any other law cases on what links to March 2 to see what I mean. There's also {{Infobox Recent cricketer}} which links debut dates (see Rezaul Islam). In any event, these templates cause hundreds of links to date articles throughout WP – would you be able to help out in removing these links from the templates, or advise in any way, please? Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 17:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

That puzzled me to. I got an answer at Template talk:Infobox SCOTUS case#Datelinks?. As for the cricketeer you fixed the infobox a while ago. A null edit to Rezaul Islam fixed that one so i suppose it is just a caching issue. Weird that it has taken that long though. I am focusing on links to bare months at the moment. There are actually thousands of articles that links to January etc. I have done February, but it will take long to fix do all twelve months. Rettetast (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Question, could you undo the delete (File:Divestiture.jpg) temporarily, so I can copy the image, then make a new/improved one. Any response appreciated. Please leave a message on my talk page.--The Navigators (talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 03:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but you aren't planning on uploading it to Wikipedia again are you. Low-quality was not the main reason this image was deleted. Rettetast (talk) 14:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I have a use for my self, but this was the only place I could find it; but I wont re upload it. Side question you may have an answer to. What happened to File:RBOC map.png? (I have copied the image, so you can do what ever with it.)--The Navigators (talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 21:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

File:RBOC map.png was deleted as an unused non-free image. Rettetast (talk) 09:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

RE: Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Unreferenced BLPs

First of all, I am so incredibly impressed by Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Unreferenced BLPs, it is a model which all wikiprojects can use.

As you may or may not know, three days ago three administrators deleted the following 320+ articles: BLP with no notice. This led to three blocks, and two arbitrations.

It also led to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people and Wikipedia:Petition against Ignore All Rules abuse

The majority of veteran editors want to delete 50,000 articles, no joke. I encourage you to comment at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Biographies_of_living_people#View_by_Collect.

In coordination with WP:Article Incubator I am interested if you would like us to move these 5000 BLP articles from mainspace to the WP:Article Incubator/Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Unreferenced BLPs, each article would have their own subpage of WP:Article Incubator/Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Unreferenced BLPs. For example:

Example using bob silly Johnson (football) :

1. Article moved to: WP:Article Incubator/Unreferenced BLPs/Football/bob silly Johnson (football)
2. the {{Article Incubator|status=new|blp=football}} is added to the top of bob silly Johnson (football).
3. all categories and templates on bob silly Johnson (football) are hidden using <!-- -->
4. The redirected main page is deleted, as all information is moved to WP:Article Incubator/Unreferenced BLPs/Football/bob silly Johnson (football)
5. When the article meets notability, it is moved back to main space, bob silly Johnson (football).

WP:Article Incubator/Unreferenced BLPs/Football would redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Unreferenced BLPs. On Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Unreferenced BLPs there would be a dynamic list of a articles which have the category, Category:WikiProject Football/Unreferenced BLPs.

This assures that these articles are not deleted in 26 days. It also puts wikiproject football in charge of these articles, which it should be, since you folks are experts on wikiproject football.

Here is an example: Wikipedia:Article_Incubator/Unreferenced_BLPs/Australia/Alastair_Biggar

Please let me know here if you would like to do this. Thank you. Ikip 17:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Where does 25 days come from?

I have some problems with the idea and I think the discussion should be taken at WT:FOOTY.

1. I am afraid of creating to much bureaucracy. Many of the articles are pretty easy to source, and sourcing are done in an incredible tempo. I believe thousands of articles has been referenced through WP:FOOTY/Unreferenced BLPs since we started in May.
2. I don't WP:FOOTY wants to be in charge of the articles as per WP:OWN.
3. Out of sight, out of mind. If the articles were to be moved out of mainspace I think that it would be a smaller chance for someone actually doing the necessary job. So I would prefer to use the energy now to get the articles sourced.
4. Several of the now 4500 articles probably should be deleted.

This was some of my initial thoughts. Please bring your suggestion to WT:FOOTY. There is often good ideas there. Rettetast (talk) 18:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

RFCs stay open 30 days. Thanks. Ikip 19:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much for this! I have copied it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera/Unreferenced BLPs and linked it from the opening paragraph of the main project page. I'll definitely ping whenever we need an update. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Dude, why did you downgrade my status? Do you realize I contributed to Wikipedia for more than five years, and wrote a couple of Featured Articles along the way? And now you degrade me because of temporary stub article? Are you serious? --bender235 (talk) 01:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Autoreviewer has nothing to do with your "status". It is a tool for newpage patrollers, to filter out pages that does not need to be checked. Unreferenced WP:BLPs should be checked, and anyone who creates such articles should not have his new articles automatically patrolled. I am also baffled that an editor with so much experience as you thinks Wikipedia is a usable source[5]]. Unreferenced BLPS are a major problem, and there is a whole lot of drama going on because of them. New unreferenced BLPs will probably be speedily deleted in the future, and some sort of system for fixing and eventually deleting the existing ones are being discussed. Rettetast (talk) 01:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Man, okay, I'm sorry. So that little "mistake" erases my five and a half years of valid contributions to Wikipedia, and makes me user on parole, or what? You gotta be kidding. --bender235 (talk) 01:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course not. I have reinstated the autoreviewer feature, but please don't create unsourced articles. Especially about BLPs. Since you are an experienced user, do you need rollback? Rettetast (talk) 01:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please. --bender235 (talk) 01:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. Rettetast (talk) 01:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. And since you seem to be concerned about unreferenced BLPs, could you please leave a comment here? --bender235 (talk) 13:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)