User talk:Rettetast/Archive 9

Hello,

No offense taken - I just want to comply by the rules. But which point was a violation for these photos? I provided a rationale and was not notified that it was a violation. Could you please explain so that I don't make the same mistake? Thanks!Brian0324 (talk) 19:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. WP:NFCC#1~. Images of living people is not considered fair use on wikipedia. Rettetast (talk) 20:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks - I get it now after reading Wikipedia:Deletion of all fair use images of living people. I never got the warning, but then even so I wouldn't have been able to create a photo myself in 48hours. Cheers.Brian0324 (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Right, I'd added it way back in 2005 and at that time all that was needed was to tag the image as "fairold" (it's from a 1940s promotional booklet intended to promote the radio show). Apparently a bot changed it to unsure, and naturally I wasn't notified then. I'll fix it. A rationale isn't really needed in this case since it's certainly fair use for an image which was intended for publicity purposes. In fact, I looked and that info is on the page, but the tags surrounding it no doubt obscured it. I'll try to find the appropriate tag now that the whole system has changed in the intervening three years. -- Aleal (talk) 03:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I just expanded the description to clarify the situation, but I can't figure out what tag to use since "promotional" no longer exists. Just public domain? Since as a premium book, a standard practice in the radio era, with no publisher identified, just that "Don McNeill esquire" presents it; some later editions were put out by "Don McNeill Enterprises. None of these premiums, for any show in fact, were ever copyrighted (they were on the same level as booklets you sent cereal box tops for, and sometimes one and the same if a cereal company sponsored the show). Even the exact date for this premium book is uncertain but generally listed as "ca 1942." The few that were copyrighted were done so in the name of the sponsor, which in many cases don't exist; if it was 1942, the sponsor would have been Kellogg, but nothing on the booklet confirms or states that, and in any case Kellogg never owned the show itself and the sponsors have not generally retained any legal aspect of the programs (often destroying transcriptions *and* premiums to save space). So I'd imagine just public domain, but as I said, I haven't kept up with the changes in categorizations and such. -- Aleal (talk) 03:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Dude, it's a book cover. How is that not fair use? MiracleMat (talk) 04:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I did ask you whether you changed the box or not? Clearly not and I received no reply. If I step in and change it again you will react. I'm disappointed that you haven't continued an adequate discussion on this particularly as there is so much that could be done to improve it. Also if you have any images posted to User:Pa7 she hasn't been here for months so you can leave them on my page. I've noticed you had left several messages on her talk page. Thanks ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 14:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Will get to it, but the template coding is hard work. There is no time limit. You should watclist User:Pa7's talk page. Rettetast (talk) 01:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Any further thoughts for improvement? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 11:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Also I;ve noticed you ar enot a fan of flags in info boxes. Try looking at articles like Vietnam War which have fifty of the things ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 21:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi.

I am curious on why images are deleted from the Elfwood page at Wikipedia?

1. (cur) (last) 17:22, 13 May 2008 Rettetast (Talk | contribs) (8,754 bytes) (Removing instance of image Farplogosmall.png that has been speedily deleted per (CSD I6); using TW) (undo)
2. (cur) (last) 17:22, 13 May 2008 Rettetast (Talk | contribs) (8,703 bytes) (Removing instance of image Elfwoodscreenshot2006small.png that has been speedily deleted per (CSD I6); using TW) (undo)

CSD16 means that the images had no rationale as per WP:NFCC#10. See WP:FURG. Rettetast (talk) 01:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I have just brought it up for TfD and you can find it [[1]]. I will see how that goes and then we can see if there is a lot of support--if so I will begin rollback. gren グレン 22:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

So what was the point of rolling back large numbers before the debate? By the way, I think the template is very useful. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I did not rollback because of the template, but because of the huge amount of errors. Espesially with the sortkey, the user replaced a correct sortkey with a incorrect one. Since the editor had done about 1500 of these edits I rollbacked them all. Rettetast (talk) 11:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Why did you revert the lifetime edit please? MilkFloat 09:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

See above. Rettetast (talk) 11:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I read the debate. I think there was no error here, was there? MilkFloat 11:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It was not posible to check all the edits. Some good edits are reverted, but many was useless, and most was incorrect. Rettetast (talk) 11:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually there was an error here also. I fixed it. Rettetast (talk) 11:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Well done. Thank you. MilkFloat 11:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

NP. Whether this template is implemented or not is not a big deal, but when we do it we have to do it correctly. Rettetast (talk) 11:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

x —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.112.166.100 (talk) 14:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Frankly I am somewhat aghast that you have seen fit to delete my work which I have been doing now for 8+ years. If the only purpose of Wikipedia is to host articles and not materials that can be used for others in their research, than I am guilty.

My listings have made it possible for many people all over the world to include the Library of Congress amongst many others to zero in on the ports and railroads they are interested in without have to laboriously wade through the quagmire that the Internet has become since its inception. Another respondent had a more reasonable explanation and that concerned the use of images, most of which came from Wikipedia with particular reference to coats of arms. To deal with that issue, I will remove the images. However, the URL hypertext links speak for themselves and should not require copyright information.

I have heard from one of my correspondents that he was threatened with a law suit if he did not remove a URL hypertext link posted to his website. I'm sorry, but I am not very sympathetic to someone who puts information on the Internet available for everyone to see and read and then tries to restrict a link to that information by someone else.

If you don't want my materials or think they should go somewhere else, please tell me and I will go elsewhere. When I see articles in Wikipedia that tell me where I can access pornography on line (adult TV website listings), I have to wonder what materials fit your "rigid" guidelines.

I anxiously await your response. I have been in this business for nearly 40 years and have never been treated like this before, as you didn't even have the courtesy to tell me what you did until I asked. That is the height of unprofessional behavior. Does not Wikipedia have any Miranda Rights standard for this action? Even the police will give you a warning depending on the offense.

I also received a warning from another of your participants that I am not allowed to post *.pdf documents to Wikipedia, which is not what Wikipedia says when uploading a file. Can you answer that obvious contradiction?

CARLOS J. TIBBETTS Carlos J. Tibbetts (talk) 02:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a file hosting service. The possibility of uploading files is so that we can use images etc. in our articles. Wikipedias goal i to create encyclopedic articles that are verifiable and sourced in reliable sources. Your PDF are probably useful for for its purpose, but they do not belong on wikipedia. Wikipedia:Five pillars is a good place to start reading about wikipedia. Rettetast (talk) 12:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was one of the very first articles I wrote... I'm not really interested in the subject, back then I just created random WP:RA articles, so I don't really feel like recreating a good version... On the other hand I just created Georg Apenes and submitted it for T:DYKT, would you mind verifying the length and reference? - It bugs me when the DYKT people don't comment on the article until after the expiration date. Punkmorten (talk) 11:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Punkmorten (talk) 13:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I have added link to a relevant information on drought beer. http://www.alabev.com/draught.htm points to a commercial site as well and provides far less information than my link. I'd like an explanation what I did wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.143.121.82 (talk) 15:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, just wanted to bring to your attention this case: Terry Foster (diff) At a quick glance revert may look like a right thing, but the first impression is deceiving… This page was vandalised so many times, that I had to revert it to more then one month old revision. Regards, Skarebo (talk) 01:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You have answered my question, but not why you did not have the courtesy of telling me what you were going to do. An organization that is more interested in posting files containing links to pornographic sites (adult tv) is not the place for what I have to offer. As such you will get no further input from me. A free flow of information is what I assumed was the purpose of the Wikipedia project and that standard was valued. I was evidently wrong. I offered you the benefit of 8+ years of hard labor tracking down information to make it easier for those who wanted to find detailed information on ports and railroads, and you rebuffed me.

30Carlos J. Tibbetts (talk) 08:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice Straw man. Rettetast (talk) 09:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Friend, We are really sorry for creating problem for you. We are adding the external links to Wikipedia, only to contribute to the readers of the Wikipedia, as we have collected the best possible information about the Ayurvedic Herbs. We dont wish to gain any rank or popularity out of this. And our website is not commercial at all, you may check the pages and website here www.ayurvedicdietsolutions.com Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.16.76 (talk) 12:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

If your website is good enough it will be linked, but you doing it is spamming. Also remember that wikipedia is not a link farm. Rettetast (talk) 20:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to become an administrator if posible.Sidorkst (talk) 14:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I made my case why the image was not replaceable on the discussion page as per instructions, however no one got back to me about it. Isn't there suppose to be a discussion if the reason to delete the image is disputed?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Your dispute was read, but there don't have to be a debate when an item qualifies for Speedy deletion. The image was deleted because a free equivalent could be created. Rettetast (talk) 13:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I have uploaded the photo Image:C.Mitnick2.jpg. The image was taken down due to a question of copyright and license. This image is a headshot used by CBS and NewsCorp entities. It is available publicly and it is not copyrighted. What tag should I use?? scorsese (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I assume you have gotten answer elsewere. Rettetast (talk) 13:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I have included a fair use rationale. I will try to get a further confirming email from the University. Thanks. Racepacket (talk) 18:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

I have one request but I'm not sure that it's possible. On 5 August 2007, 20:07 is deleted Image:Zzz-FollowStar.jpg by you. I want to see that image, because is maybe a cover and maybe will help for one article, is it possible this request? Thanks in advance. --BGTopDon (talk) 10:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Undeleted. See Image:Zzz-FollowStar.jpg. Rettetast (talk) 11:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm consider with other users who helps me in the article and we will take a decision if we'll put the image in the article or not. By the way, sorry if you didn't understand me, I'm from Bulgaria.   --BGTopDon (talk) 12:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, please see my comment at Template talk:Infobox Kommune about the |county parameter. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 11:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

excuse me

explain to me what on EARTH is wrong with those pictures. The album picture of "My Heart" had been up for more than 6 months before you decided to start an edit war.

The other image is a screenshot of Sissel and Aznavour right next to the text regarding their joint performance.

And BOTH have fair licensing. OettingerCroat (talk) 20:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

u motherfucking ugly bastard ! how dare u delete my images ?

^^ i did NOT write this line above... OettingerCroat (talk) 03:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rettetast. Would you mind making a revisit to Hammerfest? The coat of arms and Finnmark map is broken and I can't seem to figure out how to fix it. Manxruler (talk) 21:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. I am going to check all of the transclusions of the kommune infobox when I am finished with the general fixes in the infobox. Rettetast (talk) 21:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the kind assistance. Manxruler (talk) 21:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Sjølvsagt:-) Rettetast (talk) 21:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting vandal on my page. They have been busy with me the last few days lol. BigDunc^Talk 17:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi can you please tell if this RS or not for the article Cuba-Venezuela relations? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I belive the source is reliable. It is from what I can see a story from Associated Press. Rettetast (talk) 12:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok thanks, then I can use it in the article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Can you please help me? You have deleted my Image:2008 UEFA Euro Ticket Back side.JPG due to copyright violation. Is there a discussion page or can you please tell me what the problem with the copyright was/is? I would like to learn why I can not upload this image. Thank you and kind regards Doma-w (talk) 10:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The ticket is copyrighted and because of that only the copyright holder can release it under a free license like GFDL. Even if you scan the ticket you don't become the copyright holder. Rettetast (talk) 16:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The image was also deleted from commons because it eas transfered there by someone else. See Commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:2008_UEFA_Euro_Ticket_Back_side.JPG. Rettetast (talk) 16:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your answer. I only saw many tickets scanned and sold on ebay, so I thought that there is no problem to do the same on wiki. Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 08:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Care to verify the new DYK candidate Hans Eleonardus Møller? Working on 19th century people is fun. Thanks for the help. Punkmorten (talk) 13:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll look into it. Have fun at bislett? Rettetast (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It turned out I didn't go to Bislett, but there was some high quality contests at Nadderud. Punkmorten (talk) 16:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

High quality. I doubt it:-) Someone that doesn't win against that team at home, can't win the league... Rettetast (talk) 16:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I am working on "A Mini History of Toastmasters in British Columbia"(which is District 21) [2]" multi-media DVD. This is just a Working Version, sans videos and pictures.

In the Toastmaster International section, I am quoting the History from Toastmasters International. They have denied me using this and using the TI Logo.

I will design a logo for District 21 and replace the TI Logo, but I am now looking for a history of the origins of Toastmasters.

It is not my intention to make an profit from the mass collaborative effort, but to turn the works over to District 21.

Before I use this Wikipedia article, I just want to make sure it falls under the GNU Free Documentation License.

Zarcom (talk) 04:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are asking me of, but all text on wikipedia is released under GFDL. Images are different and you have to click on them to got to the image description page to determine the copyright status. Remember that if you reuse text from wikipedia you have to release the derivative under GFDL since is a ]]-license. Rettetast (talk) 19:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm a student from SMJK Katholik, Malaysia. I was informally entrusted with the duty of watching the wikipedia site for my school in case there is unwanted information posted about my school. I have also been maintaining the site and I would appreciate it if you could just keep it as it is.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.48.221.141 (talk) 13:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:OWN and WP:COI. Rettetast (talk) 19:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm a regular guy who from time to time makes contributions about things that interest me and about which I have some expertise to Wikipedia.

You are making it extraordinarily difficult for me to want to contribute anything to Wikipedia. I already went through a one-month debate with another administrator about this same image and issue, and resolved it to his satisfaction. The image is *not* under copyright protection, for the reasons I included in the image description originally. (Also, as a practical matter, there is also no one living who would contest this image.)

If you can offer me some advice about what you want me to say, fine. Otherwise, I'm on the verge of quitting Wikipedia out of pure frustration that the Wikipedia admins make it impossible for occasional subject-matter experts to contribute without having to check in every seven days to make sure that perfectly legitimate and useful entries and media have not been deleted by "admins".

Very frustrated,

Steins —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steins (talk • contribs) 04:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The image had no rationale per WP:FURG Do you want me to undelete it so thatyou can fix it? Rettetast (talk) 19:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This seems to have been deleted. There was explicit approval from the author that it could be used in Wikipedia. If you would kindly undelete it I will make sure the relevant information is placed on the image page. Thanks. Owain (talk) 18:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The concern at PUI was valid and no comment was left. Please send the permission to OTRS. See WP:COPYREQ. Rettetast (talk) 19:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

04:36, 14 May 2008 Rettetast (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:AdelaideAirportSkyline.jpg" ‎ (Deleted because "I8: Image exists on Commons". using TW)
06:04, 19 June 2008 Kanonkas (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:AdelaideAirportSkyline.jpg" ‎ (Deleted because "Category:Unknown as of 12 June 2008 This media file is missing essential information; Source, license, or permission". using TW)
Why was an image that's several years old and had legit source data the entire time copied then deleted twice without any human action? Can this please be undone. --AtD (talk) 09:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The local copy of the image was deleted because it has been transferred to commons. The second log entry you cite is not correct. Where do you have it from? Rettetast (talk) 19:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that there is no fair use rationale. I've added one to the image. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 01:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC))

Ah! Thank you for helping to fill out the whitelist. There's a bunch of potential candidates listed on the talkpage and on here; feel free to pick the low-hanging fruit. DS (talk) 02:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Will do. The bot is a great idea. Rettetast (talk) 21:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Is the rationale I added for the Draco logo ok? Sorry for the trouble, I'm new to all these image right concerns here on Wiki... Turbogooner 20:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is ok. Thanks. Rettetast (talk) 21:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I see you deleted this image as it duplicated one in the commons. The image is currently listed on WP:CP, and judging from the uploader's Talk page, he/she had a history of uploading infringing content. In particular, this map is a deriviative of [3]. Note a previous version of this image was also uploaded by this user, listed on WP:PUI and subsequently deleted. My opinion, is that the current image should also be deleted from the commons. -- Robocoder (t|c) 03:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I have nominated it for speedy deletion on commons refering your post here. It is great that you react when you find copyvios like this. Thanks. 09:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Standard photographs are public domain in Argentina from 20 years ago. This guy died in 1977. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 15:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Your note on my talk page indicated a free alternative was available. If so, please point me in that direction and I will be happy to upload over this image. Near as I can tell, none exist because Mr. Rawlings died more than 5 years ago. Secondly, this image has already undergone the same scrutiny and was accepted as an image that had no replaceable alternative.Marylandstater (talk) 00:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Err. You took and uploaded Image:1rawlings1990.jpg. Isn't that an alternative? Rettetast (talk) 14:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Thankx dear!

I have added the pupose of image in Image summary.

Regards,

--Mangrio (talk) 13:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Assumption of good faith on this end. This particular aircraft was destroyed in an accident and no further images have been released by Lockheed-Martin. Your note on my talk page indicated a free alternative was available. If so, please point me in that direction and I will be happy to upload over this image. Near as I can tell, none exist and none ever will since it is impossible to take pictures of such a plane anymore. While I appreciate your enthusiasm, you appear to be rubbing people the wrong way. Perhaps showing where that free alternative is would be more useful than just nominating it for deletion? Thanks! — BQZip01 — ^talk 15:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

As an example, all these images are the same one just cropped differently (or misidentified: one is a fictional plane featured on the cover of Popular Science, the other is two images of the RQ-3 DarkStar). If I'm missing something, please let me know. — BQZip01 — ^talk 15:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Image page updated. Rettetast (talk) 14:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

thanks, but please slow down and, perhaps, ask the person who uploaded it. It may reduce the amount of "hate messages" you receive, IMHO. — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:RollerCoasterTitle.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Also includes Image:Rollercoasterscreen.jpg --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 18:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The English Wikinews is going to be organizing an interview with the former Norwegian Culture Minister Åse Kleveland. She was also the head of the Swedish Film Institute and is now the chairwoman of the Norwegian Humanist Association. I am asking Wikipedians from all of the Scandinavian languages to contribute questions to her upcoming interview with Wikinews in Oslo. The page is here; please leave questions there and comments to me either on my en.wikinews talk page or my en.wikipedia talk page. Thank you very much! Mike H. Fierce! 01:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Helo. It is actually considered somewhat rude to tag a file without notifying the uploader. This image, Sudais.jpg, would be very difficult to replace, as Saudi Arabia has strict rules against photographing human beings. In the future, if you tag a file, be sure to notify the uploader who may have more information than you do. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 12:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It appears from the notes on your talk page that others have complained about this very characteristic as well. It may behoove you to slow down and consider why you are receiving so many complaints. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 12:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Next time you add entries to the patrolbot's whitelist, it'd be convenient if you alphabetized them. Thanks. DS (talk) 19:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The page [[4]] as been amended with all of the info u requested. Hope it works! Wysprgr2005 (talk) 18:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I have added appropriate copyright tags to the Image:OMFICA_Logo_new.png. Hope that now the problem is fixed. Kiranoush (talk) 06:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The fact that you have added new requirements for photos (since this one was uploaded) using new templates (created since this one was uploaded) has nothing to do with me. If you want a fair use rationale, you can add one yourself; if you find it easier to delete content from Wikipedia than to supply fair use rationales, I suppose you will do as you please. - Outerlimits (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Why did you delete Mink_Stole_actress, it is a film screenshot with her in it, and there are no free images available. I plan to reupload it and use it until someone of any knowledge or authority tells me otherwiseMike P ^{(wots all this, then?)} 18:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It is an image of a living person that can be replaced with afree image. Even if a free image does not exist now, an image can be created. Rettetast (talk) 19:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

where is the fee one please send me the link Opiumjones 23 (talk) 00:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know of any, but an image certainly can be created. Rettetast (talk) 05:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I communicated with her and she agreed to CC-by-3.0 NoDerivs. I have an email from her, but not exactly sure what to do about it since this image is here and not on the commons... --BenBurch (talk) 19:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

CC-BY-ND-3.0 is not an accepted license on wikipedia since it is not a free license per the foundations standards. Get here to cut the ND part and send the e-mail to OTRS per WP:COPYREQ

Please feel free to delete. As I am the uploader of the picture I have no objections to it being removed. You can also delete the following album covers; Image:FromLuxuryToHeartache.jpg , Image:DontMindIfIDo.jpg , Image:IEnjoyBeingAGirl.jpg , Image:PositivelyPhranc.jpg , Image:Goofyfoot.jpg , Image:MilkmanAlbum.jpg , Image:TheGreatSubconsciousClub.jpg , Image:CosimaAlbumCover.jpg , Image:UpAllNight.jpg , Image:ResurrectionAlbum.jpg , Image:DynamiteAlbum.jpg . There is no non-free use rationale mentioned with any of those images. As the editor responsible for uploading them you have my permission to delete them. Some of the albums with those images are non-notable and could be deleted as well. HelenWatt (talk) 01:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Images deleted per your request. I suggest you WP:PROD the album articles that should be deleted. Rettetast (talk) 19:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Prod added, thanks. HelenWatt (talk) 01:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I left you a message about this months ago, which you never responded to and please see the description on the page. At the time, I reminded you that I had uploaded the image back in 2005 when the tag rules were different, and asked which if any new ones should be added. So please let me know what needs to be done. Thanks. -- Aleal (talk) 23:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Aleal. Every image on wikipedia needs a copyright tag and a source. If it a non-free image it also needs a rationale. The current tag you have put on it is not valid since the image was not published prior to 1923. Even if there was no copyright tag on the image that does not mean that the author has released it onto the public domain. Rettetast (talk) 19:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. Have you paid any attention to the description or the context? This had no author, in the sense of a single identified person or entity who would still hold the copyright. It was included in a pamphlet given away to promote the series, a premium to radio listeners. It has no copyright, no single author, and falls wholly under publicity purposes. So I'm not sure what tag is appropiate, but once again, it was never copyrighted by any entity, never sold commercially, never published formally (the only information on it mentions the then-sponsor, Kellogg's, and that it's presented by "Mr. Don McNeill, Esq." as star/producer of the Breakfast Club radio show, but neither is included with a copyright notice), there isn't even a specific date, but context has led most radio collectors to assume it was circa 1942 at latest. Apart from the physical artifact, I even checked the US copyright database, and naturally it's not registered there. It's the equivalent of a Kellogg's decoder ring, a magazine ad for Crisco, a Sear's catalogue, or the back of a cereal box; unlike those, though, Kellogg's never owned or retained sole sponsorship of the show (they're just mentioned), there's no Don McNeill estate or anything of the kind, existing broadcasts of the show itself have fallen into the public domain, and so on. The 2001 book Don McNeill and His Breakfast Club, a history of the show and its host published by the University of Notre Dame, made extensive use of such public domain materials (but was not my source for this image). I'm not really sure what else you expect. The public domain tag says "in most cases," and it's certainly untrue that anything published before 1923 cannot possibly be in the public domain (apart from the advertising aspect, it fits under "Works published in the U.S. between 1923 and 1977 without a copyright notice.") If there's some specialized tag appropriate for this kind of promotional/advertising image, please point it out. Thanks! Oh, and to clarify if there was any confusion, I scanned this directly from the actual premium booklet (which is why I mentioned it as a source), which as I said had no copyright notice, was purely promotional, never sold commercially, etc. -- Aleal (talk) 14:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I have requested help from another editor for this image. Rettetast (talk) 09:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Rettetast! Andrew is correct about images published prior to 1978 without a copyright notice - {{PD-Pre1978}} applies in those cases. If the booklet had been registered with the Copyright Office, and a copyright renewal could not be located in the database, then the applicable license would have been {{PD-Pre1964}}, but I think the image has the most suitable license. It sounds like he has definitely exercised due diligence on researching the image's copyright, especially since he got the image from the original source and not from the web somewhere. With respect - Kelly ^hi! 13:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Kelly. I looked at the image when t was tagged {{PD-US}} and dint think of {{PD-Pre1978}}. Rettetast (talk) 13:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh - Andrew, if you are still watching this...if I were you, I would leave a note on the image talk page stating what you did to verify the copyright status (basically the details from your message above). That should satisfy the concerns of anyone else who looks at the image in the future, possibly when you're no longer around to defend it. Kelly ^hi! 13:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Kelly! I'll do that later, re-examine the artifact if I have to (it was a library copy which I don't have on hand right this instant). The main problem was that I uploaded the image back in 2005 when the tag rules were different, and couldn't figure out what tag was appropriate (Rettetast never got around to responding to my question months ago); some browsing around the links from the general PD tag led me to the appropriate one. Is there a guide somewhere discussing the changes made between 2005 (last time I uploaded any image, I mostly do text changes) and now (the general image tag ? I'm starting to get the hang of it, but it's still a bit confusing. This has been a useful discussion, though. -- Aleal (talk) 23:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Please explain why images have been removed from frijj article, what more do you have to do to get an image to remain on this website for more than an hour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soot and stars (talk • contribs) 18:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The use fails WP:NFCC criteria 3 and 8. Rettetast (talk) 09:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

It just ruins the article, the use would significantly increase readers understanding of the type of branding present, its utterly subjective and i've no idea how a single person could judge its significance or otherwise. Soot and stars (talk) 21:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No it does not ruin the article. We are trying to create a free encyclopedia and we can't have several non-free images in each article. Rettetast (talk) 22:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Again thats utterly subjective, if you asked 10 people if it ruined the article 5 would say yes 5 would say no. I don't understand how such subjective rules can be enforced by one person, without prior discussion or debate? Soot and stars (talk) 14:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I wish to know why you continually remove the LTTE Emblem from pages. It is the logo of a combatant force, and should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnmazur (talk • contribs) 09:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The use of a non free logo in such instances fail WP:NFCC blatantly. See also WP:FLAG. If you reinsert the images you will be blocked. Rettetast (talk) 09:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to say thank you for doing image verification work. You left two messages about improper fair use images on my talk page, and I've deleted both images because you are right. I didn't know better when I uploaded them. I suspect you get a fair amount of abuse from people who don't want to understand the image policies, but the job you are doing is very important. Thanks for sticking with it! Karanacs (talk) 13:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Karanacs. Rettetast (talk) 13:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you really live ion Bergen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorge Riberio does the macharena (talk • contribs) 18:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I have some absoloute terrible news. Wikipedia is about to be destroyed by a giant cheesecake called jim. He will arrive at 07:00 to commmence his plan.Oh well you're the adminastrator, you know what to do. p.s do you reall ylive in bergen.--Jorge Riberio does the macharena (talk) 18:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Recently, you removed several images from the page referenced in this note's subject line. I want you to know a bit more about what you have done.

Your action may be defensible, under a hard-line, inflexible interpretation of NFCC. However, it's worth noting that you took it on yourself to remove the images without any apparent consultation. You left behind a cryptic, terse reference to a policy -- a policy whose own page states that it is in dispute, and whose discussion page provides considerable evidence of differences in opinion among administrators.

Particularly in light of the fact that broad consensus on the policy does not exist, you should have taken a more conciliatory path. A less highhanded and unilateral approach would have been to question the use of the images, point to the policy, and request that the user who posted the images either show how they are in conformance, or remove them.

The user who provided the images is one who has found and provided many others, including book jackets and magazine illustrations, long out of print, most of them quite beautiful, and unquestionably compliant with fair use policies. She has put up with careless and uninformed edits of her work on Wikipedia for years, and I have nearly always found that the editor/administrator who questioned her submissions backed off when he or she took the trouble to look a little more carefully.

In short, she has been a valuable resource, and not at all thin-skinned. However, your action in removing the images, based on a policy whose details are in dispute, and whose guidelines are arbitrary at best, has finally caused her to quit in disgust. I don't blame her, although I've expressed a hope that she will return.

Way to go, guy.

While I'm at it, I might as well tell you that I find the chart of administrator statistics on your user page in bad taste, in particular the count of users you've blocked. It makes you look like a strutting little martinet. I'm sure you don't want that.

Because at least one other user has expressed interest in the issue, I have also posted this on the Nero Wolfe supporting characters discussion page.TurnerHodges (talk) 22:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello Rettetast, I have a question regarding your comment on an article. I agree that logo fails WP:NFCC but is there a way to get this fixed ? I believe you can do some modification to images and then have them replaced as fair use but what can be done to this logo ? Watchdogb (talk) 04:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. You are maybe referring to fixing fair use rationales for non-free images. In thee situations there is nothing that can be done to make the logo fair use in the context I have removed the image from. The use of small icons in front of the text is not necessary since the text is good enough (or better) to identify the subject. In fact such icons are discouraged even if there are no copyrigh problems, such as with flags. Rettetast (talk) 15:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello. While it's important that nonfree images be brought into line with our fair use policies, including the rationale, it's also equally important that the notifications and deletions be done with proper sensitivity to whether an image is in fact compliant or not.

You recently tagged Image:SeaLaunch OdysseyAfterExplosion.jpg as replacable, then when that was undone by another admin tagged it (correctly) with the no-rationale tag. However, you failed to due any reasonable notification to the uploader (me) or notify on the article talk pages for the articles which use the image.

While I caught this on my watchlist, it's standard policy and polite to notify an uploader when you leave such tags. I have reviewed several days of your image tagging and I'm extremely concerned that I found few such notices for the numerous tags you've made recently.

The objective of such tagging is not, and cannot be, to delete all non-free images from Wikipedia. Bringing images into compliance with policy is necessary and reasonable. Notifying people and working cooperatively with uploaders or other involved parties to get them tagged is a prerequisite to doing that activity right.

I know that doing due diligence and notifying everyone properly can seem like a pain sometimes. Please be as diligent as possible about notifying every time. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I have had some sort of problem the latest days when tagging images. I have caught some, but there are not many like you imply. If you look at my contributions you'll see that I have always notified uploaders. I'll look more into it when I have time. Rettetast (talk) 05:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to oblige the terms for posting images, but I find the process intimidating and confusing. Is there any way you could guide me through the process on just one of the images I have posted as an example for me to leverage into a solution for the rest. I would greatly appreciate this. Newportm (talk) 17:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi I understand your frustration since most of your image was tagged for deletion. However these images clearly fails WP:NFCC#1 since a free equivalent can be created. Therefore the images can not be used on wikipedia. Rettetast (talk) 17:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It may be helpful and useful here to be specific, so if you will indulge me, it will really help me understand this. In the case of the engraved guns, there is no free equivalent image and none can be created without knowing who has the particular engraved gun. The Cheney gun, for instance, is now located in the Buffalo Bill Historical Center's Cody Firearms Museum and while accessible via Internet, those images include a copyright statement. Am I interpreting this situation correctly? It did not appear to me that you made your edits via BOT, but are you aware that I have already tagged each and every image you tagged with the {{non-free promotional}} tag? Perhaps the avenue of resolution will be via securing written permission from the site owner from which these images originate? I do appreciate your feedback. I am thankful there is someone who can help me understand this! Newportm (talk) 18:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I tried to follow the recommendation on the templates you provided on Image:Usfa-cheney.gif and I would appreciate any feedback on this so I can move forward with the balance of images still to be resolved. Thank you! Newportm (talk) 18:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Would a release such as you mention on Image talk:Usfa-cheney.gif from the object's manufacturer satisfy this, since that is the original source of this image?

Yes, the release has to be from the copyright holder of the image. Rettetast (talk) 19:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

THANK YOU! I will proceed on this posthaste. I will try to secure the releases before the expiration of the 48 hours I am given. You have really helped me define the course of action to take and I would have been lost without your help. Newportm (talk) 19:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, you just removed the fair use image of Bruce H. McCormick from the scientific visualization article with the argument:

non-free image. Not important enough to warrant inclusion in this article

Now I don't understand your argument. So far I was under the impression that Non-free use media were permitted in an article when there is important historical significance.

Now Bruce McCormick is the main author of the 1987 publications, which initiated the field of scientific visualization, such as explain and reference in the article. So he is one of the most important figures in this field. So he can't be just "not important enough". Now I can image that it is not appropriate to use a non-free portret image in a thematic article. Is that what you meant? Could you explain? Thank you?? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The use of non-free content is regulated by the policy WP:NFCC. The image is not important to the article Scientific visualization. In that context the image fails WP:NFCC#8. (Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.) Rettetast (talk) 21:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok I read: "presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding".

Now it's a fact, that images of founders of - or important contributors to - a field are used in thematic articles, because... not just for fun ... but to illustrate, and to severly increase the readers understanding. See for example the Electrical engineering article. This shows an image of Edison and Tesla...!?

Now also in this particulair case of the scientific visualization article, I think the presents of that image also increases the understanding of that subject. So, can I put the image back? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The images of the Tesla and Edison are public domain and can be used wherever there are consensus for inclusion. The image of McCormick is a non-free and has to pass WP:NFCC. You don need an image of McCormick to understand the article about scientific visualization. Even if McCormick is important in the article his physical appearance is not. Rettetast (talk) 15:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I do agree on your removal of the non-free media, because I can imagine that Wikipedia doesn't want to promote the use of non-free media to much. I can also understand your point of view that the presents of an image of the theorybuilder doesn't improve the understanding of the theory created, or isn't crusial in the understanding.

My person point of view is that science is created by people, and the presents of the images of the people at the theory is in a way just as important. The portraits give an impression of the time period and the cultural background of the people who created that, which is also facet of the whole enterprise of the creation of the theory. But then again this is my personal point of view. I will focuss on attempting to retrieve a free image here and thank you. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 15:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I got a message from you about the fair use rationale for a photo illustrating an image I had uploaded to illustrate the Vanessa Peters page. I expanded the text portion where I had tried to provide fair use justification. I would really like to make sure that this image is not deleted. What do I need to add to the justification to ensure fair use of the image? Thanks and have a nice day. --Entoaggie09 (talk) 18:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I have looked again at the image and it fails WP:NFCC#1. There is nothing you can do to fix the image. Rettetast (talk) 19:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I am attempting to contact the copyright holder to see if a GFDL license is possible for that particular work. Is there any way that I can get a short reprieve from the deletion request, or will I just have to upload it again?--Entoaggie09 (talk) 15:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I have extended the deadline with one week. Rettetast (talk) 09:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe I have been able to negotiate the usage of this photo under a GFDL license. What do I and/or the image owner need to do now in order for the image to stay online? Thanks again for working with me on this one.--Entoaggie09 (talk) 18:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Great. There are instructions at WP:COPYREQ. Get here to send an e-mail to the address you find there where she states that the image is released under GFDL. Rettetast (talk) 18:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so I uploaded the image to commons and emailed the GFDL documentation to OTRS. How long does it usually take for this kind of thing to go through completely? Also, I'm not exactly sure how to link to a commons file here on wikipedia. The commons file is here: [5]. Thanks for all your help with this.--Entoaggie09 (talk) 16:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images/2008_July_9#Image:FO.jpg

But then the image was deleted, without the discussion being resolved. Please advise.--Asdfg12345 00:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The image was deleted by User:Bjweeks. Rettetast (talk) 16:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Rettetast!! Could you please use your administrative tools to edit a protected template? I would greatly appreciate it if you could add a wikilink to Egyptian royalty in Template:S-roy, and link it to the Muhammad Ali Dynasty article. Regards. BomBom (talk) 00:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Since I don't know much about the topic it would be better if you request the change at the talk page of the template. Add {{editprotected}} to get other admins attention. Rettetast (talk) 16:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I did not know of the existence of such a template. BomBom (talk) 17:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi I have resized the image as requested. Let me know if there's anything else that I can do. Thanks. Someformofhuman Speak now! 02:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have deleted the old version. Rettetast (talk) 16:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes. Not a problem. Thanks again. Someformofhuman Speak now! 01:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking at some of the images you've tagged as NFCC 10c violations. Many of them seem to require only minor changes or none at all to the text, and are far from being violations of copyright or Wikipedia's fair use policy.

As an example, there's Image:Smsaacv.jpg, just one among many. That image page seemed to meet the requirements of a rationale:

• It identified what article it was for (Aerial Assault).
• It justified why it was fair use (it was for identification of the game, low resolution, irreplacable because it is cover art, etc.) by using a copyright tag ({{non-free game cover}}) that already included all of that information.

But you tag many images such as that for deletion anyway. Many of them are summarily deleted, without being re-examined, by Misza13 in his controversial adminbot form. Why are you tagging images like that? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Non-free images needs both a copyright tag and a rationale. When I go through a couple of hundred images a day, I don't have the time to check all images uses, and to write a rationale. It may take go fast with a few but writing rationales takes time and there is just not enough hours in a day. It is not enough to say that the image is irreplaceable. You have to state how the image passes WP:NFCC#8. (Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.)

I see who deletes images I tag and very few are deleted by Miza13 and when there are deletion by Miza13, because of no rationale, it does not look like he/she is using a bot, since the deletions are happening more irregular and a few a minute.

Each day there are uploaded several thousands of images to wikipedia, and if you would like to help go through and check for violations of our policy, give me a note and I can point you to a starting point. Rettetast (talk) 16:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

What do you require in a rationale? I've never seen any sort of consensus on that, except that using a specific template is not required. It's never been required that the rationale is enclosed in some separate box. Just because the copyright tag and the rationale have different requirements doesn't mean it makes any sense to ignore the entirety of the copyright tag when judging whether an image page passes NFCC. Would you prefer that everyone has to repeat themselves? Would this make any sense to our contributors?

The scope of NFCC#8 is also debated (you could argue that no image is "irreplaceable"), and because of that I'd say an insufficent explanation per NFCC#8 would be grounds for discussion, not deletion. Also, if the problem is NFCC#8, make that clear and don't use the 10c tag, so that people who are concerned about the way NFCC#8 is applied can see it.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 01:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

When tagging images for deletion, can you please be sure to add the deletion notice to the articles the image is in use on as well? Image:DaveCarter-smaller.jpg got needlessly deleted because no notice was added to Dave Carter, when I could easily have provided a rationale, and would have if I'd known it was at issue. I've restored the image and added a rationale, but it really shouldn't have been a blindsiding. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I will look into it, but I tried using Twinkle who do this, but howchengs tool are much more efficient. Rettetast (talk) 16:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you can decline deleting a blatant copyright violation, which that image is without a fair-use rationale, especially when the uploader refused to provide one when prompted. Asher196 (talk) 21:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It is not a blatant copyright infringement when fair use is claimed. Yes the rationale is not filled out yet, but please advise the uploader and give him some time. Deleting the image now solves nothing. Rettetast (talk) 22:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I informed the uploader three days ago. Asher196 (talk) 22:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Listen, pal. People spend alot of time and effort to contribute original photographs to Wikipedia and we don't need people like you going around and destroying this work. The photographs I have taken and carefully uploaded as copyrighted/FU because they are statues, are not replaceable, no matter what you say, so please stop wasting everyone's time with your misguided campaign against fair use photographs.--Jeff (talk) 02:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi! So I can learn from my errors, I would like your opinion and guidance on the following image: New Radicals

I consider both images the same way as they convey the same message of illustrating the subject article with a visual representation of the subject.

Thank you, I am lost. --Jazzeur (talk) 02:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

An answer to my legitimate question would be much appreciated. --Jazzeur (talk) 02:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

You claim that: "This non-free image appears to illustrate a subject for which a free one could reasonably be found or created..."

Please help me finding and/or creating such an image. I already asked the artist and her agent and I did not receive any response; not even an acknowledgment. I really don't know how to do this properly.

Thank you, --Jazzeur (talk) 04:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

You know, there are so many licenses, it is so complicated that I couldn't give a shit at this point. It is my software, and I took the screenshot, and I approve it for it to be used in Wikipedia. You can change it to whatever one of the 30 thousand licenses and restrictions the image fits in since you care that much, I don't have the time for such technicalities.--San Marcos (talk) 07:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

As you can now see, the image is on commons with all the appropriate permissions. I just wanted to say thanks for helping me through the process.--Entoaggie09 (talk) 23:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm leaving you a note as you may be interested in this opportunity.

People from all six Nordic Wiki-communities (sv, no, nn, fi, da and is) are coordinating a bid for Wikimania 2010 in Stockholm. I'm sending you a message to let you know that this is occurring, and over the next few months we're looking for community support to make sure this happens! See the bid page on meta and if you like such an idea, please sign the "supporters" list at the bottom. Tack (or takk), and have a wonderful day! Mike H. Fierce! 11:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: the image in the info box of the SubArachnoid Space article. It could be argued that a fair use image, explicitly meant by the artists themselves for promotional purposes, is better than no image at all. But hey, who am I to question Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria policy? It just saddens me a bit that grassroot efforts to contribute to Wikipedia are sometimes undone by bureaucracy and mindless bots. Dhcmrlchtdj (talk) 15:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rettetast and Melesse —

This really isn't that important, since I had only logged in to blank my user page anyway, but I saw your (Rettetast's) notice that you were going to delete the image for the Son House article because "there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use." You note that "in addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use."

(Well, actually I can't quite tell if you wrote this or a bot, since this "opt out" link at the bottom is for bots, but I'll guess that it's a bot using your account).

Melesse then deleted it per WP:CSD#16.

Now, since I don't edit here any more, I don't care one whit about the image, but for the record (pulling up the deleted article), the content on that page was:

date=July 20 2008
Son House

{{{Non-free promotional}}}

Photo © Richard Waterman (unknown date: 1960-something).

The image linked here is claimed to be used under fair use as:
*it is a historically significant photo of a famous person.
*the image is only being used for informational purposes.
*Its inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article, which is a biography of this person. 
*The photo has already been featured as a CD cover, [6], and is thus counted as promotional.

— Asbestos | Talk 12:03, 22 Apr  2005 (UTC)

[[Category:Images of people]]

From what I can tell from WP:FURG, this is a valid Fair Use rationale (although a little dated compared to the number of rationales expected these days), and, whether or not the rationale was valid, there was some Fair Use rationale. Therefore, speeding it due to WP:CSD#16 was entirely inappropriate, as far as I understand.

I'm guessing, but correct me if I' wrong that you (Rettetast) or a bot are just finding all images with FU tags which don't also include {{{Non-free use rationale}}}, and are automatically tagging them and leaving messages without looking. Then you (Melesse) are deleting without looking.

That may be entirely wrong, and I'm assuming good-faith and know that you're not doing anything maliciously. I also, as I said, don't much care about old images that I uploaded. But if this kind of thing is happening a lot, then there are probably hundreds of images that have been speedily deleted which really shouldn't have been.

All I'm suggesting is that a little more time gets put into your administrative decisions (all of which should be taken with care), and not to rely completely on bots and WP:TW and other such programs that can't actually read the content of the works they're suggesting you delete.

Of course, one other possibility, which I understand would be way above your payscale, would be simply to replace a faulty or non-existant FUR with one of the many pre-written ones, such as {{{Album cover article rationale}}}, which is generic and works for all album covers. It wouldn't take any more time than deleting it does, and has the added benefit of actually making the encyclopedia better, instead of removing images from articles just because they used a rationale that was considered acceptable three years ago.

Thanks, — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 17:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:Velasquez, Vosloo.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Sdrtirs (talk) 22:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not aware of the policy, this is why I am asking you. Is it allowed one's userpage to be redirected to article mainspace. User:Bwwiki. I am not sure if there is any policy or guideline on this. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't belive there is any policy on this,but it is certainly not a good thin to do. I'll look in the archives of WT:UP. Rettetast (talk) 17:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The article Doyle Glass certainly has WP:COI issue. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)See Wikipedia_talk:User_page/Archive_3#Is_there_a_rule_against_redirecting_a_user_page_to_an_article. I'll redirect the userpage to the users talk page instead to avoid confusion. Rettetast (talk) 17:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree. I have warned the editor. Do you think the person is notable enough to warrant an article? Rettetast (talk) 17:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe WP:PROF will apply here. The article will meet notability guideline for academics if enough reliable source can be given in which the person received significant coverage. In its present form, I don't see any significant third party reliable source. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You just gave me this message - completely useless, as I've never uploaded anything called 'name.ext' :P. Perhaps in future you could be a tad more careful about removing the example name and replacing it with the actual image name? Cheers, _TalkIslander 15:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, remember to tag the images on pages where they are used. __meco (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems you have reformatted the article by removing any and all date links in the article, as well as, repositioning the [Image:AlexanderMacLeanJovanovic.jpg] image. The result is that the text is not positioned correctly and has a large gap in between paragraphs. Applied undo to article version prior to the edit. See: talk:Harold Alexander, 1st Earl Alexander of Tunis -- Gaston200 (talk) 12:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey I have updated the Salvatore (band) entry, so you might want to reclassify it. It is now more extensive than the entry in Norwegian. Khawaga (talk) 01:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The image is up on the main article on Scopes. Commons authority seems to be lacking. By what .en rule is the bot taking down the image? Is that bot being triggered by another editor? Why not let Commons handle this copyvio issue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.103.31.116 (talk) 06:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, could you check out Image:EVA Air Evergreen Club Green card.jpg—I think it is a fair use violation, but you're the expert on the topic. Thanks, Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

NP. The image is not within WP:NFCC#8 since the card in itself is not an important element in the article. The design of the card is not vital to the understanding of the article. I have removed the image. Rettetast (talk) 20:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Please do not use the term "vanity" in prod notification or edit summaries. People tend to get insulted, & it doesn't help. What does help is to say something specific that will help the admins like myself who sort the deletions, such as "non-notable ceramic artist" or the like, so we know where it's coming from. This isn't a comment on any of the specific nominations--I haven't checked them yet--but be aware that work in major museum amounts to notability. and also that it's good to say somewhere what you checked DGG (talk) 23:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for cleaning up the the Madeleine Giske article I created. I know it wasn't much, but I do like knowing others are reading my articles. =)

Ragnhild16 (talk) 01:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a message of thanks for giving me a second chance....it wont happen again, (PS-those 3 months were the worst of my life :P). The-Real-ZEUS (talk) 17:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Good to see you back. Rettetast (talk) 18:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The creator of this photo just confirmed in an e-mail that she is withdrawing permission for its use in Wikipedia. Looks like it's time to delete it. --TrustTruth (talk) 21:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi I was wondering if you could look into seeing what the expiry date is on danish copyright images? The Bald One ^{White cat} 22:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

See. Commons:Commons:Licensing#Denmark. 50 years after the creation or 70 years after the authors death. Rettetast (talk) 14:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Please explain your rationale for deleting Image:Roll the dice.jpg since I took some trouble to talk this through and address the fair use issue. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The image were being used to show how a living person looks like. Rettetast (talk) 09:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• The image of the book cover was used to illustrate an article which discussed the book. This is fair use and was explained as such. Please reconsider. Colonel Warden (talk)

Hey there. I noticed you deleted Image: Ercana.jpg a while back. Since this image is now covered under {{Attribution-Ubisoft}}, can you restore this image so that it can be moved to Commons? Please let me know if you have any questions/comments! — OranL (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you take a look at Kåre Berven Fjeldsaa and the PDF document here [7]. It looks like a translated version from this PDF-file. Do you know if that's ok? I filed a report here: Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2008_September_30. Nsaa (talk) 16:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

(Your deletion request was commented in Nettavisen :-) Nsaa (talk) 16:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

With the given reason that the image was duplicated on Wikimedia Commons. You did not place the Commons image in the article or include a link to the Commons image, and indeed I am unable to find the image by searching. Is this image in fact on the Commons? Vidor (talk) 01:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Hellooooooo...... Vidor (talk) 17:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you have the exact nameof the image? Rettetast (talk) 13:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for tagging images as {{PUI}}. I'd like to let you know that there is a quicker option for images which claim to be released under a free license but have no verification. You can tag such images as {{subst:npd|quoted source}}, which doesn't require any follow-up listing and contains a warning template for the uploader. It also has a shorter waiting period than PUI. You might consider using this in future. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 20:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:Roll the dice.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I didn't know if you have noticed, but the Varg Vikernes page is mess up again. I was looking through the page history and saw you. Will you help me, I'm new and just trying to keep things accurate. 172.163.184.165 (talk) 06:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

You have deleted Image:GFImg7.png because it was available on Commons. Please tell me if the licence was GFDL with or without disclaimers.
Thanks --D-Kuru (talk) 18:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I also need the same information for Image:GFImg8.png

Thanks --D-Kuru (talk) 18:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Adding new entries to JVbot's whitelist is very helpful, but remember - it's not retroactive. When you added Tinucherian to the whitelist on December 19, the bot ignored all the articles he had written on December 18, 17, 16...

MrZ-man has a patrol-all-by-this-user script that might be useful. DS (talk) 15:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you want to delete the Berry Pleydell article. It's a stub. I was amazed to find that there's no article about this important fictional character - similar in stature in the 1930s to Richard Hannay or The Saint.

But I don't know much about him, so I can't write the article. I thought that at least placing it there would encourage someone who knew more to expand it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooke (talk • contribs) 19:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I am the owner of the site www.clinicalanatomy.com. I am also the owner of the URL http://www.igskda and subsite http://www.clinicalanatomy.com/igskda.htm

I also authored and made the image and logo of the International; Goju Shorei Karate Do Association.

Since this is my first article, I do not know what to do in order to add a copyright and ownership tag to my article. Can you help me?

I was surprised that this article was deleted so fast and without consultation.

Sincerely

Dr. Efrain A. Miranda CEO - Clinical Anatomy Associates 6th Degree Black Belt - IGSKDA emiranda@one.net

IGSKDA (talk) 21:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Please don't add messages to talk pages which are just redirects, as you did at User talk:Giano, which is a redirect to User talk:Giano II. Not only is this pointless as the message will probably never be seen, but links added to redirect pages cause problems with the database, as described in bug 7304. I've reverted the message, and I'll be adding a note to Giano's actual talk page shortly. I've also corrected a typo on your talk page header, by changing "messags" to "messages". Regards, Graham87 14:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the typofix. I don't know how to get around this problem. The script I use when tagging images does not know what to do with redirected user talkpages. I see that the page is fully protected, but that does not stop me. I also think it is better to leave the notice on that page than not at all. I'm sure Giano has (or should) watchlisted the page. Rettetast (talk) 14:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

As you know the listas parameter is used to force a page to be listed in a more intuitive manner than the page name would allow. Almost no one would look for Christos Bourbos in the C's so the listas, when set to Bourbos, Cristos, puts him in the B's.

What you may not know is that the various Projects use the listas parameter in one of two ways. One way, the way that is used by many if not most of the groups, is to ignore it. The other way, the way that is used by WikiProject Greece, WikiProject Biography and quite a few others, is to follow it scrupulously, even in its absence. In the latter case, if the listas is not explicitly set in the template, the template sets the listas to the PAGENAME.

This is how I noticed Christos Boubos. I am working to resolve the conflicts in the Category:Pages with DEFAULTSORT conflicts. When you set the listas to Bourbos, Christos in the WP Biography template it conflicted with the listas that was set by the WP Greece template. The safest way to avoid creating this conflict is to copy the listas into every project template on the page.

JimCubb (talk) 01:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I noticed you using the Kingbotk plugin via AWB to tag biography articles, but it didn't mark the pages as BLP. I'm not sure if this a limitation, or should it be possible? --Paul_012 ^(talk) 10:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi.I am mostly tagging for WikiProject Norway and WikiProject Football, and just add the biography template when I am working on biographies. Isn't there bots that uses category:Living people to update the biography template?

I expressed the use of this logo cover in the image's template. This was also discussed when the image was removed from the Ledisi page. Your contest removal is inaccurate and should be removed from the Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2009 January 1. Tarysky (talk) 23:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Discuss it at the IFD. Rettetast (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The subject has already been discussed and should be further commented. I will remove this from the IFD if you do not. Tarysky (talk) 15:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

When your bot hits a user that has been renamed, it drops the message on a redirect page. I forwarded this one for you, but I'm not inclined to manually search for other cases.—Kww(talk) 00:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

No bot, just a userscript. The namechange was recent and the database is not uptaed yet. If you check the imagepage you'll see that it says it was uploaded by the old username.

Hi Rettetast, i've found their licenses from the sources. Check it out!!!  Calvin Ho Jiang Lim  ^Talk 16:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I did and just got a 404. Couldyou pleas give the url where it says the image was released undes CC-BY. Thanks. Rettetast (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok.. File:Cornelis.jpg is here; File:Eko Maulana.jpg is here; and File:Kevin BackstreetBoys.jpg is here.  Calvin Ho Jiang Lim  ^Talk 17:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I see the sources, but the sources does not mention the free license you say the images are released under. Rettetast (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I have tagged File:Crown_Royal_Logo.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Some examples can be found at Wikipedia:Use rationale examples. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 12:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe Eastmain took care of this in his subsequent fair use rationale entries on the File:Crown_Royal_Logo.jpg page. - Thaimoss (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The images for the Civil Defense geiger counters were my own work taken with my own camera. Other members touched them up for color correctness. I even listed this on the images themselves, and had the copyrights set properly. Thanks loads. Londo (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Permission to use the above image has been e-mailed & acknowledged by Joe Daley. JMcC (talk) 19:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I am at a loss as to how to create a free image for this individual, Ken McCarthy. There seems to be only one good shot (hosted on his website as well) that is current. Any advice or direction would be appreciated Jettparmer (talk) 21:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

He is not dead so it should not be that hard to create a free image. You could also ask the creator of this image at Flick if he wants to release it into a free license. See WP:COPYREQ. But there is no way you can use a non-free image of the person per WP:NFCC#1. Rettetast (talk) 00:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I will see if Craig will release. Jettparmer (talk) 15:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

List of mills owned by the Lancashire Cotton Corporation Limited‎ God dag. Thanks for taking an interest in this page. In the comment page you indicate Wikipedia is unhappy that not all the images have the fair use statement. True, it would have better to have that sorted before the shots were uploaded. As you can see from the history, as I verify the current status, I add the geotag to each mill and add the statement. Does this mean that when all the fair use statements are completed then the page is problem free?

Reading the policy page- I see there could be problem with the use of the gallery to park images until they can be integrated into the text. In future, when we have established notability many of sects in the table are likely to be spun off as separate articles. I see the 1950 images as the 'before' and modern colour images as the 'after'. Any thoughts?

The tag on page suggested there was possibly an excessive use of fair use images- I haven't found any definition of excessive for images Is there one? Is this a problem? What is the advised percenmtage? Is there an alternative modus operandi? --ClemRutter (talk) 11:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Your removed a low res picture I uploaded to be put in the infobox of the following article Temple of Human Passions. What went wrong with the justification? Photography is more than 70 years old but the, technically, the work of Victor Horta is not in the public domain yet (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Victor_Horta). In addition, there is no freedom of panorama in Belgium. So, no pictures can be uploaded to Commons.

What about wikipedia? I though fair use needed to be used. Did I miss something? How can I do to prove fair use of a picture of a copyrighted building for use in wikipedia? I could upload one of my own pictures of the building but the building is pretty degraded.

Any help will be appreciated Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 11:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you give the exact name of the image or a link to my edit. Thanks. Rettetast (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The file you deleted was File:Temple of Human Passions Victor horta 1898.jpg

The article has been selected for DYK. I hope to have a picture of the building before it goes live on DYK. Thanks Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I really not remember deleting this image. An image taken by you into a free license would not be free, but it would be better than an all copyrighted image. I'll undelete for know but the image should be replaced. Rettetast (talk) 21:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks !! Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 09:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, could you take a look at File:Nativity Scene 1966.jpg and the use in nativity scene (I'm doing a GA review on it). The fair use rationale claims the book is in the public domain because the publisher is defunct. How can one have fair use on a public domain item? Thanks for you expertise on the field. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

One thing is for sure. If it is not public domain it can not be used since it is replaceable. There is no discussion on this image and I doubt that it is that important to subject nativity scene. I will look into the PD claim. Rettetast (talk) 10:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Public domain#Published works. The book was published in 1963. There was probably a copyright notice on it. The question is if the copyright was renewed. This is hard to investigate and the burden of proof is on the uploader. Whitman Publishing (redirects to Western Publishing) closed down in 1995. I would believe they have renewed the copyright, but I don't know for sure. That the company i defunct is not a proof of public domain. Rights to the book and the image are maybe sold to someone in a bulk. Rettetast (talk) 10:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It was I who removed the redirect which sent users seeking information for "Louisa Jane Russell" to the information page for "Louisa Jane Montagu Douglas Scott" (headed incorrectly as "Louisa Montagu-Douglas-Scott, Duchess of Buccleuch and Queensberry").

Firstly, Louisa Jane Hamilton -- aka "Louisa Jane Montagu Douglas Scott" -- is the DAUGHTER of Lady Louisa Jane Russell and Sir James Hamilton, 1st Duke of Abercorn.

"Louisa Jane Russell", therefore, is the MOTHER of Louisa Jane Montagu Douglas Scott: they are NOT the same woman.

Documentation to substantiate my claim can be found at:

G.E. Cokayne, Vicary Gibbs, H.A. Doubleday, Geoffrey H. White, Duncan Warrand and Lord Howard de Walden, editors, The Complete Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom, Extant, Extinct or Dormant, new ed., 1910-1959, reprint in 6 volumes, Gloucester, U.K.: Alan Sutton Publishing, 2000, volume II, page 372.

As a member of the Montagu Douglas Scott family, both women are my paternal ancestors; therefore, I can assure you I'm not mistaken.

I have made the following changes, which I hope seem practical:

• I moved information on "Louisa Jane Hamilton" to a page properly entitled "Louisa Jane Montagu Douglas Scott, 6th Duchess of Buccleuch & 8th Duchess of Queensberry".
• I created two links on the page entitled "Louisa Jane Hamilton" for users: one link follows to "Louisa Jane Hamilton, 1st Duchess of Abercorn" (née Russell); the other link follows to "Louisa Jane Montagu Douglas Scott, 6th Duchess of Buccleuch & 8th Duchess of Queensberry" (née Hamilton).
• I composed a page for Louisa Jane (Russell) Hamilton, 1st Duchess of Abercorn.

Of particular note, as I add referenced information to the Montagu Douglas Scott family, is the spelling of the surname: the name is NOT hyphenated. The name came into existence under the tenure of Sir Henry Scott, 3rd Duke of Buccleuch & 5th Duke of Queensberry, when he inherited the Montagu and Douglas Estates; thereafter, Henry decided the Scott family would honour those two ancestral families by combining those surnames with his own to form the present familial surname "Montagu Douglas Scott" (NOT Montagu-Douglas-Scott). I've corrected this, repaired links, and redirected pages in several places. I'll clean up the links to avoid the redirect as much as possible.

--Wettin 03:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)--Wettin 03:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wettin (talk • contribs)

Please don't blank redirects. Discuss at WP:RFD. Rettetast (talk) 01:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

According to the same page WP:RFD#DELETE, there was a legitimate/valid reason for me to blank the redirect:

Reasons for deleting

You might want to delete a redirect if one or more of the following conditions is met (but note also the exceptions listed below this list):

1. The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine.

2. The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so it should be deleted.

3. The redirect is offensive, such as "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs", unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is discussed in the article.

4. The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting Google to love.

5. It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exception to this rule is the "CAT:" shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space but in practice form their own "pseudo-namespaces".

6. If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to an article that does not exist or itself, it can be deleted immediately, though you should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first.

7. If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful. Implausible typos or misnomers are potential candidates for speedy deletion, if recently created.

The redirect inserted for "Louisa Jane Russell" was redirecting to her daughter, "Louisa Jane Montagu Douglas Scott"; clearly, the redirect was misleading and confusing. Since I have composed the article on Louisa Jane, 1st Duchess of Abercorn (aka "Louisa Jane Russell") and redirected the page properly, the matter is obviously resolved. Thanks for your response. --Wettin 21:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wettin (talk • contribs)

Hei

Jeg ser du sletta hele linken http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corey_Conradi Hvis du mener innholdet bare var en kopi av http://www.kaareconradi.com saa er ikke det feil - men jeg jobber faktisk for den offisielle siden/Conradis management. Kontakter du dem via linken overfor faar du dette bekreftet. Jeg tar evt imot tips om hvordan jeg kan bruke info fra hjemmesiden uten aa bli slettet paa nytt.

Mvh IncitingScenes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Incitingscenes (talk • contribs) 18:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You should send an e-mail to OTRS; at "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org" where you release the text into GFDL. Make sure to include the URL of the relevant page(s), and the release will be securely archived. Be aware that by doing so you are giving anyone permission to use the material to anything. See also WP:PERMISSION. Rettetast (talk) 01:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, after seeing your date de-linking script hit one of the pages on my watchlist (St. Louis Blues (ice hockey)), I was wondering if you were aware that the Arbitration Committee has issued a temporary injunction against date linking/de-linking while they hear a case on the issues. Personally, I don't care one way or the other about whether dates are linked or not (and in this particular case, I don't see it as a major problem to have delinked them), but I thought I'd point it out as I'd hate to see someone get in trouble over it because they didn't know. Best, umrguy42 21:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, so many folks are watching User talk:Kuban kazak someone would've fixed it sooner or later. I left a {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}} on the File:Maidannoukr.jpg that you tagged for deletion. Hope it explains the point: there are no free replacements to this image (or any other post-WW2 images in Hotel Ukrayina, which are equally non-free). NVO (talk) 06:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi

As the IT-Manager of the Company I request the article to be restored immeidately. The Article is a presentation of the company and what we do and is far from a commercial for any of the products we delvier

The article is picked up from our "about" page on our homepage that gives a clear indication on what the company do and other information about the company

If anything is unclear, please do not hesitate to contact me on my personal e-mail at: trond-richard.larsen@shipnet.no

Best Regards, Trond-Ricahrd

(Trlarsen (talk) 19:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC))

Hi Trond-Richard. Please see WP:COI. You should not write articles about yourself. The article was not very encyclopedic. If you are notable enough someone else will write an entry about you. You should use your own webpage and not wikipedia to distribute information about your company. You could try to write an article from scratch on a subpage of your userpage or at your talkpage, and consult me for advice. If it gets ready to the level that it can be used on wikipedia I will assists in moving it to the article-space. Rettetast (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello there, you've proposed deletion for an aerial image of the Hagar Qim temple complex. Is there really no case to keep it? Such images will be impossible to reproduce once the protective shields are up (late this year, work has already begun on them) and as an image it is perfectly suited to the article. ja fiswa imċappas bil-hara! (talk) 12:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Per now the image is replaceable and fails WP:NFCC. A free image should be created while we have the opportunity. If we allow this image such an image will certainly not be created. Rettetast (talk) 14:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind explaining how I should go about doing that? ja fiswa imċappas bil-hara! (talk) 14:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea. What do you think? Rettetast (talk) 11:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Really? These are advertising images, they are in the public domain, they are bing used for non-profit reasons. I am not going to write a five paragraph essay on how they are public images. If you'd like to do something constructive like building up the rationale instead of tagging everybody's images for deletion then do it. But what you guys are doing does no good for the site it only detracts because you mark all these images but do nothing to help keep them alived. I'm sick and tired of all the bureaucratic crap.--Robert Waalk (talk) 00:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:FURG. Rettetast (talk) 08:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Extraordinarily productive and helpful. I'm simply blown away with awe as I udnerstand every thing and all my images are brought to par. Yeah. I want to know what's the deal with the idiotic policies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Waalk (talk • contribs)

What did you expect with the tone you are talking to other people with. Rettetast (talk) 15:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

At this point you would be too if you had to constantly put up with this crap.--Robert Waalk (talk) 21:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

I do not understand and am unsure why have you nominated my article, Morose Forest, for deletion. I'd like a simple explanation.

Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niaurus (talk • contribs) 10:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Hei. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morose Forest. Rettetast (talk) 10:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, if you're tagging articles for WPSweden with Stub-class as default, it would be practical if you also include a placeholder for importance, i.e. {{WikiProject Sweden|class=Stub|importance=}}. Regards, Tomas e (talk) 13:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course. Will do. Rettetast (talk) 13:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Tomas e (talk) 13:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed that you are tagging a lot of football players. Please consider additionally adding "|living=yes" in WPBiography if they are active/alive. This would be helpful. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Also be careful about which players you tag with the football project tag. At least one of them, Adam McPhee plays Australian rules football, not Association football. How did he turn up on your list? The-Pope (talk) 15:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)