User talk:MER-C/archives/17

Scam Watch Warning: There is an on-going scam marketing the creation, improvement, or protection of Wikipedia articles. See this scam warning for detailed information. If you've been scammed please send details to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org to help others who could be future victims of this scam.

Directory
User space: Home | Talk (archives) | Sandboxes: General 1 · General 2 | Smart questions · Cluebat
Software: Test account | Wiki.java | Servlets
Links: WikiProject Spam · Spam blacklist: local · global · XLinkBot | Copyvios | Contributor copyright

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

My edits on the proliferation page are not vandalism, they were done as part of an ongoing discussion we've been having on the discussion page. These changes have been in the works since March. Please read the discussion page before you start undoing edits. CP Guy, July 17

Template:Filmbiorationale and Template:Biorationale

• thanks – you can use Template:Filmbiorationale or just Template:Biorationale for deceased people born after 1923 -I created them to save time!!! But thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 15:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PLease please use Template:Filmrationale for film images without a rationale. It will save everyone a lot of trouble. Thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 10:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's your responsibility to come up with an original fair use rationale for each image that best describes the use of the image, not some boilerplate text like this. Also, you can avoid me spamming your talk page by going through your upload log and adding the rationales yourself before I get to them. So no. MER-C 11:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow you seem to be having a bit of a marathon today!!!!! Are you checking every image on wikipedia!! If so I congratulate you. Admittedly the last two images are of living people -so I can't really justify fair usage unfortantely as they are replaceable -I uploaded these a long time ago when I wasn't aware of the image policy ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 12:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look I'm not going to be going through my images before you get to them. If you want to waste your own life checking every image uploaded by me and everyone else then be my guest -good luck to you – it is a task that needs doing -I admire you for undertaking such a large scale task such as this but you've got along road ahead of you if you can't tag the film images accordingly. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 12:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:ABCKATE645.jpg and File:ABCBlue247.jpg

Regarding the two illustrations you have questioned, I have re-uploaded the images, this time adding the fair use template explanation rationale. (Perhaps clumsy, but this was the only way I could think of to make the changes necessary to address your point.)

In general, the images were both originally promotional material placed in newspapers by the American Broadcasting Company in the Albert Lea Evening Tribune, promoting broadcasts to be held on each of the nights in question. The first (1945) image was meant to illustrate a point made in the article, as to when and how ABC promoted its name change from "Blue Network" to the "American Broadcasting Company." The second (1947) image was meant to illustrate a point made in the article, that ABC was still using "Blue Network" in its promotional materials two years after the official name change. As such, both images are not easily replaceable for the points they make, and are in both cases highly unlikely candidates for use as derivative work templates (neither carries an official ABC logo, for example; indeed, the 1945 illustration carries no images whatsover).

Hopefully, this will clear the illustrations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric O. Costello (talk • contribs)

The fair use rationales did not appear on the image page. They cut off after "{{Non-free media". You'll have to edit the image page (not reupload the image) and add them. MER-C 03:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that I am slightly flummoxed as to how to edit the image page in order to put in the proper coding, as it is not readily apparent how to do this on the image page. Eric O. Costello 22:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should add: any suggestions as to how to edit it properly? Eric O. Costello 01:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The same way as you would edit an article. (Sorry for the late reply, this is a high traffic talk page and I didn't notice this). MER-C 10:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:42nd district title thumb.jpg

Hello, and thank you for your assistance. Please review File:42nd district title thumb.jpg to make sure that I provided sufficient explanation/rationale. Cheers, --wpktsfs 01:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should be fine, except the image source should be more specific than a base url. As for the article it appears in, I had to trim it down quite a bit – the words copyvio, spam and schoolcruft come to mind. MER-C 03:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please clean out this article as you did St. Francis de Sales High School (Toledo, Ohio), I would, but I am not as knowledgeable when it comes to schoolcruft, and I am afraid I would take down too much, or leave to much in. Thanks for your help, --wpktsfs 00:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I'll probably put that in the essay as it's the worst I've seen. MER-C 08:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:2006FresnoStateMedia.jpg and File:Cal 2004 post-season cover.jpg

I am interested in your decision to focus on the 2006 Fresno State Media guide cover for deletion. I used the UC Berkeley 2004 post-season media cover as a model and based my use of the Fresno State guide upon what I had assumed was a correct image fair use from that image. I understand in your deleting the Fresno State image so long as the UC Berkeley image to which I have now referred you is similarity and fairly treated in its deletion for being an infringement upon the rules and stipulations of Wikipedia you carefully Sheppard. As I am unsure as to the proper procedure for making the Fresno State media guide image up to code, having only recently been made aware that it was improper in the first place and being unsure as how to fix it to match your standards, I would only request that similar consideration be taken to delete like images that are also not up to Wikipedia's fair use standards. This equal treatment should (one would imagine) apply to other like images, such as the aforementioned image which I used as a model thinking that it was itself a correct usage of the fair use standards, being "a copyrighted image that has been released by a company or organization to promote their work or product in the media, such as advertising material or a promotional photo in a press kit." Since the copyright is listed right there, I am uncertain as to how to fix it to make you not delete it but you seem certain to do so in any event. Keep up the good work pointing out what is wrong with people's images. -- Intrepidsfsu 09:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am going through Category:Publicity photographs with missing fair-use rationale alphabetically (have a look at my Image namespace contributions), which has thousands of members. I'm not even half way through A yet and I've been plugging away for several days.

As for making a fair use rationale, see WP:FURG. MER-C 10:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be fixed now. --Intrepidsfsu 10:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:Adolph rupp.jpg

My apologies on the image you marked as unquantified fair use. The image that was there was taken from a 1998 Media Kit, which was previously available on the web at www.ukathletics.com, however, it has since been removed. As I could not find another version of the media kit, I replaced the image with one that is from a media kit still available on the web. Additionally, I placed my rationale on the image page. Please let me know if this does not satisfy the requirements for you. Thank you for the warning. -- Steven Williamson (HiB2Bornot2B) – talk 18:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tweaked it a bit, though it's the first adequate prose form rationale I've seen. MER-C 09:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:20050606-DII-foundation-model.jpg

MER-C, I am puzzled by your tagging the aforementioned image since it includes fair use rationale in both the file history and beneath the license tag. The image was made available by the Aga Khan Development Network as part of a with accompanying press release as part of a promotional press kit and is available for publication and use. If I am missing something in my rationale, please let me know, and I would be happy to ammend it. However, as it stands, I have removed your tag as I believe it was put there in error. Rgeards -- Aylahs ^(talk) 04:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a (sufficient) fair use rationale. See Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline for what a rationale should contain. MER-C 05:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:Altair8800.jpg

I suggest you delete that image, as a reasonable fair use rationale can't really be written. Might be difficult to find a free replacement because of the rarity of the Altair though. Thanks — Wackymacs 09:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some admin will delete it in a month's time if the {{no rationale}} remains on the image. MER-C 09:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:Andrew francis full.jpg

I do not see this image as irreplaceable. If you wish to replace or delete it, be my quest. Shaneymike 13:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: File:Astro boy.jpg

Thanks for the note about this image, Mer-c. I actually reset the image which was uncompressed, badly colored and too dark from another image, and obsoleted the first one (Astro_boy.png). The image is from a music video by the group "Zone" from Japan, who produced the closing title music to the Japanese remake of Astro Boy in 2003. I will track down from Zone's website who the agent and holders are of the copyright and list this in the image as soon as possible. Could you please hold off from deleting it, since the website is in Japanese, and my Japanese sucks. I can get the information you have requested, just not quite as fast as you have asked for it! Regards, and thanks. Thor Malmjursson 12:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion backlog for images lacking a source is currently a week, so you have two (that is, if the tag was still there). Generally what we're looking for is a URL of a page where you found the image, e.g. I downloaded this image from http://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/PSP_001764_1880 .

Also, the image needs a rationale that is compliant with the fair use rationale guideline. MER-C 11:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mer-c. If you take a look on that image now, you will find a templated FUR in accordance with WP:FURG. If you need anything else from me, please do not hesitate to tell me and I will be on it like bugs on a windshield! Thor Malmjursson 12:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image is now compliant with our policies. Happy editing! MER-C 10:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shokaract.jpg

MER-C, you claimed that the Shokaract image I uploaded did state its sources. This isn't correct: the description clearly reads that the image is from BotCon and Hasbro.

there was already a fair use statement on File:AlisonBechdel.jpg

Please read it and explain why you don't think it is adequate, rather than saying there's none. it was the only text on the page so I don't see how you could have missed it!--Jaibe 15:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't a fair use rationale as it doesn't address the replaceability, purpose and impact on the copyright holder's rights (the three things you must address). Plus it's an image of a living person, so I realise I should have (and now have done so) tagged it as a {{replaceable fair use}} image instead. MER-C 11:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Aquatics Centre Games-time4-EDIT.jpg

Thanks for your notice I uploaded it with "press release from 2012 olympics for editorial use" by way of rationale – presumably a more strict (and lengthy) rationale is required. Could you point me to an example – essentially it's a press-pack image, so should be ok – no free alternatives will be available, because it's not been built yet and anything else coming from the architect's studio will be copyrighted, it's used in the Aquatics Centre (London) article to illustrate the article. Would it help if I reduced the size? I'd be grateful for any advice. cheers --Mcginnly | Natter 15:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-free media rationale would be a good place to start. Reducing the size would be a good idea, probably by a factor of 3 on each dimension. MER-C 11:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Hummert

What would be a preferable fair use rationale? Pepso2 10:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline. MER-C 12:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Andrew Peterson.JPG

(Text of {{di-replaceable fair use-notice}}).

I just saw your note. Did you find an alternate image or are you over-jealous in your search? I was requested by Andrew Peterson's agent to upload that image. As for switching, I doubt they would agree while there was some possibility that the image could be misused. Will (Talk – contribs) 05:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria for replaceable fair use is that a free image exists or could reasonably be created that serves the same purpose as the non-free image. In this case the subject is a living person, where replacing the image is quite straightforward. MER-C 10:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:AtwaterDulcimer.jpg

I got formal permission from the original photographer, so I pasted the email into the discussion page and changed the license to GFDL/BY-SA. Thanks!--SarekOfVulcan 19:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please also forward the email to permissions-en at wikimedia dot org, so that this may be verified. Thanks. MER-C 09:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:AlanAthenapainting.jpg

I have secured permission of rights usage for this image per your request. Iamvered 15:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please forward the confirmation of permission to permissions-en at wikimedia dot org so that this can be verified. Thanks. MER-C 09:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bakuretsu.jpg

In response to your notice, I have no idea where the image came from. As you'll see in the big caution banner at the top of the talk page, I only scaled it down and the old version was deleted. 17Drew 21:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I realised that, but I'd already pressed the no source button. Though I note that you should have checked whether the image was valid fair use before you did the scaling. MER-C 08:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no feasible way of checking whether or not hundreds of images are fair use or not. My apologies for only being able to tackle one backlog at a time. 17Drew 17:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images I have uploaded

Hello, and thanks for the comments. I have made changes as specified, but I would like to give you some background information about the images I use.

I have written, among other publications, two books on Greek industry where I have published several images which in most cases have been provided to me by the manufacturers themselves. When I uploaded them, in some cases I chose "promotional" to indicate that the images came from brochures (extremely rare today). Truth is that those images can be freely reproduced as this has been allowed by the manufacturers, but as I cannot "prove" it, I choose a tag like the above. These pictures are actually invaluable, as they provide a lot of information. Skartsis 09:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WZVA/WGTH Images

I am not sure I understand what you are wanting. The images came from the WZVA and WGTH websites respectively. Who created them, I guess the station. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 11:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The URL of the page where you downloaded the image is what's required, so that reusers of our content can verify the description given on the image description page. MER-C 08:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:Biafra thayill.jpeg

Hi,

In your robot message you claimed that the creator of the content was not specified. This is not true as both photographer and source were provided, so your tagging was in error.

Also, I would like to point out that the fair-use policy regarding what Wikipedia calls "non-free images" allows exceptions for bands that are no longer active, since a free alternative is far from likely to be created. This exception also reflects the other image you tagged, File:Bgang98c.gif, as well.

-- CJ Marsicano 12:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it was – sorry about that – but there's no fair use rationale on the first image (so tagged). Yes, I do know about the exception, but the explanation needs to be on the image page (not here). MER-C 08:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So noted. Requesting speedy keep. -- CJ Marsicano 12:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the {{di-no fair use rationale}} (is that what it is now?) tag is sufficient. MER-C 13:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:RE: BOTB.jpg

RE: Hi! I recently received a tag requesting information on an image file uploaded to Wiki. I tried to upload a new version including the rationale template, adding the necessary information on this image file. When I completed the edit, the rational template and Copyright tag did not appear as they normally do. The rationale went into the edit text/history summary, but the changes were not visible. Any advice on what I should do? Or can the image be deleted entirely, that way I can reload the image from scratch using the templates from the start? Thanks in advance for your help!

6:30 AM, 8 August 2007 -Rachael

I have warned 124.177.47.233 about their removal of content from Welding, just in case they get a bit confused about having their edit undone. Just thought it would be better to do it sooner rather than later, but in hindsight the phrase 'trigger-happy' springs to mind :-]. CarrotMan 11:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder that HagermanBot archived several Talk page entries that you had presumably not yet seen, including mine. When you get a moment, a reply would be appreciated.

Thanks!

Jouster  (whisper) 15:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tag in what fashion? There are still footnotes that are elaborations on articles, the most glaring of which is "Various sources incorrectly cite Ridgefield, Connecticut as Fitzgerald's home from the 1940s into the 1960s." I would like to place a ^[specify] there but um... it's already a footnote.

As for the archiving, I was just wiping away some cruft that built up during my time off. MER-C 13:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wanted to be able to more-clearly summarize the positions. I know, WP:!vote and all, but considering the intensity with which our anonymous provocateur claims to represent consensus due to the profusion of WP:SPA's, the ability to shoot that contention down with a minimum of fussiness seems important. Jouster  (whisper) 23:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then I see no problem with your plans. Feel free to go ahead. MER-C 11:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the change. Thank you for your help. Jouster  (whisper) 20:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MER-C, you wrote on User talk:Gregs gunners

'This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to Mars, you will be blocked from editing. MER-C 09:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)'

This is just to let you know that Gregs gunners vandalised Destructive cult at 09:24, 1 July 2007. I have reverted this vandalism EmmDee 22:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

for defending my user page, much appreciated. KOS | talk 13:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. MER-C 03:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting that misplaced comment on my user page. "fixing" indeed, uh huh... -- Gogo Dodo 05:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

....for your faster-than-light-revert of my userpage. Much appreciated. CIreland 09:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

for cleaning the muck off my user page. --Michael Johnson 11:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping out on my talkpage. Where the heck are the admins, anyway? There's a huge backlog at AIV. Gscshoyru 12:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're all welcome. MER-C 07:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be more helpful to post these on the talk pages of articles that use the images, rather than on the talk pages of the users who uploaded them. The article will obviously be watched by anyone who maintains an interest in the topic, while there is no reason to think an uploader necessarily remains interested, or even active on the project. Thanks, Postdlf 06:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My script for tagging these images doesn't do that, and that policy requires that uploaders be notified. After all, shouldn't they know the most about why the image was uploaded? MER-C 10:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why the uploader has some special knowledge, or continuing interest, that would be greater than the using article's regular contributors. The goal should be to give effective public notice that there are procedural flaws with an image so that those flaws can be fixed, if they are fixable. Private talk page messages don't accomplish this. Please read my comments here on this issue for a more in-depth explanation. Postdlf 15:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently not involved in editing of the WP. Please stop posting long messages on my talk page. Instead, post them on talk pages of the corresponding articles. Perhaps someone will choose to defend them and give "rationale" even though I was careful to explain it all on the discussion pages, but it seems you are not reading them... Mhym 10:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See above. Posting rationales on talk pages is useless as per WP:NFCC #10. MER-C 11:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering how you assess Snom as not-notable? Is it merely that you have not heard of it? or is it that when I created the page, that I did not change the edit summary from the default? Karl2620 12:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. The article gave me no reason to think that the subject is notable. MER-C 12:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. I have created the article 'on spec' and will be adding more to it as my time permits. I also hope that it's presence will cause others to add more. The company itself and their products are certainly notable.

Do you have any suggestions – apart from writing a full-blown article in the first instance – in how one can express this when creating a new article? Karl2620 12:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can write one in your userspace and move it once it's done. Other things you can include are stock market symbols, revenue figures (>$10^7), number of employees (>10^4), links to news articles about the company and anything else that may be found at WP:CORP. Editors have to be aggressive on new page patrol so that crappy "articles" don't fall through the cracks. MER-C 12:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fine. Meanwhile, I invite you to remove the nomination for speedy deletion. I suspect if I remove it, it will not be regarded as valid. If you decline, please advise the correct procedure for having it removed, or who adjudicates the presence of such tags? (The time I am spending here might have well been spent building up the article.) Karl2620 13:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to defend against a speedy delete tag would be to do exactly what you wish to do – expand the article. The procedure for speedy deletes is outlined at WP:CSD. MER-C 13:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this revert by you was done in a state of absentmindedness, and that you will revert yourself. __meco 10:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was an external link violation. I remember that 99.75% of blogs on .info domains were splogs from some research I did while working on (the article) sping so I was extra suspicious. MER-C 12:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be quite right. I wouldn't have spotted this one at a mere glance, but now I have been wised up, and will keep a better, more discriminating lookout from now on. __meco 16:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to recommend the image for deletion if you feel it is not appropriately documented. Your posting on my journal was not helpful as to how to make the image acceptable, and I am not certain as to how to make the image meet the standards that are not (in my opinion) well articulated; the image comes from a promotional gallery, as stated on the page. The recommended Wikipedia pages to explain how to do this appropriately are incomprehensible.Transcendentalstate 17:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding File:Lyndon B. Johnson taking the oath of office, November 1963.jpg versus File:Lyndon B. Johnson oath of office November 1963.jpg ... did you check the usage on the commons before switching the names around? The one you replaced is already used widely across various projects. There is only supposed to be one copy of the photo on the commons, and you went and loaded a second. I'm confused. I've gone ahead and loaded your version under the other name (and changed the names on as many of the artilces as possible. --evrik ^(talk) 18:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lyndon B. Johnson taking the oath of office would be the reason. They expressly preferred the lighter image so I'll have to revert you. MER-C 04:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, didn't see you uploaded on top of it. Oh well. MER-C 05:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to notify you of one of those occurances when two different people post a warning to a vandal at exactly the same time. It's just happened now. It's not a big issue at all, but I thought I'd inform you just incase you wondered what was going on on his talkpage. With regards, Lradrama 13:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I added the image, tags were considered appropriate Fair Use rationale. That was why the tags were created in the first place. I get annoyed when people, instead of improving Wikipedia directly, decide to nag other users about their past improvements. If deleting the image improves Wikipedia, delete the image. If adding a fair use rationale improves Wikipedia, add your own fair use rationale. Please don't nag me to make improvements that would like done. --Dystopos 15:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You nominated File:Amstrad CPC Advert.png for speedy deletion under criteria I2: corrupt or empty image. I've turned this down, as the image is working fine, and isn't on Commons, so it isn't eligible for deletion under that criteria. Mike Peel 19:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silly me, I just realised it's my ad blocker which made the image disappear. I'll just go off quietly and make a few featured pictures instead... MER-C 08:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:SpamOnWikipedia.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 21:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you attempting me for spamming while you storer inproper information on pages abouth other subjects. Only because many people surch for thet names ?

Sinds when is a 250F Accross, à GSX_R250 ??? So, stop yelling to serieus people and start filling in the pages with REAL information !

For Youre information.....

The GSX-250F belongs here Suzuki Across

no haertfeelings ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MisterGSX-R (talk • contribs)

See WP:COI and WP:SPAM. MER-C 09:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This category is again nominated for discussion at user categories for discussion. Since you contributed to the last discussion, you may wish to say something in the current one, which was started on 8 July 2007. This is a courtesy notice I'll be leaving for everyone who contributed in the last UCFD nomination and not in the current one. BigNate37_(T) 13:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused why you think this has an empty description page: It's transcluded from the Commons. I've updated it to the standard template, but it always had a description. Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The local description page is empty. See WP:CSD#i8. MER-C 08:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, right. Have you now. It was an FPC for a while so had that little template saying so, must've not got cleared once it was deleted. Adam Cuerden ^talk 11:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand adding links to LiveJournal communities may be against wiki-policy, as far as I can tell the link was to a "Cape Wrath" fan group, so I don't think it qualifies as vandalism. --DrBat 15:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it is. I call it spam, which is a form of subtle vandalism. I also wanted to leave a {{spam1}}, and my rollback (vandal) button makes it easier for me to do so. MER-C 08:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have uploaded images that are orphaned or have some other problem. Can you delete them yourself or do you have to wait for speedy deletion?

Thanks! Professor Davies 20:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since MER-C hasn't been online for a bit, and I've got his page on my watchlist, I thought I'd drop in and answer the best I can. Images you or anyone else have uploaded can only be deleted by administrators. You can re-upload another image to the same name, effectively overwriting the image (regardless of who uploaded the original). In this case, the original is still visible in the history. A {{db-g7}} is your best bet to get it totally removed, as speedy deletion criteria G7 is author-requested deletion. BigNate37_(T) 00:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that User:МЕЯ-С may be a vandal impersonating you. Just thought you should know. --Evb-wiki 12:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's none other than Willy on Wheels, who has a strange obsession with me. Don't know why. MER-C 13:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw you had a java code for working with the query.php. Can you update it to use the new mw:API? Thanks!! --Yurik 19:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I think. MER-C 07:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of telling me why my photos are no good, how about trying to fix them yourself?
NewYork1956 05:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your ramapant tagging of episodes of American Dragon: Jake Long episodes was a rotten thing to do!! ---- DanTD 00:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I got your message and I appreciate your vigilance. Just to let you know, I do not think that the BR Review is in violation of this policy -- we are adding legitimate links to entries, links to appropriate and often very important articles that have been published in our pages.

Again, though I understand why the policy is in place, I do not think we are abusing anyone's trust by adding helpful and major articles to appropriate entries. (Cf. Cass Sunstein, Rick Perlstein or Judith Jarvis Thompson).

Thanks, and let me know if you have any more questions,

Aaron —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.13.179 (talk • contribs) 16 July, 2007

Hello again,

I noticed that nearly all the links I have added to appropriate entires have been removed. Again, I appreciate that judicious editors like yourself are keeping an eye on Wikipedia so that it doesn't turn into a giant advertisement. However, after reviewing the conflict of interest page I think you've overstepped your authority here.

The worry about conflict of interest seems to be in keeping up the integrity and the quality of this service. The main threats to those two essential features of Wikipedia are inappropriate additions to entires -- "When editors write to promote their own interests, their contributions often show a characteristic lack of connection to anything the general reader might want to consult as a reference."

But by adding, for example, a link to Susan Moeller Okin's "Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women," originally published in the Boston Review in 1999, I have by no means lowered the quality of the entry. In fact the entry is certainly lacking if it does not provide a link to the article which it already references. It's a ridiculous oversight in the name of "the rules," an overzealous excess, I think, to blindly delete helpful and appropriate additions to entries (i.e. Stephen Walt) that could use more external links.

I should mention, though being from Boston you probably know this, the Boston Review is no New York Times -- not even a NYRB. It's a small but important NON-PROFIT that has originally printed some major recent essays(by Judith Jarvis Thompson, Martha Nussbau, Susan Okin, Diego Gambetta, Nir Rosen, etc.). Making those available when appropriate (which is what I was doing) seems to be in the spirit of Wikipedia, and not against it.

Thank you,

65.96.176.116 01:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Aaron[reply]

Have a look at the two articles Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Stillwater Mining and related. Seems to be an ad campaign, I requested speedy (which was rmved), however are these candidates for AFD? I've been fairly active tonight with this individuals contribs, don't want to COI myself.--Hu12 05:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Market cap = US$ 1.09 * 10^9, traded on the NYSE as well as these little tidbits created in the last couple of days ensure notability. MER-C 06:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for the rock formation, you might find something in JGR and others. A quick google search shows there's stuff out there. MER-C 06:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, you reported Getmy for spam, I've now blocked her (I suspect). I've quickly gone through and obliterated, the spam and most of the publicity pieces. Have a look now if you wouldn't mind see if you see anything else that could go. Cheers ^Khukri 07:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be all the spam gone. Could do with a couple more citations (so tagged) but right now I'm having too much fun with fair use images. MER-C 07:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, cheers ^Khukri 08:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You imagetaggers are why Wikipedia has jumped the shark. Congratulations. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 14:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Amen to that. Iamvered 15:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I second that. BrownHornet21 03:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Au contraire. Thanks for doing the needed work of image-tagging, MER-C. You're helping to keep Wikipedia viable. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not viable for someone (especially a self-proclaimed deletionist) who does not understand the concept of fair use to delete images left and right. BrownHornet21 18:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the "List of Companies" problem (what to do with an entire class of articles that get repeatedly submitted for deletion en mass?) for debate to two different places. This really needs to be solved once and for all (we can't keep debating the same stuff for eternity). Would you take a look at either the discussion on the Village Pump or the relevant wikiproject? Aditya Kabir 15:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take a look at this article Marlborough School (Los Angeles, California). Another editor brought it to my attention, but I think it would be best if a third party cleared it out. Wishes, --wpktsfs 20:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I think. I hope it sticks. MER-C 10:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously you are no fan of lists, but I'm not going to even bother contesting each nomination. You have no case. (Mind meal 03:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

declining to delete--lists of internal links are not among the things to which A3 applies. You may be right in wanting to delete them, you may not -- thats for the consensus. But please dont short-cut AfD for what you know will be controversial. DGG (talk) 04:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I keep getting inaccurate form-letter notes from you that there is no explanation for the fair use of images when there is an explanation in plain English on the page. Could you kindly stop hassling people without useful explanation and deleting valid content from wikipedia? If you like policing so much, could you take a little more time at it and give a valid explanation of your actions? --Jaibe 11:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever was on that page did not address the three main questions required by WP:NFCC (see above). As for the reason, see the Foundation's licensing policy. MER-C 11:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your quote to the News 24 article is infringing their copyright in the article and the video interview. When are you going to take it down? BrownHornet21 03:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

De minimis non curat lex. MER-C 07:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True. Just testing. BrownHornet21 21:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added my Mayan calendar calculator tool to external links because I thought it was relevant and useful especially with the ongoing misconception that the mayan calendar "ends" in 2012. Why did you feel it was inappropriate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aronprice (talk • contribs)

It tripped my spam radar. However, one should note that Wikipedia is not a vehicle for self-promotion. MER-C 11:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On reaching 70,000 edits including deleted edits. (Using Ais523's edit counter). — Rlest (formerly Qst) 15:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't know I had that many edits, especially deleted edits. MER-C 12:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You notified a permanently blocked user about an image. [1] I don't think he's coming back, at least not under that name. Baseball Bugs 07:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just coming here about that. I copied the notification to the article using the image so that hopefully someone sees it and handles it. Is it possible to handle situation's like these by checking to see if the user is banned or under a long block and notifying the articles instead in those cases? Miss Mondegreen talk  07:55, July 28 2007 (UTC)

I use a script which automatically tags the uploader's talk page. The only two ways of stopping it is by pressing the stop button quickly enough or by protecting the page concerned. There's no way to quickly check whether the uploader is blocked, it's too time-consuming. MER-C 11:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hey i thought that it was number 2 of the movie but no one knows nothing about it so if i delete you message it means i get the idea of you saying to me to stop deleting pages

Fuck off, OK? Read what I put – the company sent the photo for me for inclusion on Wikipedia! I don't know what template is the most suitable nor do I care – at the time it seemed like that one, but the templates change all the time because of anal retentives like you obsessing over them. Now, just leave me alone. RupertMillard (Talk) 11:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't as you have misunderstood it, 'fair use'. Read the page again. The pic is a promotional pic created for and intended to be used as, a promotional pic to be used by the press (wikipedia is 'the press') in regards to the movie. It isn't a fair use pic, the image page does not say it's fair use, I didn't say it is, I don't care if it's deleted, and furthermore it will just be re-created if it is deleted, since it is intended to be used in exactly the sort of way it is being used.

I can see by your contributions, you are embarked on a 'delete fair use images' campaign, and have in the space of four minutes sent 7 similar messages to users. This is akin to spam, absent your good faith effort to explore the nature of each image you are commenting about. Your sending me cut-and-paste/or/template messages that have no bearing on this image is frankly annoying to me and strikes me as lazy, requiring me to exert more effort to respond than you have employed in attempting to understand the nature of this image. I don't have a history of being easily annoyed, but I must say that my response to your post about the image is almost purely one of annoyance. Please don't annoy me further. User:Pedant 15:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above editor, in his pithy way, has raised an important question. If the purpose of the illustration in question is publicity for the event connected with it, then what rule is violated by putting it here? I've got a possible answer, and it's not the fair use doctrine, because the core of fair use law has to do with causing harm to the creator of the item, and if it's serving their needs, they would be unlikely to claim or be able to prove that they are being harmed by it. Instead, it's the POV-pushing doctrine... Namely, that posting it constitutes "spamming" on behalf of whoever produced it. However, that's not to say it really is spamming, I'm just saying that argument could be made. What say y'all? Baseball Bugs 15:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't spam any more than a picture of Mickey Mouse is spam in an article on Walt Disney. What the Bleep Do We Know is notable enough to thoroughly merit an article, and an image improves the article. Wikipedia benefits more by having the image than by not having it and it doesn't in any way increase the promotional value of the article beyond that of an article with no image. User:Pedant 07:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be safe, you should probably provide a fair use argument on the illustration, since it will likely get deleted otherwise. Baseball Bugs 09:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The foundation's licensing policy says that all fair use images must have rationales otherwise they get deleted. MER-C 13:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By mere chance I noticed your deletion note. Go ahead and delete it. I already quit wikipedia, in part because of people like you. Deleting acceptable fair use images without replacing them with the free images you claim are so easy to find, just makes wikipedia worse and hastens its demise, an end I predicted when I quit. I discovered I had no desire to spend my time defending content from vandals. Thanks for helping speed things along. 69.234.233.112 18:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete an image which is fair-use? Photos put on the web for promotional purposes are obviously allowed on Wikipedia. Furthermore, 7 days notice is hardly enough.

You should be reported for vandalism. Kjetilho 08:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user concerned appears to have left, Also I'd alreayd listed this one in the 'compact' format above your message on the relevant page. Perhaps you could consider using the compact format instead of Verbose TWINKLE linke ouput and mass tag runs? Sfan00 IMG 19:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't use twinkle for images, but rather User:howcheng/quickimgdelete.js. So I'm not sure what that part of your comment refers to. MER-C 12:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have created an article for WWWR-AM in Roanoke, VA, the station that formerly shared that logo WNRV-AM in Narrows, VA. With it being used on the WWWR page, it is no longer an orphan and I have removed the tag from the image page as well. Take Care....NeutralHomer ^T:C 16:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. MER-C 10:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The coveted Anti-Vandalism Barnstar For reverting vandalism on my user page on 2 different occasions. I'm beginning to wonder if you're actually watching my page... --AAA! (AAAA) 00:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I watch all pages when I patrol :). Thanks. MER-C 13:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was going to give you a RickK barnstar because of your unusual stalker today, but I see you've already gotten one today and I wouldn't want to be accused of being gratuitous. Must look after your ego and all. Cheers! Douglasmtaylor ^T/C 13:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual? It's just the original Willy on Wheels. MER-C 13:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And here I thought you were building a fan-base. Ah, well. Anyway. Good work to you. Douglasmtaylor ^T/C 13:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)r[reply]

Hi MER-C. The Morgellons issue at COIN risks turning into another Maharishi-style dispute, with over-long postings. At one time, do you recall that we would just remove postings that were over 200 words, asking people to replace with a shorter version? Do you think this would be a reasonable approach? It will be hard to stay interested in wading into that problem if it's destined to fill up the noticeboard. EdJohnston 16:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It turned out that the concerned user made legal threats and got blocked indef for it. And that was the end of that. As for removing oversize comments, I'd think a friendly warning would be in order, first. MER-C 06:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robbie Miller was a great australain. He was diagnosed with brain cancer at the age of 12. In his battle for survival he inspired many Australians. I am his brother, he died 3 months ago and he always wanted to make a wikipedia page about himself. For the last 4 months of his life he could not look at a computer or television screen. Just before he died he said to me, Chris I know ive only got a few days left, but Ive written what I want my wikipedia page to say please post this so people will remember me for who I was, and not just the kid with cancer. He said this 3 days before he died. I apperciate you trying to keep wikipedia spam free but please renew his page, for Robbie,

Yours Sincerly,

Chris Miller (brother)

In which case I am sorry that it has turned out to be that way. However, Wikipedia is not a memorial site, nor is it for things that may be suited for TV programs like Today Tonight or commercial network news. Also the article I saw was almost indistinguishable from the hundreds of vanity pages we get each day. I have enacted a courtesy blanking on the afd discussion. MER-C 11:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would seem to indicate you are an aussie! Viridae^Talk 12:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed. MER-C 12:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I looked at the image, and the thing was right. It wasn't work of the Federal gov. and must've read that wrong. My apologizes. I requested it for speedy removal, per CSD G7. -theblueflamingo^Squawk 01:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You commented on my page that this image has no fair use rationale, but it clearly does in the image file! I do not understand what you're looking at (or not looking at). In the scomment for the upload as well as the image file (using the selectable templates), the fair-use rationale is very clear and accurate. What am I missing here? How much ratioanle (and how many times) is needed? I'll clarify the image (more), but I don't see how any more words would be anything but wordier. VigilancePrime 15:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A rationale, as explained at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is required for each use of the image. That said, what you've got there is good enough. MER-C 12:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You !voted to delete this article in December. I don't wish to recreate the article contrary to the deletion vote if the RS I've gathered were already considered in deciding to reject WP:ORG threshhold notability; can I get your opinion on the matter? Thanks. THF 12:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tried to back up your removal of the DAM spam links on R-Type and several other pages. User with dynamic ip started an edit war and harassment on my talk page. Have since reported the multiple ip's to the Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies, but I'm not sure that's going to be enough. --Marty Goldberg 19:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamically allocated IPs are not able to host proxy servers as the DNS requires static IPs and they're moving targets. However they may be compromised, in the 0wn3rsh1p and/or between the keyboard and chair. MER-C 13:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subpages are not article that others may edit. Please explain your edit in my subpage of Straight Pride?--Amadscientist 02:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance tags and categories for encyclopedia articles only don't belong on user subpages. See WP:UP#NOT. MER-C 13:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I draw you attention to the post by this site's webmaster

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#stickycarpet.com http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist#stickycarpet.com

I just did a response there, he's trying to pull the wool over people's eyes. He was condescending, derogatory, made threats, and misrepresented himself (pretending to not be the site author) on my talk page. Now he tries to paint a picture of him being misunderstood and a victim of poor treatment, while admitting all the IP's starting with 80 are his (which includes most of the comments on my talk page history), and tries to say he was just updating links when in fact he was engaging in putting back links removed for (lack of) content issues. --Marty Goldberg 20:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aww, I would have had fun disemvowelling his tirade if he posted here. Got to go, as I have another spammer to deal with. MER-C 11:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...for the work you put in at WP:FPC. I think you do a heck of a job keeping things moving smoothly. Your efforts are appreciated! Matt Deres 00:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Java class User:MER-C/Wiki.java has String compare bug:

if (domain == null || domain == "")
    domain = "en.wikipedia.org";

The faulty construction is:

domain == ""

The correct construction is:

if (domain == null || domain.equals(""))
    domain = "en.wikipedia.org";

This String Comparison page illustrates additional cases. Conrad T. Pino 07:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Should be in the next version (which includes user support). MER-C 09:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]