User talk:Videmus Omnia

If you leave me a message on this page, I will reply on this page.
If I left a message on your talk page, please reply there; I'll watch your page and reply when able.

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to User talk:Videmus Omnia/Archive/May 2024. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Archives
Jun 2007 Jul 2007 Aug 2007 Sep 2007

Wichita Massacre photos

I added a link to the Crime Library page from where I found the mugshots. Hopefully, this is the last of these kind of requests, as it's getting to be a real pain in the neck having to "clarify" and "justify" the copyright status of simple mugshots. Now, apparently, I have to do the same thing for the victims' photographs. It's not like mugshots or photographs of crime victims are commercial images. Enough! -- J.R. Hercules —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 00:36, August 25, 2007 (UTC).

Looks like the image has been deleted at WP:IFD. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 15:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Wow, the first? Many thanks for the barnstar, VO. I'm still gritting my teeth and grumbling about Fair Use, but I do understand where you're coming from and respect your image work here. Hope I wasn't too shrill and pouty with that rant I left here a while ago... I'm still puttering around here a bit, and will jump in full-time again around early October. Until then, take care, and happy editing. Dekkappai 21:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, VO. There's a concern that's been working on me for a while, and since this is your area of specialization, perhaps you can shed some light (or darkness) on it-- In the spirit of anti-Fair Use-ism, is it likely that film poster images (even if used and labeled properly according to today's rules) are going to eventually be disallowed? Dekkappai 17:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Dekkappai, I certainly haven't heard anything along those lines. Film posters used for identification on an article about the film are pretty noncontroversial - sort of like album covers used to illustrate the album articles or company logos used to illustrate the company articles. This sort of usage seems to be specifically sanctioned by the Foundation's licensing resolution (at least in my opinion). Videmus Omnia ^Talk 00:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, VO. I know there are no guarantees here, but with your knowledge of the subject, I'll sleep easier, and contribute film articles with less worry, with that answer. Dekkappai 03:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Question about film captures

Hello, I noticed all your work with screen cap tagging, and I have a small question for you, hopefully you can shed some light on the matter. I understand that screen caps are allowed, with fair use rationale of course, if they are non-replaceable and discussing the subject in question. But, what about film screen captures from films that just came out in theaters and haven't been released to the public in any other manner. How would they acquire the screen cap, other than illegally taking a picture or video illegally in a movie theater? If this is the case, should it not be deleted then? If it was taken from a website, then it would still be a screen capture, and would still be traced back to its original original as well I would assume, or need to be cited from that. What do you think? Ejfetters 11:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

An interesting question in regards to WP:NFCC#4. I think, provided the image met all the other criteria and this was the only concern, that it would be OK. The requirement is that the non-free content has been published outside Wikipedia, and I think releasing to movie theaters counts as this. It would be a different story if the film had not yet been released (unless the capture is coming a trailer or other publicity material that the film company has, in fact, published outside Wikipedia prior to the film's release). The main thing to consider is that the copyright information is verifiable - if a Wikipedian could go to a theater and verify that, yes, the image came from that film, then it should be OK. Just my opinion... Videmus Omnia ^Talk 23:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

(Butting in. . .) Showing a film in a theater is a "publication", as numerous precedents show, so I don't think #4 is a concern. I'd be more concerned about #2. In general, I wouldn't worry about these, since breaking the law to get an image doesn't change the copyright status -- I'd just make sure it passes #3, #8, etc. My 2 cents. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, here's an interesting sidenote that I don't know why I totally forgot this. I was watching TV today and low and behold, a preview came on for the film. So regardless of what I said, previews are aired on TV and DVD's of other films, and the internet, so they can find them there, so my initial discussion, is proved wrong, by myself in fact hehe. Ejfetters 00:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Removal of image tags

Well, I studied the instructions for several minutes, & my understanding of what they said was that if they met the guidelines & should not be deleted, to remove those tags. I'm not disputing that they are fair use; however, I found those images met the criteria to not be deleted. Since I apparently misunderstood the instructions, they need to explain how to mark these images as "keep" or "don't delete". (As a sidenote, several images I looked at that I wasn't convinced were justifiable "keeps" I did not touch; I'd rather spend the energy on cases I felt followed the rules than on those that might not.) -- llywrch 22:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, this is more complex than it would first appears. I re-read & attempted to follow the instructions with Image:Janeway Season7.jpg. Is the end result correct? -- llywrch 23:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, thanks! Videmus Omnia ^Talk 23:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Another question: what if more than one version of the image appears to pass muster? Save all that do? Or only keep the best image? -- llywrch 23:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

According to the instructions at Category:Rescaled fairuse images more than 7 days old, all the old revisions that are not in violation of WP:NFCC should be kept. Thanks again for working the backlog! Videmus Omnia ^Talk 23:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use

Was there any sort of scripts you used when you dealt with fair use problems? ~ Wikihermit 23:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The only script I used in that role was User:Howcheng/quickimgdelete.js, which tags the image, looks up and notifies the uploader, and, if necessary, creates a listing at WP:PUI, WP:IFD or WP:CV. Twinkle has some functionality in that area, but I always preferred Howcheng's tool.Videmus Omnia ^Talk 23:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Now, with an image like Image:PCAndy.jpg, it has fair use rationale for a page that has been deleted. However it is used in two pages with no rationale for use on those pages. What's the right tag? ~ Wikihermit 01:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Just remove the image from the articles with no rationale for its use there with the edit summary "removed images with no rationale for use in this article per WP:NFCC#10c". Alternatively, tag the article with {{non-free}} and drop a note on the talk page with the problem (if you think the usage could be valid with the right rationale.) Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

If this leaves the image orphaned, tag it as such. Alternatively, you could just fix the rationale for one or more of the articles (I used to this frequently - sometimes articles get moved, merged, etc. and the rationale doesn't catch up.) Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI, that image needs to be removed from Tom Price (actor) as a WP:NFCC#1 violation. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Baywatch

Ahh you removed one of my images of the pretty Baywatch Hawaii girls. All you have to do is ask for the rationale man. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 18:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember it - sorry about that. I'm not doing non-free image work any more anyway. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 14:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Taglish

Hello again, VO. I was reading about Taglish, but I'm confused about the examples it gives. It lists phrases in Tagalog, Taglish, Filipino (1989-2000, 2007), Filipino (2001-2006), and English, but it doesn't explain why they split Filipino into years like that. The Filipino language article says it's basically "standardized Tagalog", but the history section doesn't give any indication about what might have changed in 2001, and reverted back in 2007. Any ideas? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

To my knowledge, there's no reason for the time frames. It's an interesting subject - we've had ABS/CBN on the television pretty much continuously in my house for the last 8 or 9 years, and I can say firsthand that the English infusion into Tagalog has been steadily increasing. It's most noticeable when they air old movies from the Marcos era, which are nearly pure Tagalog, which you can then compare with current entertainment, which is liberally sprinkled with English. Taglish is a good term for this - while you sometimes hear nearly complete English sentences, most often English words are intermixed with Tag in sentences constructed with Tag grammar rules. I've only noticed this with Tagalog and not so much with regional dialects, like Visayan, Pampangan, or Ilocano. The process seems to be accelerating, possibly due to the fact that so many of their popular entertainment stars are Eurasians who have come to the P.I. from the U.S., Australia, or Europe.

Anyway, forgive my long digression, the short answer is that I can't imagine the reason for the time frame specification, except that perhaps it came from a source that contained some kind of time-frame statistical analysis that was arbitrarily broken down that way for purposes of comparison. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 14:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

On a hunch, I tried matching up the dates with changing regimes (Marcos was behind the big push for making Tagalog the standard national language, calling it "Filipino" and making it mandatory in schools), but no dice. 1989 was in the middle of the Aquino regime, with no policy change there that I'm aware of, and while Arroyo took over from Estrada in 2001, there was no change in policy here that I'm aware of. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 14:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

On a sidenote...

This would look better as a header: User:Wikihermit/box

~ Wikihermit 19:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, hayell, as long as we're being political. . . – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

>:o ~ Wikihermit 22:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Wikihermit, I don't know if you're going to see this, but why did you retire? Was it harrassment about image tagging? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 14:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Question

Should Image:N2200176860_37894.jpg be removed from the article it is in because it doesn't have a rationale to be in that article? Alpta 20:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, per WP:NFCC#10c. It also has no source, which is a WP:NFCC#10a problem. If that is fixed, the image needs to renamed (tag it with {{rename image}} or {{ifr}}) and converted to PNG format (tag it with {{ShouldBePNG}}. Those last two changes are in accord with WP:NFCC#6 - i.e. the image use policy. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 14:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 8 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Meredith Eaton-Gilden, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

---- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Anne McCaffrey photo

Just wanted to say thank you for finding the current photo for the Anne McCaffrey article. The previous photo was really dreadful. This one is much better. Again, thank you. Vgranucci 04:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem! I've always liked her work, and started looking for a photo when I saw the entry at WP:BLPN. It just took a while for the response to come back from the photographer. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 14:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Dolcett

I have seen that the article Dolcett has been deleted. Do you have any idea of what can be done to challenge this ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hektor (talk • contribs) 07:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, it looks like you already took it to deletion review. That's the correct forum. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 13:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Meredith Eaton

Good job on her article. Great picture finds as well. I always liked her on Family Law. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 09:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike. I actually came across hitting 'random article' looking for photos to request. She replied to the request, and once I looked into it, her article seemed worthy of expansion. I've actually never seen her on television, except I think I remember her guest appearance on House and possibly CSI. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 14:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, she's great. She was able to match presences like Dixie Carter. That isn't easy to do. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 23:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Northside High School Article

About the Northside High School article. Mr. Z-Man sent me an message about what you posted on the administrator's page about me saying that I'm going to bitch slap someone for making changes to the NHS page by deleting the band. let me just say that the band is a major part of the page and that's why whenever someone deletes stuff about the band i just undo it. That day I was just really pissed off and wrote stuff that I didn't mean. hope none of it offended you. chrismaster1 8, September 2007 15:24 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrismaster1 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm afraid I don't remember the incident you're referring to. I don't think I would have been personally offended anyway, but thank you for the apology in any event. Regards - Videmus Omnia ^Talk 13:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

A question

Hi! I know you're one of the people who might consider themselves an image patroller? Well, recently I started doing a little bit of this work and I wanted to ask someone more experienced than myself, if I am doing things the right way. I found a copyrighted image with a source but no fair used rationale, so I tagged it. I then removed it from the article it was used in because there was no justification for use. Am I following the right protocol? I don't want to keep doing things my way and then find out later along the line that I've been doing things wrong. Thanks!

Seraphim ^Whipp 08:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

That should be all right - just include an edit summary citing policy for your action like "removing non-free image with no rationale for use in this article per WP:NFCC#10c". Alternatively, you can leave the image in place pending addition of a rationale - if one isn't added in a week, an administrator should delete the image, and it will be automatically removed from the article by Image Removal Bot. Adding a "deletable image" caption to the image takes care of notification. Another alternative, if the article seems to have plenty of active editors, and you think the usage would probably be valid given the correct rationale, is to tag the article or section where the image is used with {{non-free}} and drop a note on the article talk page.

Instead of using Twinkle to tag images, I recommend using User:Howcheng/quickimgdelete.js. This places the image into the correct dated non-free content deletion categories, instead of simply into C:CSD, and also notifies the uploader. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 13:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank-you very much for taking the time to help me :-). I want to make a better use of my time on wikipedia :).

Seraphim ^Whipp 13:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd only actually remove it if that action doesn't orphan the image and it already has a rationale for another page. Otherwise the effect is likely to be nothing more than a delayed deletion, since people may very well be unaware of the missing image rationale. Caption tagging is the best way to handle it, IMO. --Pekaje 13:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. I normally only removed the image from the article if the action didn't orphan the image, as Pekaje says above. An exception would be if the image was only used outside the article space, in violation of WP:NFCC#9. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 13:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll keep that in mind. Thank you both :). Although I have one more question... What exactly do I add to my monobook? Is it the whole of the code on the page that was linked?

Seraphim ^Whipp 14:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry - the installation documentation is at User talk:Howcheng/quickimgdelete.js. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 14:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you again :).

Seraphim ^Whipp 14:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Award

An embodiment of a hard-working Wikipedian

Videmus Omnia,

Thanks for all your hard work on image deletion over the past several months! Sorry to see your retirement from the project, but I'm sure whatever new areas of Wikipedia you decide to work on will be greatly enhanced by your presence. I'm sure I'll be asking you image questions in the future, to tap your expertise. Thanks again, and all the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, brother - that means a lot, coming from you. Yeah, this sucks, especially given the circumstances. I actually really enjoyed the work, despite the drawbacks. Of course I'm happy to help with advice, which seem to be uncontroversial (so far). Who knows - perhaps circumstances will change in the future and I'll be able to come back. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 15:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you think size reduction tagging would be too controversial, because I wouldn't mind seeing Category:Non-free image size reduction request repopulate a bit. Either that or I'll finish my query script that traverses non-free image categories in search of large images. --Pekaje 01:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Ready to put your sleuthing hat on? Is Image:Alyson Hau.jpg (or a previous version) really available under a free license? Is User:Alysonhau the subject/copyright-holder? See here for details, and good luck! This message will self destruct. . . – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it's dead now. Oh well. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I've had the Alysonhau (talk · contribs) blocked per WP:U#Celebrity until this is sorted out, and flagged two other photos as possibly unfree. I sent an e-mail to Alyson Hau to see whether or not this was her - thanks for the heads-up! Videmus Omnia ^Talk 15:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I heard back from Ms. Hau and confirmed her identity. The account has been unblocked, and I'll fix up the image descriptions and move them out to the Commons. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 17:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Commons

Hello Videmus Omnia. Can you please look at commons:Commons_talk:Flickr_images/reviewers#Alpta. Thank you. Alpta 17:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Will do - need some time to look over your contribs. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 17:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Alpta 00:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Uhura Image

I noticed that I think it was you, replaced the screencap of Uhura with a free image, since it was taken by NASA. I think the image is great, and was wondering, do you know of any more free Trek character images that we can use? Thanks. Ejfetters 09:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, the image on Charles Tucker III can probably be replaced with the image on Connor Trinneer. I haven't been able to find any other ones. Would you like to do the honors? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 15:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello

You've been name-dropped at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Norwich_City_player_of_the_year. Help gratefully received. --Dweller 15:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

About the Nalts image

What happens if he changes the license? Would we still be able to use it? Would other, potentially commercial entities be able to use it? Ichormosquito 17:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The license, once given, can't be revoked if we've already made a derivative of the image (which we have, by cropping it and using it here). And yes, someone could take it and use it commercially, so long as they follow the CC-by-SA provisions (which means they have to give attribution, and release it under the same license in accordance with ShareAlike). I'm not an intellectual property lawyer or anything like that, but that's my understanding. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 17:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 10th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 37	10 September 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Interview with Jimbo Wales
An interview with Jimbo Wales	WikiWorld comic: "Godwin's Law"
News and notes: 2,000,000, Finnish ArbCom, statistics, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 21:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Personal info. removal

Hello. Yes, it appears that no personal info was removed because I did not remove the entire reference ( paragragh ) but I do believe that the full name and location was removed from the article and a large part, if not all, from the history. I'm not experienced with wikipedia so my efforts may hve been sloppy or ineffectual. If I messed up the formatting of your page, I apologise. I would appreciate any suggestions you may have. All of this may simply have been a fools errand or even part of a bait and switch scam. Fools rush in, etc.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philipbrooks (talk • contribs) 04:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are referring to. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 08:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC) Ah, the Mai Lin thing. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 08:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Requested undeletion

Done. Good luck. If you cannot get this resolved in a week or so, I will probably delete again. It can then be restored when permission is granted. -Regards Nv8200p talk 16:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. No problem. Keep up the good work. Thanks. Nv8200p talk 17:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Tibet

I feel i'm being bullied here. Somebosy welcomed my to wikipedia sarcasticly evne though I have 78,000 odd edits. i'm doing my best to build this and fill in gaps in knowledge. All the new Tibet articles had geo locators, altitude information and population info no different to other geo stubs.I've just begun Tilques also and fear they will target my work . Please say somrhting. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 17:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I wonder why I bother sometimes when I'm treated like this ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 17:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Its highly frustating that Demqog is up for deletion when we've just had many new stubs like Witzin and these are permitted , Now why is Witzin and the countless other ones like this a better new article than mine? It doesn't evne have a geo locator, altitude or population . I'm trying to remove systmemaitc bias by more even coverage ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 17:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree - I think communities, especially one this size, are generally notable. As I said at the Demqog AfD, I grew up in an American village of about 100 people, which has a fairly extensive article with census data, etc. I don't believe the article will be deleted. Keep up the good work, brother - don't let things like this get to you. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 17:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks buddy. I know - many hamlets with two or three people in the anglo-sphere have articles put these are communities and even have world locators, and some basic geo info. I left this message to him but he refuses to speak:

I genuinely hope all geo stubs however small will eventually have more detailed articles. I'm only trying to help the project grow mate (I call it planting the seeds for us to grow!!). You can't be surprised if I flare up when I'm putting a lot of work in and it doesn't seem appreciated. ALl the best ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 18:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree - by the way, I thought for sure one of your articles would be the two millionth, the way you crank them out. :) Videmus Omnia ^Talk 18:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

He's been grossly incivil to me, and I blacklisted him as I'm perfectly entitled to. I listed his articles for deletion according to the deletion policy, it wasn't personal and it's a very bizarre thought that it was.--Rambutan (talk) 18:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this the incivility you refer to? Looks like general frustration to me. Sure, it could be worded nicer, but it's not exactly grossly incivil. As for nominating according to policy, please remember that Wikipedia is consensus driven (by policy). If the consensus is that all cities and villages are notable, then you're not nominating according to policy. It's an honest mistake, but still a mistake. Oh, and reverting legitimate talk page comments as vandalism is exceedingly incivil, IMO. --Pekaje 18:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Grossly incivil? Mm. Well I'll continue on France before this blows over. Now an article like Tincques should be accpetable. I know that all thes epages I create will eventually have filled out pages . All the best ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 18:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes I've had an unusually difficult period on here the last few days. This is probably the least of it. I seem to have encountered some difficulties with several editors. The vast majority though are very supportive and very helpful yourself included. I just prefer to work in a friendly atmosphere where people work together rather than oppose, - far too much time is wasted in arguing in my view. Its been an eventful few days on here and not the best to be honest- but I'll get through it and hopefully be able to resume my editing soon with the approval of others. Saludos ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 21:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Under WP:USER I can remove any talkpage comments I desire.--Rambutan (talk) 06:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, certainly - but please don't call the removal of good-faith comments "vandalism reversion" or tell good-faith users they are "blacklisted" from posting at your talk page. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 12:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Flower Tucci link modification

What that edit looked like was someone adding a referrer code to the URL for Flower's site. That way, if someone signs up for Flower's site, then Flower can send a cash kickback to the person who sent the visitor to her. As you can guess, it's not allowed on Wikipedia and the person adding those links should be treated as any other dirty rotten spammer. Tabercil 19:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, it all makes sense to me now. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 19:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Apologies and unblock pages

I'm quoting you:

"enough already - your comment has been seen and acknowledged. using TW"

Are you taking responsibility for false allegations of vandalism against me ?--200.45.6.198 20:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, no - I'm not involved in your dispute. But if you read our guidelines on user talk pages, the fact that he removed your comment can be taken as an acknowledgment that he read it, and repeatedly reposting it can be considered harassment. If you're not satisfied with the response, I recommend following dispute resolution, or posting a report at the admin noticeboard. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 20:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's better to let "him" to think a bit about this for a few days. If I find the disputed pages blocked, say, next week, I'll consider to follow your advise. Thank you. --200.45.6.198 20:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert on my user talkpage. I'll think (as I have been advised) about what to do next. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Note that not only this insolent guy have no way to prove vandalism. He wrote the same yellow box I asked him to erase. --200.45.6.198 21:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Spamstar of Glory

		The Spamstar of Glory
		Presented to Videmus Omnia for conspicuous dedication in fighting spam on Wikipedia in the finest traditions of Wiki-service -- "he sees all".--A. B. (talk) 20:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! Videmus Omnia ^Talk 20:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Image help

Hi again VO. I have received email permission on an image, but the image was sent to me a bit distorted and in bmp format so cannot upload to commons yet. I have no clue how to fix it. Would you be able to help? ♫ Cricket02 02:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to try - I just e-mailed you my e-mail address so you can forward the image to me for repair. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Picture

Reply on ElinorD's talk page. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 06:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Smallville images

Hello Tim, Thanks for messaging me. All Smallville images that I have uploaded are no longer used on the article, so should go ahead on deleting them, I totally agree.

Thanx --Charlie144 18:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Charlie. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 18:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Problem

You comment on my talk page did not specify a problem with image or a solution to the image, merely that you tagged for an alleged invalid fair use rational. I have reviewed the rational and found no problem, so could you procid a simple english explination of what needs to be done to fix the problem and make the tag go away? TomStar81 (Talk) 00:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Im sorry, this comes off a little as a snap at you, and I do not intend it to be, its just that I went over these images during the summer so my fair use images would be compliant here so that these damn warning messages wouldn't tax my patience during the school, and now from some reason every updated fair use image I have seems to be getting pinch for non-fair use compliance. Getting these messages and the end of long days is really starting to piss me off, but I should be more respectful on the talk pages of Users who are trying to help. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you fixed the problem, which was that the rationale didn't specify the article in which the image was to be used. Don't worry, you came across just fine - you should see some of the other messages I've gotten. Regards - Videmus Omnia ^Talk 00:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Dita Von Teese

The image is not decoration. Add the source information. Thirdship 04:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The image is used to illustrate the article or text. When was the pic taken? or where was the pic taken? Thirdship 04:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Give why you need the image for the Burlesque section. Thirdship 04:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The free images were obtained some time ago to replace a non-free book cover & Playboy magazine cover that were used in that paragraph to illustrate her in burlesque costume. Given that the image is free, it can be used anywhere for any purpose, even decoration. I happen to think it's useful there, but I'm not sure what your problem with the images is, given that you won't really answer my question. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 04:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)