General Rules

1. Questions asked of me will be responded to on THIS Talk page. I will not be posting a duplicate reply on the Talk page of the User who asked the question.
2. Unsigned questions or questions from anon users will generally be deleted unanswered. Some special cases may apply.
3. Obscene and personal attack messages will be deleted and reported as vandalism.
4. Please use the "== XX ==" format when posting messages and sign all messages.

Archives

• User talk:Husnock/Archive 1 (April 2004 - April 2005)
• User talk:Husnock/Archive 2 (April 2005 - June 2005)
• User talk:Husnock/Archive 3 (June 2005 - September 2005)
• User talk:Husnock/Archive 4 (September 2005 - January 2006)
• User talk:Husnock/Archive 5 (January 2006 - June 2006)

Current Posts

Many congratulations, and best wishes for a long and happy life together. AnnH ♫ 18:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're inactive, but this is just to let you know that I've retagged Image:Uhura.jpg. Publicity photos are, generally speaking, not in the public domain. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saw on your user page that you are at the Persian Gulf. Stay safe, cannot wait until you come home. Make us proud. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be on and off the site until about October. Thanks for the GWOTEM! -Husnock 19:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I wrote my comment at Talk:Tourism in Slovakia. I really hope that this useless edit war will end soon. Juro has made great contributions to the articles dealing with Slovakia (and Central Europe in general), but his style of communication may be sometimes irritating. In general, talk pages of the Central European articles are far from the standards of civility and even serious editors (including Juro) frequently lose their temper as they must deal with all sorts of nationalist freaks (usually anonymous IPs blanking text or adding their badly written POV). I mention it just to explain you the invisible context of Juro's behavior. I would like also to ask you for your opinion about the "war in Slovakia" mentioned in the Hostel movie. I think it was clearly a reference to an alleged recent conflict (probably the one in former Yugoslavia or an entirely fictious one) and I do not fully understand why you added a reference to WWII. Tankred 15:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I opened up a talk page section on it. I just thought it was WWII becuase thats the only major war I know about in which Slovakia has been involved. -Husnock 19:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This media may be deleted.

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

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

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 03:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Husnock. I've removed Image:Us-ma-bo.png from User:Husnock/Travel, as it is a copyrighted image that is being used under a claim of fair use. Unfortunately, by Wikipedia policies, no fair-use images can be used on user pages; please see Wikipedia:Removal of fair use images. This image has not been deleted from any articles. If you have any questions, please let me know. —Bkell (talk) 23:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flags on user pages was discussed long ago. There was a general concensus that innocent display of flags on a user page is not a copyright violation, espeically United States flags. Also, as I am inactive on this site (checking once every 2-3 months), I ask please to avoid making changes to my user pages as I am not here to review them or defend any reverts. -Husnock 16:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Lieutenant (and if you're LCDR now, my apologies), I concur with Bkell. The image Bkell removed is tagged with a fair use tag. Regardless of any discussions, the policy as expressed at Wikipedia:Fair use criteria item #9 is clear and unequivocal. No fair use is permitted outside of the main article namespace. There is agreement that national and state flags are clear of copyright concerns. However, this does not descend to local government flags. In such cases it is a case by case basis, and in this case the image noted above has not been cleared of copyright concerns. Thus, it is properly tagged as fair use. If you want to use the flag, then contact City of Boston government and gain clearance from them to have the image released under a free license.
• Similarly, I've removed a large number of images from your travel page that are tagged as fair use images. I respect that you may be travelling, and your userpage indicates you are on deployment as an officer in the USNR. Regardless, not being available to defend, due to absence, your usage in contravention of our fair use policies is not a defensible position, as it is always possible to revert the removals should our fair use policy change. Respectfully, --Durin 13:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted before seeing your note...sorry, thought it was someone just taking a bunch of images off the page. Anyway, I can see the point, but believe me, this was beat to death with a stick about 6-8 months ago when a user was tagging pages with copyright violations whenever a fair-use image was displayed and then launched into massive vandalism and personal attacks when people protested. Anyway, at that time a great number of people indicagted flags on user pages was okay. Its also an image-tag thing since every one of the flags could probably be uploaded nder a different copyright header if someone had the time. I, myself, do not. So, is it harmful to Wikipedia to have those flags on my user page? And, if they are removed from mine, is there an effort to remove them from everyone's page who displays flags? Can we leave them alone for now? If so, I will work on re-uploading the fair-use flags under other tags when I have the chance to contact some of the agencies. Thanks- -Husnock 14:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I strongly suggest you do not retag the various flag images without clearly getting permission from the respective copyright holders to the effect that images of the flag are under a free license. Re-tagging the images without getting explicit permissions would be a serious breach. The reason having such images on your page is harmful is two-fold. First, other users see your page and can create similar pages. For an example, see User:Miwasatoshi/travel list (though not necessarily mimicing you in particular). Users see people doing things and think, "Hey, I'd like that too!". This has caused innumerable problems with userbox fair use violations alone. Second and most importantly, the use of fair use images especially as you used them most definitely violates fair use law. The usage on your travel page is purely decorative. There is no discussion of the seal/flag, no discussion at all in fact; it's purely decorative. It's no different than if you made a t-shirt with the Coca-Cola logo on it and claimed fair use. It is flatly illegal. This exposes Wikipedia to copyright suits. Wikipedia receives legal correspondence on a daily basis. The value to the project gained by you having a page that violates copyright law, when that page in no way contributes to the actual encyclopedia, is non-existent. Thus, the use of such images in breach of copyright law is not acceptable. I've reverted your re-insertion of the images onto your travel page. I strongly urge you to seek out the actual copyright status of any given image before retagging images, and do not violate Wikipedia:Fair use criteria item #9 unless you get an explicit exemption at Wikipedia:Fair use exemptions to do so. Though, such exemption is unlikely to be granted in this case. This fair use violation may have been hashed out somewhere else; regardless, it has had no impact on our fair use policy and has not shown up on our exemptions list. Until such time as it does, the use is in violation of our policies and in violation of law. Respectfully, --Durin 15:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had, of course, intended to contact the various cities for flags to use with permission I simply meant most cities will just e-mail you what the flag is if you ask and its not that hard to find out. Anyway, thsi is all fine. A note about your revert, I added a notice to the page to please list on the talk page flags which are removed, I think your revert of my revert blanked the notice. I guess I should also clarify, the page was created to list the places and cities I've been for research, providing a link to each place. The flags are nice to look at. So, if you want to remove them, to avoid making the page difficult to restore, please list what you've done on User talk:Husnock/Travel. Thank you! -Husnock 16:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Understand that in getting permission, it's insufficient to get permission to use on Wikipedia. We accept two general types of permissions here; fair use, and free-license. Used with permission is not within those two categories. Any such permission will be viewed here as fair use. I did see the comment in the page as I reviewed your changes prior to reverting. I'm careful to review changes before reverting them, to avoid deleting things in appropriate. I intentionally removed the comment because it's meaningless. I don't say that to in any way disparage what you said, but the reality is that if an image is removed for vandalism or without sufficient reason, a simple revert is sufficient. I've reverted disputed changes a number of times with an edit summary to the effect that no reason was given for the change. People are more likely to see an edit summary than an embedded comment. --Durin 16:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is all fine, but surely you're not saying I can't have a notice on my user page if I want to. There is no Wiki regulation about that sort of thing that I know if. I've also had problems in the past with people deleting cities because they didn't think I was *really* there (some vandalism on North Korea resulted from all that) so I thought the notice was a good idea. So, if you are going to do a massive image removal, please visit User talk:Husnock/Travel and explain what flags were removed and why. That will allow me to make the corrections instead of digging through the edit hsitories in a year when I come back to the US to do this research. Thanks!

• de-indent Yeah that's fine if you want a notice on the page. I'm just saying it's not the best way to move forward in my opinion. I delete fair use violations as I find them, rather than notifying users on purpose. You may wish to see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Durin and fair use image removals, where I initiated discussion on this very point. The overwhelming consensus was that prior notification was not the way to go. So, I leave a detailed edit summary. It's been sufficient in 99%+ of the cases (I've done about 2200 of these now).
• You're leaving on deployment for Iraq shortly? If so, a very major THANK YOU FOR SERVING and I hope it all goes well for you. I too have done my turn on the line (not Iraq though) and know the sacrifices you are making. Many, many thanks. --Durin 17:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Re: [1] First, that somebody would probably not sue is not a position Wikipedia can take. We'd eventually be wrong, and the costs are too great. Is the risk low, even microscopically low? Sure. The benefit? Zero. The potential loss? Huge. Wikipedia gains nothing in the encyclopedia by users having fair use images on their userpages. The cost of a lawsuit, even if we won, is prohibitive on Wikipedia's small pockets.
• Second, there is no law supporting all flags to be in the public domain. There is law regarding that for international flags and specifically for U.S. state and insular areas flags, but not for city flags. It is a case by case basis; some cities protect them, some don't.
• Third, the issue at hand here is not whether you have a right to display a flag or not. Consider a Coca-Cola flag. You buy it in a store, and fly it from a flagpole. No worries. You paid for the flag, and for the single use right to fly it. Same goes for a city flag. They can license them if they so choose, and profit from the sale of it if they like. What you most definitely do not have a right to do is replicate the flag as many times as you like. When you display a flag on your userpage, that is exactly what you are doing in small form. A little bit illegal is a lot illegal in this case; we don't allow it here on Wikipedia. The display of such flags is against policy. We don't make exceptions except in exceedingly rare cases because having a dizzying array of such exceptions creates a completely unmanageable copyright situation. The line we have is simple and clear; no fair use outside of main article namespace. No exceptions. Easy.
• Fourth, it is likely your change to the RfC will be reverted. The RfC is closed. The point of an RfC is discussion. Whether your point is valid or not, it no longer has a voice and people can't respond to it because they are no longer following the RfC. It's been delisted and archived. Thus, the additional comment unfairly tilts the balance of the discussion. RfC is, in part, a consensus gathering mechanism. We can't achieve that with solitary voices raising protest longer after the discussion has closed. --Durin 18:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, put it back in. If you can, add some more detail on the topic. Arcimpulse 06:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article has recently survived a vfd, so I though you might want to contribute there. --Cat out 13:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was removing those referances as you were [senselessly] reverting. See the toal change for yourself [2]. None of that is inaproporate.

--Cat out 14:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I explained it on the talk page. The page version was full of bad info; the revert was anything but senseless. Looks fine now, though. -Husnock 14:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have rolled your addition back, as shown in the history, as that RfC is in a closed and archived state. You may want to just voice your concern to Durin directly. Hope that helps, happy editing! No answer required, but here is preferred. ++Lar: t/c 19:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, are there different Pin-on-Metal-Insignias for Captains of the USMC and e.g. the US Air Force? Or is this just a thing with different graphics and the real insignias are the same? --GrummelJS 20:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hereby award you this barnstar for your superb contributions to the Star Trek rank insignia article. --Cat out 14:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! -Husnock 02:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put a cleanup tag on Reinhard Heydrich a few days ago because some of the text could do with a fair bit of reworking in my opinion. You've since removed the tag on the basis that no reason was given for its inclusion, which I don't understand as I outlined my reasons for doing so at the time here. As I've commented subsequently, I'm not going to risk a reverting battle, but in my opinion the article would still benefit from a fair amount of cleanup both in terms of grammar and writing style.

-- Chris (blather • contribs) 18:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In reviewing your recent additions] to User:Husnock/Travel, I noted your uploading and tagging of a number of images. I appreciate that you attempted to find free license sources for these images. However, a number of them (possibly all) are in error. When an entity recreates a copyrighted image in whole or part, they do not gain full rights to the image. For example, at Image:TokFlag.JPG you claim that since you created the image you have rights to release it into the public domain. This image is a virtual duplicate (but for the black border) of Image:PrefSymbol-Tokyo.png. This constitutes a clear case of derivative work. As such, the original copyright holder does retain rights and you do not have the privilege of releasing their rights for them. Similar cases apply to the other images that you uploaded and tagged. That an image was created by a naval base in replica of a copyrighted image, does not mean the naval base gains rights to the image. I'll give you some time to identify the original source of the images and verify their original copyright status. But, if corrections are not made I will either confirm the free license source of the images or (in most cases) delete the images as improper licensed images. --Durin 12:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to follow the rules to the best of my ability. The U.S. Navy images were sent directly to me by the Public Affairs officers of those bases and the Navy has all rights, according to what they told me. Granted, I did not investigate if they were right, but one may assume that they were since it is a government agency and they take those things rather seriously. The same thing with the CNFK Public Affairs office. I was also e-mailed a seal by the Fairfax County Police, again told it was a totally free image. Redrawing of two flags was on my own computer, perhaps those can be looked at but people have done that before. The only other one was e-mailed to me by the Lt. Governor of Missouri who I personally know) and he told me it was a free mage as well. If you choose to make purges please list them as Possibly Unfree Images instead of just taking them off. Also, I appreciate the zeal here (it is actually good for Wiki) but I am not some random editor ripping off images; I am an Admin and took your claims of the page very seriously and did some heavy research and contacting. I dont think we can fairly (no pun intended) say that all these images are unfree. Also, I'm sure that there are others out there we are really doing bad copyright stuff and posting bad images. They would be more worthy of this than I. In any event, glad that you're payng attention to this issue. -Husnock 14:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the clarification. I do think we need to be clear about the status regardless of the secondary source saying they are in the clear. There's grey area here. I've raised concerns elsewhere about capitulating our copyright clearance decisions to third parties (for example, vector-images.com). I think we're big enough to insist we clear things ourselves, as you have done with a number of the images above. Please understand; I am not attacking you in any respect. I have conducted more than 2,000 fair use image violation removals over the last six months. You happened to come up on my to do list because of violations I found. When I remove such violations, and those removals are reverted, I place the page on my watchlist and watch what happens because the page has recreated previously removed violations. Bad copyright stuff is bad copyright stuff, regardless of where it is found. On the recreated flags; that someone has done it before does not change the problematic nature of the cases. --Durin 14:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Angr 18:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:StarfleetEnlist1.gif. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 12:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: [3]. Until it is verified that it is free, we must presume that it is not free. As such, it needs to be removed from your travel page until its status as a free license image is verified. Thanks, --Durin 19:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Re: [4]. I don't see that North Little Rock has the rights to release for an image copyrighted by Little Rock. They are two separate cities. ? --Durin 19:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's been two days, and nothing has been forthcoming. I am removing the image from your travel page again. Please do not re-add it again until the copyright holder releases the image under a free license. Re-insertion of the image without this having taking place would be a violation of our fair use policy as described at Wikipedia:Fair use criteria item #9. Thanks, --Durin 23:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:CPORand.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia 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.

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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 22:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Husnock, can I get your opinion on the sources Armycaptain wants to use for his additions? I went ahead and made a temp page, and moved some of Armycaptain's recent changes there. I'll go ahead and format the references, I'm not sure the additions are ready to be moved over to the main article yet though. There's still a touch of POV. Is the Badge of Military Merit/Badge of Merit controversy too WP:OR to even touch? Katr67 02:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on Talk:Pharaoh and Cleopatra. The summary is that I'm okay with the merger, but I think the name is problematic. More details are provided at the talk page.

All the best,
Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak}
20:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a German speaker and contributor on many military articles I would appreciate and comment (in support or argument) to my comment on Talk:Colonel-General regarding translating Generaloberst as Colonel-General. Thanking you in advance. Dainamo 00:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping sick fetishes off serious articles is just as important to me. Please bear that in mind. I have been here for five years and i should have some respect. PMA 15:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has nothing to do with "sick fetishes", the article I read about the program brought up some highly interesting things about the way Les Lyle managed the show I was hoping to explore them in the article. No-one disrepected you, rather the reverse since you blanked a talk page discussion, in effect censoring it, because it dealt with a subject you didn't agree with. This kind of thing is above Admins, time to move on. -Husnock 15:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Love the work you have done on Pharaoh and Cleopatra! Great work fleshing out this article!! --Kralizec! (talk) 18:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Do I smell a Barnstar? :-) -Husnock 05:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just had a look at the article wonderful work, hope all is going well Gnangarra 04:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the Barnstar!

Thank you for correcting my unintentionally over-eager modification so quickly!. I know that Pelosi is not Speaker until elected by the new Congress. I tried to make that clear in my modification, but had not intended to delete Hastert's name from the table - that was due to my inexperience with the workings of Wikipedia. I do think there should be some reference in this article to the fact that Hastert will not be in this position come January 2007, and it is highly likely his place will be taken by Pelosi. I am not sure how best to do this; I would be grateful for your advice. I respect your position as a far more experienced Wikipedia editor than me! Regards. PHJ 06:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for spotting that (on the Great Pyramid), I didn't notice it myself, glad you did!. --Alf ^melmac 18:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Check out my work on Pharaoh and Cleopatra. I'm fishing for a barnstar! -Husnock 03:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Your uploaded pic is now on deletion requests Scriberius 19:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion request is almost comical since that picture is right out of his SS service record on file with NARA. It appeared that becuase it wasn't available on the internet, people thought the tag was false. Amazing. -Husnock 03:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was nominated for speedy deletion (for not having sources). By converting it to regular deletion I managed to delay the process a bit since I trust you. :) I am trying to rescue it not get it deleted. Would it be possible to somehow source the image to that (maybe a specific number leading to his service record) or better a web reference? My hands are tied by commons policy requiring citation. --Cat out 12:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks pretty well sourced too me. Its in his SS record that anyone can go see at the NARA building in College Park. They can also be called at one of several NARA customer service numbers (the only one I have is 314-801-0800 but there are others). It appeared that someone last year cam to the wrong conclusion that just becuase it wasnt on the internet, it couldnt be verified. Service record photos number in the millions and they are rarely listed on websites. -Husnock 13:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion moved to talk page of the flag image -Husnock 03:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you were concerned enough about privacy to XXXX out your real name in a posting at Image talk:Corpus Christi, Texas flag.svg, you should be aware that your name is clearly visible on the name tag on your uniform at Image:HusnockMidway.jpg. Just trying to be helpful, even if you and I get along like oil and water. --Durin 13:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At least not my first name... -Husnock 13:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You might wish to use this modified version that I made, that blurs out the name: Image:HusnockMidway1.jpg. If you don't want it, feel free to delete it. --Durin 14:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Husnock, I've been reviewing your image contributions and I'm running a cross a number of problems. The issue of posting contact information to verify status aside, there are other edits you are making with regards to rights that are problematic. For example,

• In this edit to Image:Burlington Seal.gif, you state that the image is copyrighted but released for any purpose via the tag (deprecation being a separate issue). Yet, according to the e-mail you received any use for profit is not permitted. This tag is incompatible with the release statement you received. Further, the release is effectively a non-commercial release. This sort of release is not compatible with our policies. Please see {{Non-commercial from license selector}} and {{Db-noncom}}.
• In this edit to Image:Sussex.Seal.jpg, you claim {{norightsreserved}} because of an edit summary made by User:Thatdeguy said the image had "No copyright; government seal owned by the people and commonly found at www.sussexcountyde.gov". This edit summary appears to be making a case that since it's a government seal, it's publicly owned. This sort of case applies only to federal works, and not state/city works. Further, that it is found on a website doesn't make it public domain either.
• You uploaded Image:LexFlag.gif claiming rights are irrevocably released, and that rights were given for use on Wikipedia. These two statements are incompatible. We do not accept images that are granted for use to Wikipedia alone. The copyright holder should be recontacted to ascertain if they are release rights for all uses, not just Wikipedia, and including for-profit uses. If they do not make such a release, then the image should be retagged as fair use and {{Withpermission}} can be added to it. Please see {{Copyrighted}}, as this is a deprecated permission to use on Wikipedia tag which covers this issue. That tag refers to [5] which is a statement from Jimbo Wales regarding the issue.

Respectfully, and with no intent to insult you or otherwise demean your character I submit that you are making a number of mistakes with regards to these tagging issues. I recommend you stop making such changes, or at least request input from other sources before making such changes. --Durin 15:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The manner in which you seem to follow my every edit on this site is somewhat unnerving. In any event, I am waiting for other editors to comment, as previously stated. It seems pretty obvious a policy should be enacted for displaying flags on Wikipedia. This was actually discussed, quite some time ago, with a general attitude that innocent display of flags on Wikipedia was not harmful to the project. As I said before, of the 50+ people I e-mailed/wrote letters to, only 2 had an issue of thier city/town flags being on Wikipedia. The rest pretty much said "who cares?" With all respect to your many efforts, what I see here is one users interpration of Wikipedia policy, and looking at the history of your talk pages it appears several other editors have found cause to question the zeal at which you remove images and demand such exact information about thier sources. With that said, please post further issues to the talk pages of the particular images and/or post to unfree images if you really think there has been a copyright violation. I honestly don't think there have been any violations nor do I believe for one minute that any of those cities or towns are going to be filing lawsuits against Wikipedia. -Husnock 16:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry you feel unnerved by my review of your edits. I have previously become aware of problems with handling of images with your travel page and thus have periodically checked in. This isn't in any form stalking. I have not, for instance, followed your edits into articles. What I have done is addressed issues as they have arisen regarding problematic nature of edits made by you to images or in the use of images. This is simply a problem; problems need to be addressed. I do not find there to be a reason to not address a problem because I have previously discussed problems with an editor before.
• The problem with your contacts to those 50+ people appears, at this point, to be that you are not asking the proper questions. Getting permission to use on Wikipedia is entirely insufficient. There are two broad categories of images on Wikipedia; fair use and free use. Permission to use on Wikipedia is no permission so far as we are concerned. Our content here needs to be freely replicable, for any purpose including for-profit interests. The permissions you have been obtaining are, I fear based on the City of Corpus Christi flag, incompatible with our policies. You should review Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission and Wikipedia:Example requests for permission.
• That a city may or may not file a lawsuit is not a valid claim of release of rights. First, that's a legally improper stance. Second, we will eventually be wrong. Wikipedia is too high profile not to come under inspection for such issues. The foundation is contacted on a daily basis regarding copyright issues from a large variety of people.
• The reason I am addressing you on these matters is that the source of these problems is you. I could bring it up on the dozens of images you have made these edits to, but it would be replicating the discussion over and over and over again with no central place to discuss this issue. Where you have taken up the issue is proper, and my taking this issue up with you here on your talk page is proper as well.
  • "The source of the problems is you". I'm not even going to begin at how close that comes to sounding like a personal attack. Comment on the content, not the contributor.
• If you feel my zeal in conducting this work is excessive, then I recommend you begin an RfC addressing my overzealousness.
  • I dont drag people before an RfC for silly reasons. I simply notice that you seem to following my edits very closely and studying every aspect of what I do. Also interesting, you are very quick to spend all this time on flag images, but not a positive word about other projects I am involved with (see Pharaoh and Cleopatra for something good I have done for thsi site).
• If we can not come to an amicable solution to this, I expect I'll have to start an RfC regarding your edits to images. I would prefer to avoid that, as such an effort is very time consumptive. Please understand that I do not view RfCs as punitive in any respect; it's an opportunity for unrelated parties to comment and help clarify issues. Nevertheless, they are time consumptive and I would prefer to avoid it when this matter is really quite clear. I've found a number of resources that point to my position being correct, and your response at this point has been that you wish to protect the privacy of people whose contact information is already on a website somewhere and that the various cities would never file suit. Can you cite policy and/or guidelines that indicate your position has some basis in policy? I've been looking, trying to keep as unbiased an eye as possible, and have found nothing supporting your position. --Durin 17:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead of threatening with an RfC, why don't listen you to my original suggestion and get the opinions of other editors? To date, noone but you or I has discussed this. Listen to the consensus first before stating you will start an RfC. You should also be aware that I am deployed to another part of the world and, while the past few days have had me able to edit Wikipedia, my duties mught have me offline for weeks at a time in which case I would not have the time to get involoved with something like that. With that said, this is rather tiresome and the real world is calling. -Husnock 03:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Despite my best efforts this exchange between you and I continues to become increasingly hostile. I am not attacking you. I am desperately trying to work amicably with you. That's why I modified the image that has your last name on your name tag, as an olive branch to show good will towards you. Nevertheless, things continue to get worse and worse. You are accusing me of personal attacks, stalking you, not assuming good faith, and threatening you. From my chair, I have done none of these things. I have tried to find basis in policy to support your position, I've previously thanked you for your military service, I've worked to help you with your travel page, tried to educate you about rights issues, and done my best to avoid this becoming a quagmire. Nevertheless, it has.
• As a result, I am therefore stating very simply; you are making errors in your image tagging. I am formally requesting you cease retagging images unless you first get an outside opinion as to how to proceed. I am also formally asking you to provide basis in policy that supports your position.
• For my part, I have dug extensively into policy to confirm your position or mine. What I have found confirms my position, and despite my efforts I can not confirm yours. I have also queried a member of ArbCom regarding this issue, including pointing to the conversations we've had with your comments and assertions included (to hopefully remove bias from my telling of the situation alone). The feedback I have received is that your position is in error. I would be quite happy to concede points on this if there was anything...anything...that suggests your position is not in error. To date, I've found nothing to suggest that. You've been shown elements of guidelines and policy that contradict your position. Please, provide evidence that supports your position. This is my second request for you to do so. If you can't find this, don't you think it would be a good idea to rethink your position? --Durin 12:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be me Durin asked about his position. I concur with Durin and think that policy supports his actions. I appreciate your efforts but I think you've been mistaken in several places,and I believe he is in the right having discovered a few of your mistakes to go and look at some of your other work. There's nothing personal about that: if you've seen someone to have consistently made the same mistakes it seems natural to go and check on them, and I don't see him doing this confrontationally or uncivilly. I realize image copyright is a tricky area and asking others for permissions is often a difficult process; thank you for what you have done. However, Durin's statements of policy are as far as I can see correct; please be sure that your image tagging is in line with what permissions have actually been granted; it's sometimes tricky when people don't specify whether modification or commercial use is permitted and you do have to ask about that specifically unless they state that something is in the public domain (and not simply free to reprint). Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 00:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• And again you've made an error on image tagging. You uploaded Image:AllPharHouses.jpg and marked it as {{pd-self}}. This is improper. While you have some rights with regards to the particular layout of the images on a black background, Sierra Entertainment and Impressions Games retain rights to the screenshots themselves. I've changed the tag on the image to {{game-screenshot}}. I'm begging you. Would you please, please, please stop tagging and retagging images without consulting others more knowledgeable? Please? How can I possibly word this in such a way that you won't find it's a personal attack, stalking you, not assuming good faith, or threatening you? Whatever way that is, please take this as that way. Please. --Durin 19:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No issue at all with that, my knowledge of the computer shots is limited. I was actually using the tag as a temp until having find to research a better one, i.e. a screenshot which is modified by someone on thier computer would it still be a screenshot of the game, etc. Also, there was a heated edit war in progress (appears to still be active base don a post this morning) where the housing pictures are being challenged even though they appear in an article about housing units in Pharaoh. Regarding flags, schedule has picked up and I will have little further time to contact towns/cities. as stated before, 50+ contact most of them said they could care less if thier flag appeared on Wikipedia and among those several stated very clearly the flag was not under any copyright or royalty law. I might just import my entire travel page to my own websspace so the poor flag pictures can live in piece. -Husnock 04:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to clarify; in contacting these towns/cities what exactly did you ask them for? This is very important. --Durin 05:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will have to check and it may take some time, due to my present location. -Husnock 06:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you answer this question please? --Durin 05:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I busy in the Middle East, fighting in a war. Didnt realize this was an emergency question, I was going to answer it when I had time to look. -Husnock 06:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• All I am asking for does not require you to look at anything. From your recollection, what have you asked the various cities? Permission to use on Wikipedia or request for release under a free license? At this stage, my intentions are to begin to assemble all of the various images you have changed taggings on subsequent to contact with various agencies for release and review their status. With that complete, the ones that have been retagged under a free license I will revert to their pre-retagging state. To get them back to a free-license state, you can then take the permissions received from the various agencies and send them to OTRS per the suggestion of User:Finlay_McWalter which tracks with policy. OTRS can then confirm/agree with the messages and retag the images, possibly after such free-license images have been ported to Commons. --Durin 14:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This image Image:AllPharHouses.jpg is a derivative work, its licensing can only be {{game-screenshot}} inclusion in an article will require a fairuse rationale. If you would like me to look at other images you've uploaded just ask. Gnangarra 01:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dont forget you have nominated this article for FA, can I suggest that you withdraw the nomination until the image issues are resolved. Gnangarra 16:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Other major issues with the article like no in-line citations lacking and too complex a TOC. -Husnock 16:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah i did notice that, but I suspect that the article wont be the only battlefield. Gnangarra 17:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Apartment.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.

The above also applies to the following images:

• Image:Apartment.jpg
• Image:CommonShant.jpg
• Image:Homestead.jpg
• Image:Homestead2.jpg
• Image:MeagerShant.jpg
• Image:NoHouse.jpg
• Image:NormalHouse.jpg
• Image:RoughtCot.jpg
• Image:Shant1.jpg
• Image:Shant2.jpg
• Image:SpacRed.jpg
• Image:WhiteApart.jpg

I am not bringing this to your attention to in any way attack you or harass you. You have previously been concerned about content being removed before you had a chance to work on it. I am bringing this notification to help ease such problems. Durin 17:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]