Archives

Automated messages Barnstars and awards Do You Know (DYK) stuff Good Article Candidates (GAC) stuff Featured Article Candidates (FAC) stuff Peer review stuff

Hi Jappalang, you have been invited to attend the SGpedians' meetup on 29 December 2007. We are planning to make this a full day event, but you may join/leave at anytime you wish. If you can or cannot make it, please leave your name here. It will be good to have you at the meetup. Terence (talk) 06:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your time answering my questions. Words' meanings can get so changed around when we use them in English that I didn't to be accidentally insulting anyone by calling Singaporean comics "manhua," and wanted to make sure I understood how things stood organizationally. Thanks again! --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 03:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The now-common usage of the word "manga" is what's sparked all this. It's used in a very general sense by publishing companies (of multiple languages) to mean all "Asian-style" comics; in Japan it's used for all comics, regardless of origin; but Western anime & manga fans (including the Wikiproject Anime & Manga) want it used only for things of Japanese origin or even of foreign origin if they happened to be pubished in Japan first. It's a huge mess. :) Thanks again!--hamu♥hamu (TALK) 03:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for being remiss in thanking you for the extra info you provided the other day about product arrangement at Kinokuniya. Just gets more confusing every day, doesn't it. As long as it's still "acceptable" to consider native Singporean comics a type of manhua in addition to calling them "Singaporean comics", we should be okay -- I hope! :) --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 20:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ever so very much! These will be an enormous help. Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Jappalang, could you tell me about the reliability of these sources? They contradict several sources I hold in the highest regard (including primary sources) in several places, and I'm not sure what to make of it. I have a text file draft on my computer of the finished product using the sources you gave, but I'm not sure which parts should make their way into the actual article. Nousernamesleft (talk) 02:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One last thing: Could you give the page ranges of the parts of the sources you translated (or did you translate the whole thing?) Nousernamesleft (talk) 02:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry I didn't respond to you before. Now that I have time again I'm going to put the article back through FAC, but before I do I will implement the edits you thought would improve the article and try to work it in without loss of data. If you'd like, once these edits are made I can warn you here and we can discuss further edits. Thank you for taking the time to look over the article, though! JonCatalán (talk) 02:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

morning, afternoon or evening, i'm not that bothered though some of the images now render quite small, where is the 'upright' bit in MOS? Tom B (talk) 23:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, that's a great graphic you've added to "Pedra Branca, Singapore" and "Pedra Branca dispute", which I've been trying to improve recently. However, can you correct the spelling of "South Lodge" to "South Ledge"? Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 03:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there!  :)

As someone who's worked on D&D and/or RPG articles before, I'm inviting you to participate in our goal to both improve articles that have been selected to be placed in the next Wikipedia DVD release, as well as nominate more to be selected for this project. Please see the WikiProject D&D talk page for more details. :) BOZ (talk) 17:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Battle of Berlin#Atina Grossman --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 07:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stifle. I had raised the issue that Image:Bilicflickrphoto.jpg was a possible copyright violation at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 October 15 (Flickr page: [1]). From the ensuing discussion, it is clear that the uploader had the misconception that all images on Flickr are free, and had not asked for permission from Sergio Quiros, the owner of the picture in question. As the copyright violation is obvious, should I replace the PUI templates I had placed on the image page with {{subst:db-copyvio|url=source URL}} (or just add it to the page) for speedy deletion, or just leave things as is? Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 01:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've speedied it as a copyvio. You may find {{di-no permission}} useful in this kind of situation in the future. Stifle (talk) 08:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you do not mind but I decided to steal your table on your user page. I like your idea and thought to use it for my page. Hope you're fine with that. See here.--WillC 10:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have had a lot of trouble with this guy's 80% + fake image source uploads and have started a ANI thread about him. He is a disgrace, claiming US-Army on photos of a Vietnamese-prince-cum-French-biochemistry professor. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. He is spinning more tales as his lies are unraveled (see his talk page). Jappalang (talk) 01:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Need a semi-uninvolved admin for a block? See AN/I. -MBK₀₀₄ 02:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer. I won't be blocking him because I also revert a lot of his edits for simply being corny, all the time. He always makes all these articles - first Vietnamese American to graduate from law school, first VA killed in Iraq, first VA to become and army officer etc. and a whole pile of VA guys who became councillors in a small US town (100k people). And then accused me of being anti-Vietnamese. Apart from that sticking "he is a devout anti-communist" almost ad nauseum all over the place. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am taking a break from looking through the images. Is there a way to simply delete them all? I would think that the collatoral damage would be minimal, compared to the strain the user imposes on others to check through his falsehood. If any can be used for "fair-use", I am pretty certain interested editors can find them again via the web. On another note, why are there no templates to declare the information given (author, source, or date) are false? I have to go around, trying to fit db-i9 or npd to the mess. Jappalang (talk) 03:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, only commons has a delete all mode. I don;t think you should worry about tagging it. Some admins are onto it and they'll be deleted without someone having to put an application form on it, like you. It would be good if you voted for the ban though. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed you're one of the people that others listen to when discussion the reliability of online sources, and I'm hoping you can answer a question for me. According to WP:RS, to be considered "reliable" a source must have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"; elsewhere you state the same, the source "must show itself to have professional editorial standards and a reputation." But how exactly can this be shown? It seems to me that we rely on certain heuristics: it's declared "reliable" if it's closely associated with a dead tree publication or major media company, if it has been around for a while and makes enough money that people get paychecks as writers and editors, (sometimes) if it's run by someone well-known for writing for dead tree publication or other reliable sites, or (sometimes) if it happens to be credited more than a few times by other "reliable" sources; otherwise, it's declared "unreliable". A source that does have fact checking and accuracy but lacks the big-name endorsement seems to have little hope of surviving once the "wrong" people come around. I will watch here for replies. Anomie⚔ 00:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of doubt I am one of those people listen to (nor do I have specific expertise in this area) ... Anyway, I do agree with what you say. On this project, reliable tends to mean association with a paper publication or major media company; however, the predisposition of the authors and reviews of books have also been used to declare some of them as unreliable (evidenced mostly in military and historical subjects). I believe the policies and guidelines are tailored to this method, as it is the most convenient form to get agreement and is the common practice in academics and business. The project passes off the judgment of accuracy to the "bigger party" because getting bogged down in disputes over reliability of so-and-so especially in obscure fields of study would prove to be non-productive. Imagine the edit wars and incivil incidents, especially for pop-culture subjects in this period of "free" publishing over the Internet, if the project has to debate over every source used in an article, or has to simply accept them all. The "filter" of commercially-judged reliability, biased or not, helps to cut down the arguments. It is unfortunate for the personal sites of the dedicated hobbyist, who has taken meticulous measures to ensure accuracy in his or her work but is unrecognized by the "commercial" sources. Jappalang (talk) 01:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been watching the discussion at WT:VG/S, your opinions seem well-regarded there. It just disappoints me sometimes that there are some popular culture topics we simply cannot write about because the mainstream media doesn't think its worth covering. For example, Final Fantasy (video game) used to contain a short paragraph about what was changed in each remake, which seems to be a question that a lot of people ask in forums elsewhere. But we had to remove just about all of it, because all any "reliable" source mentions is that graphics were changed and a few extras added.

WP:RS is heavily biased towards academic subjects and mainstream news, as you said. I wish there were some way to keep the standards there while at the same time not eviscerate the non-academic, popular culture articles where peer-reviewed journals don't exist and major media doesn't care. In many cases we can't even use the "expert in the field" clause to get around it, because even if the author knows everything about the topic there is nothing in "the field" to establish experthood. And even if there were a good way to recognize the dedicated hobbyist's experthood (I for one have no ideas there), it would never get consensus past those who would prefer every speck of popular culture be deleted from Wikipedia. Anomie⚔ 03:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot totally blame the mainstream for this. Part of popular culture thrives on sensationalism, and academics and other "serious" studies frown on statements that try to play on the human emotions (several history books have derided ancient historic records for exaggerating accounts, and tried to downplay the events chronicled in ancient scripts for a more accurate re-telling). There is also the pervasive thought that "games are only for kids". I believe WP:ANIME also suffers from this reliable source issue, so WP:VG is not alone in this. A contributing factor to this is the rampant "fanboy-ism" that one faces on casually browsing through the web for anime or video game stuff. One thing the projects can hope is for there to be academic studies that are strictly objective that targets the mainstream audience instead of the niche crowd. I believe this is happening with greater publications (mostly books), but as with all starting ventures, the effects are slow and require time to change perceptions. We might not see it in effect now, but perhaps 20–30 years later... In the meantime, we could work along Wikipedia policies and guidelines, slowly expanding the pool of reliable sources that cannot be casually disputed and increasing the reputation of the project. Jappalang (talk) 09:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the article Maryland and Virginia Rifle Regiment, I modified the color and contrast of the figure at the top of the Infobox (File:Riflemen at Saratoga.jpg) to tone down the screaming yellows and uploaded it to the existing image file. I would like this color-edited version ("21:32, 5 January 2009") to show on my article, which appears to be the case. However, when I click to get the full-resolution image, I get the old, overly yellow version. Plus I made a mess of things by doing a couple of "reverts." Could you help by (1) correctly linking the article image, with the correct full-resolution image, to version "21:32, 5 January 2009" (third version from bottom as seen in the "File history.") and (2) delete my "reverts" (the top two versions in the "File history"), if that can be done. Many thanks. Tfhentz (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I greatly appreciate your help with the figure! I asked about the ISBN # of the one book because according to the MoS, ISBN #'s are "wikified automatically" (Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style). This is what happened with my one other applicable book reference (if a book was published by the U.S. Government Printing Office or was published before a certain date, for example, it doesn't have an ISBN). Just wondering why the same didn't occur with Williams (2005), which should be "eligible." I'll try to add it manually. Cheers. Tfhentz (talk) 14:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much -- it was needed; and it looks much better as an svg. Mike Christie (talk) 22:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So how do you go about creating an SVG image?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have downloaded inkscape, imported the image into the programme and resaved it as a SVG file however i when i upload it here it is not displaying: see

Any ideas whats went wrong?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, that looks great! I just couldnt get my head around that programme, from looking around the net it seems you cant do what i did; which was to copy and past a JPEG into that programme and save it. Did you have to create that map from scracth then?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photo as promised

Source: Tank Combat in North Africa, Thomas Jentz, p. 131

Full book details, i.e. complete title, ISBN etc can be found on the Operation Brevity article at the bottom.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the inclusion of the trivia segment, actually news accounts tell of multiple visits, shock therapy and updated case notes said she drank his blood twice. The point is significant since it had a few headlines of its own [2]. The case is not being reported on because it is still in (extended) recess and the verdict is not out yet. I am currently creating a page for the case but its still WIP as there is a pile of info to go through. Eventually the two pages will be cross linked anyway so its informative to have that in an existing page first. Zhanzhao (talk) 01:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Actually I thought it would be relevant. If I could more details about Adrian Lim's other "clients", I would have made it a whole section by itself. Unfortunately most of his "clients" were either not named nor infamouse enough (with the exception of his 2 wives and Amutha Valli), so I simply put in under the trivia section. Zhanzhao (talk) 01:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I actually don't have ProQuest anymore, I've got LexisNexis/Ebsco and all that stuff, but I was able to find them. Send me an email and I'll reply with the attachments. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could contact an Admin you know about this image: [3] It is still on English WP...so one can't contact a Commons Admin. It likely cannot be kept since Livius does not allow commercial use as you told me on my Commons account. (before I thought it did as you can see from the file history.

• BTW, You should consider placing a link on your Commons userpage account to your Wikipedia account. PS: I didn't know you were even Singaporean. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks. I didn't know the copyright deletion code at all. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I need your assistance. Using the script, reflist|colwidth=40em, allows the multi-column format of my Notes section to adjust to monitors of different sizes in Mozilla Firefox, my preferred browser. However, it doesn't work in Internet Explorer, where the Notes are in one long column. Is there a way to present the Notes in multiple columns in all Internet browsers and auto-adjust to all monitor sizes? Thanks very much. Tfhentz (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. The tracks can also be found on the games, so it would be free if recorded off of the games. However, since it is not the case in File:ThemeofLuBu~DWFireMix.ogg, and since we cannot verify that is the case in File:SWDestiny.ogg, there is nothing standing in your path of deleting the files.

-Cordially yours, BlueCaper (talk) 13:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On closer reading I concede your point on the needles (those were some pretty dense victims...), but I continue to object to "Pragngan". See Talk:Toa_Payoh_ritual_murders#.22Siamese_sex_god_Pragngan.22. Jpatokal (talk) 11:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the 7th criterion of the General section in the Criteria for Speedy Deletion, you are free to delete both File:ThemeofLuBu~DWFireMix.ogg and File:SWDestiny.ogg. Just wait until the weekend. There are some things that must be done before we can erase them from Wikipedia. -BlueCaper (talk) 13:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jappalang,

I'd just like to let you know that I've completed the Esperanto translation of your fascinating article about Toa Payoh ritual murders. It should now be promoted to featured status within a week or so in our own Wikipedia. I really enjoyed working on it and I hope you'll keep up the great work !

Best wishes, Thomas Guibal (talk) 09:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, what is your criteria for notable composers? If it is a greater work ratio, then your listing is off. Takahiro Nishi was the game's sound director and, along with Kenichiro Fukui, composed and arranged more than half the soundtrack. Junya Nakano and Kumi Tanioka should not be included, as they did not contribute enough to be 'worthwhile' by your definition. I'm going to remove both of them and add Nishi as per the guidelines 'you' enforced. Consider doing some actual research beforehand.Raizen1984 (talk) 04:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know how to find us a new main image for Jack Kemp?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed the work you did cleaning up the image I uploaded, File:Richard Neville.jpg, it's much improved. If you find the time, would you mind having a look at another image, File:Guy de Beauchamp.jpg, that's in even worse shape? I'm currently trying to get the article up to GA level, and a slightly better looking picture would help with the visual appeal of the article. Cheers! Lampman (talk) 16:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, whatever you can manage - without altering the original too drastically - is highly appreciated. Lampman (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the work. It's certainly clearer than the original, but maybe a bit too much; it's very harsh and naked. Do you think there is a middle way, perhaps by increasing the contrast without going entirely black/white? Anyway, here's the article if you want to see how it looks in context: Guy de Beauchamp, 10th Earl of Warwick. Lampman (talk) 18:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think that's better, thanks. And it just passed as a GA. Lampman (talk) 17:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with some of the approaches that you take on images, but I can respect them; I certainly don't think your behaviour is totally inappropriate, or anything. It's really just a question of what assumptions we're prepared to make. In the early 1900s, governments obviously didn't take as many photographs as they do today, and those that they took they generally took for the purpose of using. Finding a photograph that we have no reason to believe is a government work and refraining from using it because it might be, even if it seems nearly certain that the photograph would have been published prior to 1958 strikes me as being too cautious, especially given that the doctrine of fair use almost certainly applies to what we're doing anyway. But that's jut my opinion, just as your belief that it's important to be almost completely sure is just your opinion. Sometimes I find your approach frustrating, but I need to bear in mind that it's no less legitimate than mine. Fundamentally, you're obviously doing very good work, and I don't have any problem with you. Does that clear things up? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Nah I've no objection to readding it if consensus exists, I just habitually remove unofficial links from articles. Sorry for screwing up! Thanks! Fin©™ 07:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been doing some heavy work on Agrippina (opera) with a view to a possible FAC. Apart from one, the images were in place when I took the article up. Could you possibly visit, and let me know any problems with these images, so that I can deal with them (there aren't many)? I would be most grateful. Brianboulton (talk) 23:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have now responded to your very helpful image review on the article's PR page. Brianboulton (talk) 00:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The director of Vroma gave me permission to use the images you referenced 3 years ago - I don't know if she was aware they could be used elsewhere (At the time, I don't believe there was an image use statement on their website). I can try e-mailing her again. LaurenCole (talk) 21:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez, I try to move beyond video games (not that Star Trek is too far beyond it) and I still get pegged :P I'll try and do comments at the beginning of the week, I'll be traveling tomorrow. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will be glad to take a look at it, but it may take me a few days. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but my schedule is too full just now to take on additional work. I wish you well with the article! Scartol • Tok 19:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think you could give this article an image review? It is all I think it is waiting for for promotion to FA. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a new category that is being populated by ListasBot. It's pages that are on the list of Biography articles without listas parameter, but where ListasBot can't find the WPBiography tag in the page. It's basically a list of pages that need some human attention to figure out why they're on the list, but don't have the WPBiography tag. In this case, yes, it may have something to do with the fact that Adrian Lim redirects to Toa Payoh ritual murders. Thanks, Matt (talk) 02:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have left comments on the first couple of sections, on the PR page. I wonder, could I ask you to do a small thing for me? Could you go to Aurora's drift, look at the lead, and see if you can come up with a reformulation of the first sentence that doesn't contain the toxic "refers to", and doesn't repeat the word "drift". I've been trying for days without success - perhaps a fresh mind can crack it? Would you have a try? Brianboulton (talk) 18:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your Aurora efforts - most helpful. I must apologise for the delay in getting back to the Battle of Barnet, but I am being occupied by some bother on the talkpage of my current FAC Agrippina (opera). I hope it doesn't turn into an edit war.I will return to Barnet when I can. Brianboulton (talk) 22:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take you pick. Either run through all 11,470 words of Star Trek: The Motion Picture, or review that sad and lonesome Uru: Ages Beyond Myst at FAC. :P I've got spotty internet for whatever reason right now, so I'll get back to the PR probably Wednesday, unless I have lots of homework in which case I'll probably finish the peer review due to inherent desire to not do homework. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aye aye, PR set up whenever you can get around to it. By the way, think about archiving some old talk threads here :P --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I'm kinda loathe to remove info, but I certainly see how you would consider some bits trivia. I'm probably not going have time to get through everything until the next Month (and hopefully the rest of my sources will have arrived by then), but I guess I'll try and solicit more feedback about what could be trimmed on the films project page or elsewhere. Pretty sure you can't buy an eight-foot long model of the Enterprise, but I've got a four-foot model I made out of cardboard for art school if you want that instead :P --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This looks great, the maps are wonderful! I'm quite busy right now, but hopefully I'll get a chance to have a better look at it some time soon. Lampman (talk) 09:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my answer on Talk:612th Tank Destroyer Battalion. The source was written by active duty soldiers, the source content is public domain. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thanks for the message. I do not have access to that image. Maybe Tim does? However, I think the image of Coward in the sharp suit is equally iconic, and it is even taken by a famous photographer. It shows Coward's determination and ambition as well as his keen sense of style. The Hirschfeld image already has him in a dressing gown, so the suit gives more variety, IMO. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all your help on the Noel Coward article. Your efforts have really helped us improve it! All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU for the dedication you've shown to FAC. It's only recently that I've started reading through the majority of the FAC nominations, and your name is consistently popping out. I've been impressed that you are able to keep your cool and discuss the image issues civilly with nominators who might perhaps be confused as to why this is even important. You've also done an excellent job providing enough information to hopefully educate those users so they don't make the same mistakes next time. Your work is very much appreciated :) Karanacs (talk) 00:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, I'd like to associate myself with what is written above. Your work in reviewing images and your constructive comments—in sharp contrast to those of some others—provide wonderful examples of the cooperative approach to article building. I have learned a great deal from your reviews, and from those of Elcobbola before you. One thing I try to do is to get image issues settled before rather than during FACs. With this in mind, can you advise me whether Image:Endurance trapped in pack ice.jpg is PD? It certainly is for Australia, but does that cover Wikipedia? I have a feeling that something like this arose a few months ago and was declared OK, but I can't remember the details. I hope to include the image in Aurora's drift (for which you provided the first line, remember?); I am pretty sure all the other images are OK. Brianboulton (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information on Image:Endurance trapped in pack ice.jpg. I will probably go with it, and do as you suggest if it is challenged at FAC. On Image:Aurora.jpg, I must have read dozens of accounts of Shackleton's expedition, and none have given details of who took the Aurora picture. It wasn't the Ross Sea party photographer, Arnold Spencer-Smith, because he died in the Antarctic. It may have been taken by one of the crew who experienced the drift, it may have been a newspaper photograph, or taken by a passer-by. Since it was published in Shackleton's "South" in US and UK in 1919, I have never doubted its PD status - nor that of any other images in Shackleton's book, all reproduced in the Project Gutenberg edition. Brianboulton (talk) 11:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your continued efforts over this article, and please accept my apologies for overreacing to your comments. I was having a couple of bad days over unrelated issues and reacted instead of thinking things through. Additional comments on at least some of the photos in question, gleaned from searching through Warrack, are on the FAC talk page. Jonyungk (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doublechecking ... my understanding is that all questionable images were removed, but talk page discussion continues at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky to see which can be re-added. Please let me know if my understanding is incorrect. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comments in opposition to date autoformatting, I'd like to point out that one of the core features of any proposed replacement for the current autoformatting was that unregistered ("anon") users see a consistent format within any given article. That feature was actually implemented in several different patches and demo systems that were created over the past few months of discussion, so it's entirely possible to have autoformatting that doesn't result in a mix of formats. --Sapphic (talk) 00:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if you took offense to my message here. I wasn't trying to change your mind, I was trying to get you to make your reasons for opposition as clear as possible. As originally stated, they simply weren't applicable and left open the possibility of your opposition !vote being discounted as "confused" about the situation. And a demo system was working, and tested by several users at MOSNUM, before the developer (UC_Bill) threw a fit elsewhere (unrelated to date issues) and quit the project. It was available for download from his site for a while, and somebody may still have a copy.. but in any case, it wasn't that hard to develop, and it should be easy to reproduce, if the community decides they want that. Cheers, --Sapphic (talk) 01:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Jappalang. I noticed that like me, you are opposed to any form of dates autoformatting. I have created some userboxes which you might like to add to your userspace to indicate your position. Having one in your userspace could deter unwanted canvassing on your talk page. ;-) You will find the boxes here. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Actually, anons will see, in many cases, different formatting from the privileged few editors who insist on selecting a single month-day or day-month order. I dont' know where User Sapphic got this idea that these patches/article tags will make all uniform for all users. Tony (talk) 06:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have discovered the photo of Tchaikovsky and Antonina in Beloved Friend by Catherine Drinker Bowen and Barbara von Meck. This book was published in the United States in 1937. The photo of Mme. von Meck from which the sketch currently in the article was taken is also in this book. Jonyungk (talk) 20:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jappalang. Just so you know, I have posted an update to this FAC page; I got permission for one of the problem images, File:EdMcLain.jpg, and forwarded the e-mail to OTRS. There is not yet any change in status with the other problem image, the fair-use File:243187290 9e3c50a6a3.jpg. As I said in my comment to Fasach Nua later in the FAC, I am willing to consider removing the image if enough people agree that it is a violation of NFCC, but so far I don't see a clear consensus one way or the other so I am waiting to see if anyone else will weigh in. Anyway, just thought I'd let you know about this one small change in case you are no longer watching the FAC. Best, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm...I don't think that will be possible, because the image itself is very old and I don't think the original is still available (according to the e-mail I got from them and sent to OTRS, it's from a 2004 newsletter/bulletin...I wouldn't even be surprised if the image uploaded to Commons is just a scan of the original). Do you think the size of the photo is detrimental in the article? It's not really contributing to the article (I'm mainly just keeping it in out of habit--it was one of the first images I found, so I put it in the article back when there were none, and now there are enough that it's not really needed anymore) other than breaking up some text, so I wouldn't mind removing it if the size makes it useless. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. The other three images there have some reason for being there (the Street Sheet one because the vendor is white and is a woman, so I could avoid looking like all the pictures in the article were of men or of black vendors; the Straatnieuws one because it's the only one I've found so far for a non-English paper; and the StreetWise one because it just seems to be a quality photo, in comparison to most of the blurry, poorly lit ones available at the Commons category), but this one is pretty much in there out of habit, so I am kind of leaning towards removing it again. I'm thinking if text does need to be broken up anywhere, it's more towards the bottom—the images are already starting to get pretty crowded in the first 50% of the article—but there's not really any logical place to put it down there. I guess I'll think on it for a day or so and then perhaps delete it again. Thanks for your input, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here's what I ended up doing. I realized that image is actually somewhat relevant to the second-to-last section, so I moved it down there, with a more descriptive caption. (It's not illustrative enough to allow for, example, fair use, since it doesn't actually show how the paper redesigned itself—in fact, the photograph was taken before the "redesign" happened—but since it's free I figured it's not so much a problem.) To do so, though, I had to move the two newspaper cover images around a bit to make space, which included moving the problem image File:243187290 9e3c50a6a3.jpg to a somewhat awkward spot. I'll have to keep thinking about what to do with it. Anyway, thank you for your advice and suggestions. Best, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestion. I'll look a little more at what might be doable to justify this image...but also, now that some time has passed, I'm also getting more amenable to the idea of removing it altogether, since there's already plenty of images there. I left a message with Moni3 earlier today to ask for another opinion (since opinions at the FAC seem pretty divided), and will keep thinking about what to do...this FAC is getting pretty close to the bottom of the list so I guess I will have to make a final decision soon. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(out) I've decided to go ahead and just remove the image. I left a rationale at the bottom of the FAC. Thanks, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you get the chance, would you be able to have a look at the assorted image concerns raised on this FAC? While I can see the reasoning behind the "not a legitimate fair use image" concern, even though I don't agree, some of the other image-related concerns appear just plain strange to me. Would you be able to have a look, if you've time, and either clarify that there aren't any issues, or explain just what the issues are? (There's currently no image that's essential to the article, except possibly the three maps, but I don't think there are any that aren't a useful addition, so would be reluctant to lose them.) – iridescent 19:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my thoughts after reading the FAC.

• For one, a "pretty picture" definitely is not a requirement for FAs (a reasonable quality is expected, but I shudder to think if we are all expected to render professional quality graphics as our contributions).
• Note that WP:V is expected for image sources (ref: WP:IUP and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-08-11/Dispatches). Hence, the books (from which the data or diagrams the images are based on) are expected to be listed in the image pages ("Source" or "Description" field). The {{cite book}} and other templates can be used. Using <ref> tags and {{reflist}} is optional.
• File:Ramsgate Tunnel Railway entrance at Beach Station.jpg: is the engine of the Hollycombe reconstruction the same as the original (the FAC mentions only the carriages)? I can see what Fasach Nua is getting at; if the reconstructed trains are physically near-replicas, free photos (English law permits freedom of panorama) can be used with the caption "The trains were sold to Hollycombe, who rebuilt them in almost identical condition to their original state." or something like that. Either way, the historical significance angle could be used—the trains as they are used at that time (electrically?) and the condition of the tunnel (has it collapsed now?). However, I had tried to support a similar situation for Idlewild_depot.jpg in Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 28#Idlewild_depot.jpg, but it was deleted.
• On the issue of reliable sources for the images, I think gren might be concerned for the claims that File:Ramsgate tunnels map.png was taken from a blog site, not a government service, and that "Ramsgate Archive" is practically unknown to people outside the Kent region; Google fails to reveal if this is a collection of papers, a department, or a building; is it a part of the Kent Archive Service? Perhaps providing more information on the Ramsgate Archive could resolve his concerns (possibly the others would be more of the book sources needed for the image data)?

On another note, have you tried contacting this trio if they are willing to release some of their photos under Creative Commons 2.0 or 2.0-Sharealike? Similarly, since Subbrit provided the email for the image contributors,[4] perhaps they might be willing to release the images used above under the CC licenses, hence avoiding a lot of issues. Sure, they have to allow for all sorts of uses with the CC-licensed images, but they would have to be attributed by the publishers. Jappalang (talk) 03:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding sourcing the two fair use images, although I took them from SubBrit, they won't be the copyright holders, but will have found them somewhere else, as they long-predate SubBrit. I suspect sourcing them would be virtually impossible. The one showing the train, tunnel and station or will almost certainly have been bought from a stall-holder with a large box of "historic photos" at either a county fair (or similar), or a specialist event for railway enthusiasts. The air-raid shelter one is almost certainly a government photo and hence exempt under the 50-year Crown Copyright rule – I can't imagine they would have allowed the public to be taking photographs of the inside of military installations during wartime – but it's impossible to prove.
• The issue regarding the train is complicated; basically, what's shown in the photo is an engine, which no longer exists in this form as it was converted from a self-contained electric train to a carriage to be hauled by a steam locomotive. Even were one to grant that the carriages at Hollycombe would make an acceptable substitute for "what they looked like", it still wouldn't show the relationship between the size of the train and the size & shape of the tunnel – the relative size of the trains and the tunnel is so central to the two key factors differentiating this from other railways (the relative height of the tunnel allowed overhead power lines and hence electrification; the relative width of the tunnel provided space for the "around the world" exhibits and hence the whole "World Scenic Railway" thing). The image also shows the unusual "separate platforms for boarding and alighting" layout of the station. Yes, I could draw a diagram of the width of the tunnel and the width of the train, but I don't feel it would illustrate it as well; likewise I could draw a diagram of the station layout (as I did with Hellingly) but I think the image illustrates it better than a diagram would, as well as avoiding the need for three separate images (layout of the station; layout of the tunnel; appearance of the trains). I've tried to explain this on the FAC but don't think I'm doing a very good job. (According the the SubBrit website – which isn't a reliable source but I've no reason to doubt it – the tunnel has collapsed now; even if it hasn't, it's thoroughly sealed up so it wouldn't be possible to take a fresh photo of the inside of the tunnel.)
• The Ramsgate Archives no longer exist, which is why you're having trouble finding information on them. They were housed at Ramsgate Library, but the library was destroyed by fire a few years ago; they're now housed at East Kent Archive Centre in Dover. The map in question will be part of the collection cataloged here as "Ramsgate Borough Plans & Photographs" – I have no idea how one would go about citing that.
• I haven't contacted anyone else regarding releasing photographs, other than Pyrotec who is himself the copyright holder of a couple of photographs; in all honesty, this is such a low-traffic article that I don't think it warrants investing large amounts of time and effort. (It includes a link to the SubBrit archive, which contains large numbers of photographs, for any reader who wants to see more.) The only image which I'd consider essential is the "ugly" geographical diagram of the layout of the lines; everything else is useful but not absolutely necessary.

Thanks very much for having a look at this! – iridescent 13:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stifle, could you check if ticket #2321205 is meant for all screenshots of the Acid2 test, or just for specific screen captures? The screenshots in question are in Acid2 (examples for quick reference: File:Acid2 reference.png, File:Ie7acid2.png, File:Acid2iPod.png, etc). I have raised the question of the ticket in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Acid2. Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 01:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What we have is permission for "the Acid2 image". Hope that helps. Stifle (talk) 13:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment, I hadn't really thought about it. I'm rather hesitant about using any of the reconstructions because they are either a) dead wrong (in terms of the pronated hands), or possibly inaccurate in context (I'm not sure if Utahraptor has actually been found with feathers, and either way it doesn't have feathers in Bakker's book so I wouldn't want to misrepresent his work.) I contacted the Flickr user you mentioned about grabbing the image for free use. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jappalang. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Changeling (film)/archive1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Steve ^{T • C} 23:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to your opposition over the images at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Han Dynasty/archive1.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I responded again.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Just to be safe, I have stricken File:Que, or pillar gate, at the Wu Family Shrine.jpg from the article, until I can go to the library tomorrow and confirm if the picture was not published until 2005, or sometime earlier (i.e. 1923 or before). Is that the last obstacle for you to strike your opposition?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Jappalang! Congratulations on breaking WikiProject Singapore's 18-month FA drought with your masterpiece, Toa Payoh ritual murders! Besides writing GAs and FAs about computer and video games, I encourage you to write more Singapore-related GAs and FAs. Several SGpedians are planning a project to get Singapore-related articles on the Main Page on National Day. Please consider contributing to our project, either by improving Singapore in Malaysia so it attains GA status (and earns a slot in "On This Day", where it will appear every 9 August), or by writing a DYK or two (prepare it in a user subpage and move it to mainspace on 5 August). Kindly inform me, by the end of the month, how you plan to contribute. Thank you in advance and happy editing! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 06:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! I just visited the library as promised, and I am relieved to find out that I can add the picture back to the article! I checked out Recarving China's Past at the library and found out that the que pillar-gate picture was originally published in Mission archéologique dans la Chine septentrionale by Édouard Chavannes (Paris: E Leroux, 1909-, Series Publications de l'École française d'Éxtrême-Orient, vol. 13, pt. one.) So, Jappalang, since the picture was originally published before 1923, can I add File:Que, or pillar gate, at the Wu Family Shrine.jpg back to the article now?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look as soon as I can, but it will probably be a week or more before I can get to it. If you don't hear from me by Saturday 2 May, please give me another holler on my talk page. Scartol • Tok 13:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, look at that! I got it done ahead of time. WOO! (There's a first time for everything.) Scartol • Tok 13:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'll have a look as soon as I can. If you don't hear from me before the 10th, please remind me. Scartol • Tok 11:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully I'll get to those questions as soon as I can. I'm all tired out from moving images around yesterday! =) Just kidding. I was sick this weekend and had to get grades finished for school. Soon as I can, tho. Scartol • Tok 12:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry for the many delays — I finally got a chance to catch my breath, so I've responded to your questions and comments. As always, if you have any questions, ask away! Scartol • Tok 00:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Found the following on Talk:Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky. Jonyungk (talk) 03:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to {{PD-RusEmpire}} - photos published in the Russian Empire and which weren't published within 30 days on the territory of Soviet Russia are not eligible for copyright. Hence, any photos pre-1917 which were first published in the Russian Empire are public domain -- even those which come from Novosti. --Russavia ^Dialogue 12:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I most strongly disagree with the conversion of the SVG diagrams to JPEGs at 243 Ida. The SVG of crater Fingal contains a print-resolution overview of Ida which is lost in your version. The crater itself is stored at the native resolution in the SVG, but in the JPEG it is upsampled. WP:IUP says that photographs should be in JPEG format, but this is a drawing with photographic elements, and the policy recommends an SVG in this case. If you have a reason for converting the images that I've missed, please explain at FAC/243 Ida. Also, the rasterized version of the Fingal diagram is a faithful reproduction of the original, therefore you must name its authors instead of yourself. Wronkiew (talk) 01:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw the notes that you posted to the FAC page. I'll take another look at this in a few hours. Wronkiew (talk) 01:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jappalang, as you know Dincher and I work on Pennsylvania state parks articles and I just found an official website that has many photos of state parks that seem to be free as long as they are attributed: "Feel free to download the images you see to promote Pennsylvania state parks, but be sure to credit the Pennsylvania Bureau of State Parks." We are about to take Cherry Springs State Park to FAC and one complaint raised at its peer review was that there was no photo of the Woodsmen's Show in the article. There is such a photo here which would be great to use. Does the statement make these photos free to use here? If so it would be a great help to the Cherry Springs article now (we have found no other free photos of the show) and to all the articles on the parks pictured. If you could let me know about using these photos I would appreciate it very much. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick reply. I understood the notice about the photos to apply only to the eight Photo Tours pages, not all DCNR photos (the same notice appears on the main Photo Tours page and on all seven subpages, but nowhere else on the DCNR's webpages I have found). I will contact the DCNR and see if they can clarify this if you still think that is needed. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, one of our goals is to get photos for all 120 Pennsylvania state park articles. There are several parks that have photos in the "photo tour" pages which currently do not have a photo on Wikipedia. There is an intact Kinzua Bridge picture on the photo tour which would seem to be free, I am not as sure about the photos on the Kinzua Bridge State Park website, although the historic one appears to be from the reconstruction and thus pre-1923. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS There are many PennDOT photos of bridges that were covered by that one OTRS ticket - if I uploaded them, would I just have to add the same ticket notice? Thanks again, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks yet again - I will contact DCNR and ask for clarification. I also will look to see if I have the OTRS email from PennDOT (I think I got a copy but am not sure). My recollection was that any of the photos taken for a survey of bridges for inclusion on the NRHP was covered, but I will look at the example you provided and the email. Thanks so much, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm contacting a few people who took an interest in the video games WikiProject guidelines last year, to let them know of a project I'm working on. It's strictly in the interest of collecting information, but I think that information could prove useful for refining our guidelines and policies.

Please check in at this discussion, if you find a moment. Thanks in advance, Randomran (talk) 19:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to weigh in at this FAC - the article has five fair use images, which is a bit unusual. Awadewit (talk) 18:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jappalang. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, I have responded to your comments at the fac review of Elwood Haynes. I have removed several of the images and added a couple back that are PD. I have also provided better source information for a couple to show they are PD. There is a couple though that I think we could keep as fair use, could please check that out that let me know what you think? Thanks! —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, and thanks for the follow up. I see the point of your verifiability statement, and have removed all the images in question. I have added in their place a photo from a 1919 book, a user created photo, and a 1919 company advertisement. I think those, along with the other images should be enough to be acceptable to meet the FA requirement for images. I feel the ones removed have more value, but until I can get a chance to return to the museum and get more detailed source information, I am not sure what else to do. I should be able to get that info maybe in a week or so. Please check it out again whenever you have a chance. Thanks —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my article Checkers speech, I use two screencaps from the speech. I believe them to be free use images:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Checkers_speech.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Patnixoncheckers.JPG

based on the following:

• http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/gallery/2009/jan/23/nixon-on-film?picture=342251286
• http://www.buyoutfootage.com/pages/titles/pd_na_276.php
• http://books.google.com/books?id=u7po7vT_oIwC&pg=PA81&dq=checkers+speech+emile&as_brr=3&client=firefox-a (bottom of page, footnote 62).

Obviously if the film is public domain, a still or screencap from it is public domain.

Thoughts Thanks for your help.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

	<font=3> Thanks again for your help with images - Cherry Springs State Park made featured article today! Dincher (talk) and Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS I made a Commons template as you suggested for the Pennsylvania DCNR state parks free photos - see the photos here Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, there are 135 bridges at least on the NRHP covered by the PennDOT license, so I will make the template for that next. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jappalang - I've changed the picture like you suggested. The other one was listed as PD until today (seems you can't always trust what an uploader says about an image's source...) Grutness...wha? 12:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is in the public domain..... --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 15:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jappalang, I was wondering if you would be able to provide me with some advice/assistance in relation to an image and FAC? There is a biographical article I recently created and worked on which I feel is close to FA, so I've been thinking about taking it through the FAC process. However, I am concerned with one of the images in the article. There are three images within the article—all of which fall into the Australian public domain—but one of them was taken in February 1951, which is out of the US PD. I really don't want to loose this image from the article as it is the lead image and is the only one available that is actually on the article's subject, so I was wondering if there is anything I could or should do to retain the image if I do take it through FAC? I would be very grateful for any advice or assistance would be able to provide. Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You assume correct. :) Would I attach the fair use tag while retaining the PD-AUS tag? Thanks for the reply. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Thanks very much for the help, mate. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 03:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed but anyway can you read PD-Australia again? I think it does actually say "created in Australia"; I presume that means photo taken and not where the picture was exposed to silver bromide and all that YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 07:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Woof. Well, I've bow wowed to your advocacy and fetched new images. I'm going to play dead while you go take another look.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're a busy person, I know, but in accordance with my belief that prevention is better than cure, I'd like to raise a couple of image queries concerning an article that I have in progress. The article in question is Bedrich Smetana; none of my work appears there at present, since all my research is in a sandbox. However, I would appreciate your comment on the image of Smetana that appears in the article. To me its licencing looks suspect – author unknown, no details of where originally published, so is it PD? There are two other (better) Smetana portraits on Commons (Image:FriedrichSmetana.jpg and Image:BedrichSmetana.png, but again author and source information is missing in each case. Would my best bet be to choose one of these images and make a fair use rationale on the basis that it might still be in copyright? Your advice (in prose or verse) would be much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 20:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your rapid and extremely helpful reply. Brianboulton (talk) 08:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helping get Caversham, New Zealand to Features Article status! The little gold star was added to the top about an hour ago... Grutness...wha? 06:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind giving Jerry Voorhis, currently at FAC, an image check? Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on getting Oklahoma City bombing ready for FAC, and I had a question with this image. The image shows a portion of the outdoor Oklahoma City National Memorial as well as the "Field of Empty Chairs". The chairs appear to be a form of artwork, and after a suggestion at a peer review of the article, it was recommended that you take a look. The memorial itself is a part of the National Park Service, but the chairs were designed by independent artists, so I'm wondering if it is necessary to include a non-free license tag (and FUR) for this image. Here's a closeup of the chairs, and mention of the chairs' construction can be found here. Let me know if you need further details. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back to me. There are a few sentences on the Field of Empty Chairs which describe the significance of their design. Would that be acceptable for use of the image? If not, does the gate in the same image qualify as artwork (in the background of the image)? There are a few images on Commons with the reflecting pool and gates, so if this image doesn't work, we could use one of those. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I was unsure if the gate was considered architeture/art, thanks for clarifying. I just got permission for an image on Flickr to upload to the article of the reflecting pool and gate to replace the one with the chairs. Thanks for your assistance, I appreciate it. Hopefully you can take another look at the images when it goes to FAC at some point. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link to the map here at Wiki. It is now used in the article.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the Village Pump, and the one guy who has commented thus far thinks that the rubbing picture is ok and classifes as PD-art. So, what to think?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On 26 May, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bedřich Smetana, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 02:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest in this article, and for fixing the DYK. I have now finished drafting my expansion, but there is clearly more work necessary, especially around the lead and "Music" sections. Unfortunately I shall be away from Wikipedia for approx 8 days, so I won't be able to work on the article until around 3/4 June, but if you have time for any further suggestions/comments I'd be very happy to have them. Or you may wish to save them for a formal Peer Review. Brianboulton (talk) 10:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really impressed by the hard work you've put into the article, especially the maps. Ning-ning (talk) 21:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For your amusement- not only is Atherstone the real site of the Battle of Bosworth, it's also the "real" site of the last battle between Boudicca and the Romans (Graham Webster), contains the most pubs on its High Street of any British town and has a regular 810 year old game of "football" without rules or goals in which hundreds of people take part. Ning-ning (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me too, great article, good luck with nominations. NVO (talk) 07:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you get the chance, to save tying up space at FAC, can you have a skim over the images on Battersea Bridge before I submit it? All but one of the photos are by either myself or User:Tarquin Binary, so there shouldn't be any problems with those, but a couple of the paintings might have insufficient info. (I can't find a date for File:Johnspencer.jpg, but as Gainsborough died in 1788 it shouldn't be an issue.)

Nothing will happen at least until Vauxhall Bridge's FAC closes, so no rush at all. Thanks in advance… (Yes, I know Earl Spencer's looking out of the page, but there isn't an obvious place to move him to.) – iridescent 01:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have replied to you on my talk page just in case anyone else passing by wants to chip in; basically, can reliably confirm the subject but not the artist. – iridescent 15:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, at WT:SG we're discussing creating an incidence map, and your name popped up. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 08:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jappalang. I'm working on improving Alamo Mission in San Antonio. I really like one of the images that was included File:PostcardTheodoreRooseveltSpeechAtTheAlamo.jpg, but I wanted to check that this would make it through FAC as a PD image. I've beefed up the description and dates, but I'm not sure whether the catalogs I've been able to find would count as reliable sourcing for this information. You have a great deal more experience with images than I do - do you think this is satisfactory? Karanacs (talk) 19:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's been a lengthy dispute at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jackie Robinson/archive2 about whether several fair-use images have strong enough rationales. As someone who has a great deal of experience in this department, could you please visit this FAC if you get time? Giants2008 (17-14) 01:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jappalang: Just wanted to alert you that I have posted some coments in your Bosworth peer review. Hope they are of some use to you. (BTW, I now see that you mention "House of York" in first para. But still think my York/Lancaster point has merit.) Hartfelt (talk) 15:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jappalang: I looked at your edits on the Commanders section. Made a few tweaks. I think it's a real improvment by streamlining and adding the intro. I do, however, find the concentration on Wales confusing in the para about Henry. Why is this relevant in the commander section? Because most of his troops were Welch? Just seems a little ouit of left field as it stands now. Good luck and keep up the good work. Hartfelt (talk) 17:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you (or anyone watching this) thinks I'm trying to slip things past the image review, the version currently at FAC has two additional images added since you reviewed them. I'm (fairly) confident that File:Grimshaw Battersea Bridge.jpg doesn't have any problems, but you might think the rationale on File:Joseph bazalgette.jpg is inappropriate – this was taken from de-wiki's article, and I don't know where they got it from (although de-wiki's usually very hot when it comes to potentially unfree images). We do have an alternative image of Bazalgette if it proves necessary, but the quality is much poorer; since Bazalgette died in 1891 it's hopefully reasonable to presume that a photo of him as a relatively young man can safely be assumed to be in the public domain. – iridescent 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for that one! – iridescent 12:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, I'm a member. Had OTRS access since October '08. :) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not letting you know :P Really I only got it because I wanted to not bug others when checking images at FAC. If you run up to that kind of issue a lot or upload lots of OTRS images you might as well beg ask for access yourself. :) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Careful now, otherwise I'll make you an offer you can't refuse... :P --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I have nominated Scream/Childhood for peer review. I would like to send it to FAC over the summer. Any assistance is appreciated. Any assistance or advise with the fair use material is especially appreciated. — R² 11:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks for your feedback. I agree the music video to "childhood" could go. I'll strength the rationals, per your advise. Cheers :) — R² 12:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objections to the story of Rhys's shuffling with the letter of his vow being deleted from the article on the Battle of Bosworth Field. I did mention it merely as an aside. I agree that most historians don't mention the story, but Winnie evidently had it from somewhere. I'll try and create an article on Rhys some time. A good source would be Griffith, Ralph A. Sir Rhys Ap Thomas and His Family:A Study in the Wars of the Roses. University of Wales Press. ISBN 0708312187.Unfortunately, I don't have this work to hand.

I trust my other corrections to Welsh and English usage were not unwelcome. HLGallon (talk) 15:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I must congratulate all who have worked on this excellent article. I have made of few edits today and left one in-line question regarding "fugitives" in phrase in did not understand. The article is beautifully written and a joy to read. Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 16:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jappalang. I'm probably going to slap myself over the headache this could cause, but it needs to be done. :-) Could you do an image review of Brazilian battleship Minas Geraes for its second FAC? Awadewit cleared them the first time around, but I was under the impression that http://www.naval.com.br/index.htm ("Poder Naval Online") was the official site of the Brazilian Navy at the time. The images that this would affect are File:E Minas Geraes 1908.jpg, File:Minas Geraes 1909.jpg and possibly File:Minas Gerais after refit.jpg (Whitley states that this is a "NHC" (Naval Historical Center) photo...?). All three are credited to the Brazilian Navy, but I am not sure if Commons:Template:Attribution-NavyofBrazil would cover them. Thanks and cheers, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 04:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]