User talk:TechnoFaye

Image:Abigail brittney hensel twins.jpg

Hey, thanks for uploading this image. But I believe we can foster Wikipedia goal to promote free content even more if we produce a free alternative for this image. Do you know about someone with enough drawing skills to produce an equivalent diagram based on the information on this one (and the info on the article and it's sources)?

And according to our policy, we avoid any replaceable unfree material. But, of course, thanks again for the initiative to help. Keep on the good work. --Abu Badali 15:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Shock Sites

I saw your comment about the Shock Site page and its needing to be expanded but no one is able to. Every bit of information that is added is repeatedly deleted by the same administrator over and over again. He originally voted to have the entire page deleted. Shock Sites like Meatspin need your help. Please sign this Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Mangojuice Ciper 16:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Privacy

Please see this edit summary of mine. What you did was out of lines and what /b/ does shouldn't affect this. The pictures were not meant for public viewing. Also read WP:BLP. Yanksox 01:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Abigail and Brittany Hensel

I added a comment replying to your question. -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 13:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

hensel pic

The issue isn't who the picture is OF, but who owns it. If Ansel Adams takes a picture of Tom Cruies's car at the mall and you steal it and put it on wikipedia, it's Ansel Adams who has a right to get pissed off; Tom Cruise doesn't have anything to say about it. In this case, the Hensels owned the photo in question, so that was why they got to make the decision, not because it was a picture OF them.

see my comment on the hensel article talk page about the Life mag pic Faye Kane 03:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 22nd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 4	22 January 2007	About the Signpost

Wikipedia modifies handling of "nofollow" tag	WikiWorld comic: "Truthiness"
News and notes: Talk page template, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

re Image:Abigail brittney hensel twins.jpg

I have deleted this image because:

1. Although Life magazine no longer exists, the Time-Warner corporation certainly does, and holds the copyright.
2. This is, in my opinion, too much information for a fair use image. Fair use text may be quoted in small amounts to help illustrate, but may not be copied in in paragraph-size blocks to help create the substance of the article. In the same way, this image doesn't just illustrate, but forms a significant part of the substance to the article. This is why the magazine cover illustration may be fair use, but this image is not, in my opinion.
3. It would be very difficult to replace this with a free image, but not utterly impossible.

Sorry. If you think this image was deleted in error (which is certainly possible), you may take the issue to WP:DRV. Thank you for your work on the Wikipedia, cheers, Herostratus 05:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 29th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 5	29 January 2007	About the Signpost

Foundation names advisory board, new hires	Court decisions citing Wikipedia proliferate
Microsoft approach to improving articles opens can of worms	WikiWorld comic: "Hyperthymesia"
News and notes: Investigation board deprecated, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 18:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No personal attacks

Hi. Please remember to avoid attacking the character of other contributors. This, for instance, is completely unacceptable. Jkelly 03:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

re Image:Abigail brittney hensel twins.jpg

I've restored the image, and listed it at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 January 31#:Image:Abigail brittney hensel twins.jpg. This page is seriously undermanned and I doubt that much useful discussion will be generated. If no resolution is reacherd here, I will feel duty-bound to delete the image as copyright violation, sorry. I do recognize your good intentions in trying to make the article the best it can be.

Basically, we don't use copyrighted material. Yes, an exception is made for for fair use images, but even that is made reluctantly and defined as narrowly as possible, and the Foundation would like to - and may, in the future - get away altogether from fair-use images.

And this is not a publicity photo that is given away for free to publicize someone (and even those generally are not allowed). This is a drawing that cost Time-Warner a lot of money I'm sure, and that they would most likely be unhappy to see passed around on the internet.

All this is because a bedrock principle of the Wikipedia is that any part of it may be re-used by any person for any reason at any time. This is considered by the Foundation to be more important then that the Wikipedia be of the highest possible quality. I recognize that deleting this image would detract from the article and therefore from the encyclopedia, but this is the policy of the Foundation, for good or ill. I myself find this maddening at times but you can't fight city hall.

As you say "It is quite impossible [to replace this with a free image], absent drawing one yourself". Well, we do have artists around. You can make a request at Wikipedia:Requested pictures, although of I do recognize that realistically this probably won't work. But I\if no volunteer artist can be found, and if a detailed anatomical drawing of the twins is deemed essential enough to the 'pedia, then the Foundation should commission one, and absent that we shouldn't steal Time-Warner's work.

Again, thanking you for your contributions, and sorry we have to butt heads over this... Herostratus

Talk:Abigail and Brittany Hensel

I have completely removed this section from this page; talk page guidelines require that all discussion remain focused on the article and not on the contributors thereto. Further, we must ask that you read and understand civility guidelines and avoid making personal attacks against other editors.

Finally, we point you to Wikipedia policy on the fair use of images and other media and where and how to use them. Many Wikipedia editors are working diligently—and, usually, correctly—to remove media that could potentially expose the project to legal action.

Thank you for understanding, and we hope you will take the time to read policies and guidelines, put in place to make us all better editors. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 15:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

violation of WP policy

you deleted my pic and, following WP policy to the letter, I had another admin undelete it and place it in the delete consideration list so others could comment on it first.

You then bypassed that process and deleted it directly from the consideration list mere hours after it had been placed there, not giving others a chance to comment.

please put it back per WP policy; that is what the image delete consideration list exists for.

What you did is the equivalent of being a judge who found someone guilty, then bursting into the courtroom during the appeals hearing shouting "guilty! guilty!" and ordering the guards to drag the accused back to his cell and that the hearing be stopped.

the proper thing to do would be to leave your MESSAGE about why you think the image should be deleted, not unilaterally disrupt and destroy the deletion review process.

please respond on my user talk. note that "I think the image should be deleted" is insufficient response, as it ignores the issue under discussion. The issue under discussion is that the delete consideration list is the WP procedure for appealing a deletion, and you have disrupted that procedure.
Sys Hax 17:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Please, understand I'm not (and had never been) and Admin, and have no power to delete (or undelete) any image. Btw, thanks for writing a whole message void of personal attacks.--Abu badali ^(talk) 19:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 5th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 6	5 February 2007	About the Signpost

Foundation organizational changes enacted	Group of arbitrators makes public statement about IRC
AstroTurf PR firm discovered astroturfing	WikiWorld comic: "Clabbers"
News and notes: More legal citations, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to Wikipedia:Username

Do not allow incorrect grammar to stand on any policy page where you find it. (Thanks for fixing it!) —Doug Bell talk 08:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 12th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 7	12 February 2007	About the Signpost

US government agencies discovered editing	Comment prompts discussion of Wikimedia's financial situation
Board recapitulates licensing policy principles	WikiWorld comic: "Extreme ironing"
News and notes: Picture of the Year, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 19th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 8	19 February 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor
Arbitrator Dmcdevit resigns; replacements to be appointed	Essay questions Wikipedia's success: Abort, Retry, Fail?
In US, half of Wikipedia traffic comes from Google	WikiWorld comic: "Tony Clifton"
News and notes: Brief outage, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for 24 hours for incivility. Please take a break. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 18:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 26th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 9	26 February 2007	About the Signpost

Three users temporarily desysopped after wheel war	Peppers article stays deleted
Pro golfer sues over libelous statements	Report from the Norwegian (Bokmål) Wikipedia
WikiWorld comic: "Pet skunk"	News and notes: New arbitrators appointed, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

"Bowdlerizing Luddites", external links, and leaving Wikipedia

You wrote: I used to be excited about WP, but not any more; I have all but quit editing. You say WP is not a democracy. Right. It is a dictatorship of the few, and something I choose not to participate in anymore. Only when people aim their attention at providing informational content for wikipedia instead of erasing and destroying it because it gives them a rush, will wikipedia be truly generally useful. As it is now, WP is being destroyed from within.

Faye, I understand your frustration with the process and rules that govern Wikipedia. However, you have to take into account the fact that Wikipedia isn't just a little website published by some guy in his basement. It's high-profile, and is getting more so every day. We must take all necessary steps to make sure it is in line with copyright law, and those who work on that are generally seen as helping Wikipedia. It may appear that those, like the Abu you mentioned, are on some sort of power trip, but I can all but assure you that they are not (well, some people are, and that's truly a shame, but most really are trying to help the enyclopedia). "Fair use" has its basis in law, and those images that really do not qualify as fair use need to be removed, or else the existence of the project is put in jeopardy. What we really need, in order to make Wikipedia better, is a group of qualified individuals willing to create necessary illustrations (as well as individuals ready to take professional-quality photographs of hard-to-capture subjects like celebrities). That's a major limitation we have, being non-profit, that we can't pay people to do what a paper encyclopedia would. That doesn't mean we can just "steal" the work of others to make up for it, though. Aside from media we're granted the right to include, we have to follow fair use very carefully.

Now for the video external link; I've argued for its exclusion, although I haven't removed it again. It does appear to have some use, as there are some clips from it, although I don't see that it is terribly useful. I'm actually not all that fond of external links in general, as they direct readers elsewhere, when the purpose of an encyclopedia article is to try to sum up the available knowledge in one place.

That said, I ask you not to stop editing Wikipedia. You obviously have a desire to see it bettered, and I'm sure you can help in doing that. The attrition rate is pretty high these days, with people getting fed up with working within the constraints of policy, but you can still do a lot within those boundaries. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 14:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 5th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 10	5 March 2007	About the Signpost

New Yorker correction dogs arbitrator into departure	WikiWorld comic: "The Rutles"
News and notes: Picture of the Year, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Ld02.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ld02.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} 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 {{Non-free fair use in|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 tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali ^(talk) 21:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, TechnoFaye. You tagged the above mentioned image as a movie poster, but still described it as a studio still. Could you check this little discrepancy? Also, consider adding some sort of verifiable source information to it. Let me know if I can be of any help. Best regards, --Abu badali ^(talk) 21:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Tt3.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Tt3.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} 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 {{Non-free fair use in|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 tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali ^(talk) 21:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

When and where was this image released as promotional material? Thanks, --Abu badali ^(talk) 21:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration re: Abu badali

Hi. I am writing you because you were one of the respondants on the RfC about Abu badali that was started back in November. There has been no substantive comment there for over a month and User:Abu badali has never bothered to respond to the RfC. The last comment on the talk page of the RfC was a suggestion to take it to arbitration, which is what I propose we do. Accordingly, I have created a shell/draft listing to add to the list of Arbitration Committee matters here. I've listed your new there, preliminarily, as a complaintant. If you are not interested in participating, please remove your name. If you are, please add your comments as we must prepare a 500 word summary of the case. Thanks for your attention - Jord 15:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 12th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 11	12 March 2007	About the Signpost

Report of diploma mill offering pay for edits	Essay tries to clarify misconceptions about Wikipedia
Blog aggregator launched for Wikimedia-related posts	WikiWorld comic: "Cartoon Physics"
News and notes: Wikimania 2007, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I struck out your additional endorsement on the RfC

Here, because you've moved user accounts you should only be voting/endorsing once on any given subject. SeeWP:MEATPUPPET#Voting_and_other_shows_of_support. I'm sure it was a mistake, so feel free to remove the endorsement yourself. Cheers. Megapixie 03:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense

Regarding this edit. Don't talk nonsense. You might not agree with Abu Badali (and Wikipedia:Fair use criteria but that he does it because he thinks it's funny or deliberately fooling new editots, is nonsense. And that's besides the fact that it's not so clear regarding this site if it is public domain or not. Garion96 (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Please also read Wikipedia:Canvassing and stop contacting every user who has/has an image tag placed by Abu Badali. Garion96 (talk) 18:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I blocked you for 24 hours for vote/rfc spamming. Garion96 (talk) 18:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi!

Hi! I am relatively a new user and I have no problems with User:Abu badali. So I will stay away from the RfC. Thanks for your understanding, and the comment too :)--Scheibenzahl 18:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Abu badali is a symptom not the disease

I recently read your post to my talk page about User:Abu badali, while yes his tone is designed to be divisive and as off-putting as the pictures he likes to place on his userpage - he is not the real problem. The real problem is that wikipedia's standards on photos are in flux. There is a division between people like him who view the standards with an exceedingly legalistic sense, and others like me who hold that such things as the fair use clause on illustrating a subject are far wider than the other camp maintains.

This became apparent to me when I had a photo of a mid-level Bolivian minister who took up a job at the world bank deleted. Though there is no free image of this person anywhere and the photo was a promotional photo by the world bank the person calling for its deletion (who was not Abu badali) pointed out that it was humanly possible for someone sometime to get a photo of this person and so it was deleted. This seems bizarre to me as the only way a person could get such photos is to break the law and stalk these people with a high powered camera. The camp of the deletors is not limited to Abu badali and unless some more definite standard is formed this struggle will continue. Wikipedia's sister Wikinews now prevents any uploading of non-free images and bans any citing fair-use and it may be that Wikipedia will go that route.

I believe that if there are fewer images on its pages fewer people will use Wikipedia. The net is a visual medium and people like to have images to illustrate subjects. It is unfortunate that Abu badali takes such perverse glee in his actions against photos but he is covered by the current flux concerning what photos are acceptable and what are not. Moving against him personally seems pointless to me as he can argue for his interpretation of the rules and there is a camp of people that might well rally to that. More importantly the amount of glee that he obviously derives from this indicates that even if he is banned and his IP is blocked he'll just get a new ISP and a new username to continue to get his jollys in this manner. Unless the standards on photos are declared more explicitly not only will banning him not insure others of his camp don't continue his crusade, but it will only be a temporary nuisance to him and he'll just log on with a different name from a different Internet provider or a coffee shop, library, workplace, or school. This is because deleting photos from articles and seeing people's reactions is what gets him off. Only by arguing for a clearer standard can these kind of conflicts be ended altogether.

--Wowaconia 21:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:My image deletion problem

Hi,

Thank you very nuch for your kind message. I appreciate the moral support. But I think that in my case Abu badali did do his homework at least insofar as obtaining license restrictions in pdf from the parties involved etc. He has a few not so smooth edges such as a tendency to copy and paste message sections from his page to other pages. Plus he has a rather unusual user page with controversial imagery and captions. Aside from that however he has exhibited understanding of the issues involved and although he sticks to a very narrow interpretation of the fair use criteria he doesn't have the power to delete images. Administrators do that. In the discussion page of the last unfortunate casualty Chandrasekhar.gif you can see that apart from Mangojuice noone came to the defence of the image. As I mentioned in that talk page I did not want to defend a few kilobytes of image real estate alone. I meant that in the current climate of flux there is no concerted effort from users to defend images candidates for deletion by joining in the conversation and defending an image. Abu badali is not responsible for that. He chose to do a job. The optics may not be that particularly good but he does his job as best as he can. Now if we can create a big discussion around a few of these images and a consensus emerges to keep them, there comes salvation in terms of precedent. Maybe administrators can then be persuaded not to delete these images. The worst I can say about Abu badali is that he is a zealot with a mission. But he is a zealot that has a message and uses research to sustain it. He is a thinking and intelligent zealot. Only when we can develop better counter arguments and band closer together to defend each others' images, we can hope of some type of change for the better. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify this. Take care and let me know about any future developments. Tasos (Dr.K. 00:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC))

More on Badali

On your post to my user page you wrote that people crusading against photos was why you and many others "have ceased contributing to Wikipedia". Please count me among those disillusioned with Wikipedia as well. For me it wasn't just this photo thing, though that kind of tops it off. Originally I had envisioned Wikipedia as someday being the most complete collection of human knowledge anywhere, but I am sadly over that now.

One of the biggest criticism against wikipedia is its lack of depth. For example articles on Clinton or Bush barely even mention that they were governors, much less layout the achievements or set backs of those major years in their political career. I thought I'd work to change this lack of depth by starting with Federal politicians from my own state. I expand sections and then for length concerns moved sections to their own sub-pages with links from the main article. But bizarrely these pages were attacked as having too much information (as if people clicking on links that say "for more details see" didn't actually want more details). Someone then called for there deletion and a handful of editors who bothered to vote, got the pages deleted. Wikipedia's own policy seemed to be calling for more information (see WP:NOTPAPER) but instead of expanding articles about other politicians (that are little more then stubs elsewhere) articles with depth are criticized for being abnormal and then edited or deleted back into being shallow tripe that would be well suited for the back of a box of Lucky Charms sugary cereal, or the inside of a bubble gum wrapper.

As I write this USER:Badali (you keep calling him Bidali but its obvious he chose Badali as a pun for Bad Ally) is zapping photos on a page I contributed of a national politician that were taken when he was in the state legislature. I just don't have the energy to fight and point out that these photos are important to illustrate the subject and aren't repeatable because they represent his past career (which is obviously unrepeatable).

In fact I am sorry to say that I know full well that wikipedia's use will decline with fewer photos; and as I am now feeling highly jaded towards the project - I wish Badali all the best on his crusade to rip the visual guts out of Wikipedia. Perhaps some future incarnation of an online encyclopedia will do better, there is already Citizendium (at http://citizendium.org/) though I haven't checked it out. So as Badali and his ilk perversely excite themselves over how much outrage they can invoke as they drive a stake into the heart of Wikipedia - in my eyes its not like a mad werewolf ripping into your favorite college professor, its like a werewolf sinking his teeth into Dr. Jeckyl and Mr. Hyde. I really don't care who wins - hopefully they'll kill each other. As for me I'm going to be flipping the channels, occasionally tuning in during commercial breaks but not keeping up with what's really going on.

I already knew that the world has plenty of self-important people that are devoid of common sense but full of personality problems. Wikipedia just showed me that there is a lot more of them than I anticipated and in numbers large enough to form a great wall. I've got better things to do then bang my head against that wall.

I thank you for your comments and count you as among the people I've run into in this project that prove that humanity isn't just a collection of ill mannered jack-asses.

--Wowaconia 19:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Chandra images

You said:No, Badili was NOT right, he was WRONG. NASA images can be used by anyone, anytime for any reason, period. And someone who makes it his business to delete images should know that, as should his apologists. The reason the permission request form is on that site is NOT for Chandra images such as the one in question, but for other, non-NASA images on that site (and yes, Chandra IS run by NASA). How do I know all this? Because I asked the person who put the permission form on that site, Kathy Lestition <[email protected]>, and I would be extremely happy to forward her email saying so to anyone who gives a damn about keeping images in wikipedia -- if there are any such editors who have not quit in disgust yet. That leaves ME out, since I quit because of Badali, as have the ex-editors who emailed me. Badali and the rest of you Bowdlerizing Luddites can wallow in this increasingly-useless playpen by yourselves. TechnoFaye 20:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, TechnoFaye, Chandra images are generally the one exception with regards to NASA images. There is something somewhere on Wikipedia that explains this, but I don't know where that might be.

Additional: I might actually be thinking of something else, not Chandra, but the NASA policy is clear; "NASA material is not protected by copyright unless noted. If copyrighted, permission should be obtained from the copyright owner prior to use. If not copyrighted, NASA material may be reproduced and distributed without further permission from NASA." Since there is a permission request form, the images are copyrighted, and therefore cannot be used without permission.

Now, if you requested permission to use Chandra images on Wikipedia, and permission was granted, then that's another issue entirely--there's actually a place you are supposed to forward such e-mails to, in order to get that permission to be properly recognized by Wikimedia, so that there aren't any problems with users not "believing" that permission has been granted. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions on the proper way to ask for permission (the copyright holder needs to understand and consent to the GFDL), and for the place to forward the request and the response to. It's a bit of red tape, but once it's done, there should be no further trouble. Lexicon (talk) 21:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

One further point: While your request, as it was formulated, may have received a grant of permission, you likely did not request permission that the images be licenced under the GFDL. The GFDL is quite a wide licence, and allows anyone coming to Wikipedia (including, but not limited to, the numerous for-profit mirrors of Wikipedia) to use the licenced content for commercial purposes. I wish you good luck in getting Chandra to confirm licencing of content through the GFDL. Lexicon (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Ms. Lestition has informed me that she does not think she would have said what you are claiming that she said in the permission request you made to her. If you could, please forward her reply to me (you can use the E-mail this user link on my talk or user page). Thanks. Lexicon (talk) 21:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

HEY BADALI: You omitted the last chapter of the above discussion on this show-off page of yours (no doubt unintentionally). I sent Lexicon the full email I received from the observatory. It states unequivocally that NASA images are public-domain. Unlike yourself, Lexicon seems to have a genuine interest in the issue of image use, as opposed to merely disrupting WP, and so Lexicon has changed his mind (below):

Abu badali, I have confirmed that Chandra images, if not tagged on the site as including information from ground-based telescopes which are not under the control of NASA, are, in fact, completely public domain for all purposes, including commercial, so long as NASA-endorsement is not implied through their use (which is actually a completely different issue from use). If you have listed Chandra images for deletion, could you let me know what they were, so I might look up and find out if they truly are fair use? Thanks. Lexicon (talk) 23:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I fully expect you to delete this refutation, but leave the previous entries intact.

PS: you will never approach the Übermensch destroying the works of others. That is an activity of the rabble, Nietzsche's bane. And don't EVEN think of tagging images under another name after you've been permanently banned, an outcome you so richly deserve. TechnoFaye 01:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 20th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 12	20 March 2007	About the Signpost

WikiWorld comic: "Wilhelm Scream"	News and notes: Bad sin, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleting NASA Images

I've actually never deleted a single NASA image, Faye. I'm mostly just an observer on the issue. Lexicon (talk) 23:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and if you have the names of any Chandra images that were deleted, please give me them so that I may check that they are solely NASA-created and if so, undelete them. Lexicon (talk) 23:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 26th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 13	26 March 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Tardiness, volunteers, RSS
Patrick and Wool resign in office shakeup	WikiWorld comic: "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo"
News and notes: Board resolutions, milestones	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 14:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 2nd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 14	2 April 2007	About the Signpost

Poll finds people think Wikipedia "somewhat reliable"	Wikipedia biographical errors attract more attention
Association of Members' Advocates nominated for deletion	Reference desk work leads to New York Times correction
WikiWorld comic: "Charles Lane"	News and notes: Alexa, Version 0.5, attribution poll
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 9th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 15	9 April 2007	About the Signpost

Danny Wool regains adminship in controversial RFA	Leak last year likely to produce changes for handling next board election
Association of Members' Advocates' deletion debate yields no consensus	WikiWorld comic: "Fake shemp"
News and notes: Donation, Version 0.5, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Special note to spamlist users: Apologies for the formatting issues in previous issues. This only recently became a problem due to a change in HTML Tidy; however, I am to blame on this issue. Sorry, and all messages from this one forward should be fine (I hope!) -Ral315

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

math philosophy

see my note on User talk:Faye Kane nadav 09:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 16th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 16	16 April 2007	About the Signpost

Encyclopædia Britannica promoted to featured article	Wikipedia continues to get mixed reactions in education
WikiWorld comic: "Hodag"	News and notes: Wikipedia television mention makes news, milestones
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 23rd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 17	23 April 2007	About the Signpost

Administrator goes rogue, is blocked	Wales unblocks Brandt, then reverses himself
Historian detained after his Wikipedia article is vandalized	Efforts to reform Requests for Adminship spark animated discussion
Canadian politician the subject of an edit war	Virginia Tech massacre articles rise to prominence
Wikipedia enters China one disc at a time	WikiWorld comic: "Buttered cat paradox"
News and notes: Unreferenced biographies, user studies, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 30th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 18	30 April 2007	About the Signpost

Students in Western Civilization course find editing Wikipedia frustrating, rewarding	Statistics indicate breadth of Wikipedia's appeal
Featured lists reaches a milestone	Backlogs continue to grow
WikiWorld comic: "Calvin and Hobbes"	News and notes: Board resolutions, user studies, milestones
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Abu badali

I know Abu badali is a heated issue and I agree with your frustration but I would like to politely ask you to perhaps take a breather! Threatening physical violence isn't going to help anything here. PageantUpdater User Talk Review me! 04:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 7th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 19	7 May 2007	About the Signpost

Four administrator accounts desysopped after hijacking, vandalism	Digg revolt over DVD key spills over to Wikipedia
Debate over non-free images heats up	Update on Wikimania 2007
Norwegian Wikipedian awarded scholarship	WikiWorld comic: "Friday the 13th"
News and notes: Election volunteers, admin contest, milestones	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration against Abu badali

Further to our conversations at and with respect to User:Jord/ArbCom-Abu badali, I will be posting the arbitration including a summary of all of our concerns shortly. Jord 17:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abu badali

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abu badali. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abu badali/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abu badali/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (Talk) 20:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for making physical threats and uncivility

You've just been blocked for a period of 1 month for your threat of physical violence and uncivility against another user. You had the opportunity to talk about your concerns in a different way instead of using physical threats. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Since you're cited as one of the parties for an accepted arbitration case, if you'd like to present evidence, please use an {{unblock}} template to let us know that you intend to do so. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 16:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I've unblocked you but you are not entitled to edit anything at all except this page Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abu badali. I hope it is clear. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)