User talk:Nv8200pa

Cookies

Hello, Larry, I just wanted to give you a plate of cookies for being a Wikipedian. Peace, Neranei 20:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On various photographs

Dear Nv82200p, thank you for your three messages on my page concerning photographs of Ahmad Kasravi and Ali-Akbar Daver. Accroding to the Iranian copy-right laws, all photographs become public property 30 years after their first publication (for details please consult: [1]). Given the fact that Professor Kasravi died, through assassination, in 1946, and Dr Davar died in 1937, it follows that the three photographs at issue have long since been public property. As for the two photographs of Dr Davar, to ensure that placing of these photographs on Wikipedia is not against the wishes of his surviving family (even though the family has no legal rights to Dr Davar's extant photographs), at the time I informed the great grand daughter of Dr Davar, i.e. Ms Ardalan, of my placing of these photographs on Wikipedia; the fact that these two photographs have thus far survived (since March 2007), should be viewed as indicating that Dr Davar's family have no objection against the public exposure of these photographs. With kind regards, --BF 23:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ascendat_ad_te.png

Hi, although this image seems temporarily orphaned, it is the subject of discussion on the talk page where the debate was over which article it will finally belong with. Sparafucil 23:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ashfaq_ahmed.jpg

The image has been taken from the wikimedia library and is therefore the GNU license. =) Graphicalx 10:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Munich Massacre photo

Sir, you're statement that the munich massacre image "violates WP:NFCC #8. This image is not significant for this article" is clearly a statement of opinion, and I might add that Operation Wrath of God was Featured and put on the main page without anyone else questioning the significance of the picture to the article. I would think that any such discussion about the image's significance to the article should take place on the article's talk page before deletion. Also, and not to distract from the issue, I'm really confounded by your statement "Please do not add it back or it may result in the image being deleted from Wikipedia all together." Why would readding an image to one article lead to its deletion from all articles? Thanks, Joshdboz 16:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:Brunokirby2.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 04:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image listed, or not

You tell me: An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Babbpressbook-b.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images......... It has? Where? I can't find it. -- Hoary 03:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks?

Now, be honest - how on earth is my comment that Abu is perhaps personally targeting my contributions to Wikipedia for deletion a "personal attack"? You've read the evidence in Abu's arbcom case? Seriously, if you consider:

And, I hate to bring this up, but what if the editor is nominating images uploaded by a particular user out of spite? That certainly could be what's happening here

... a personal attack, I'm really, really concerned about what standards are being applied here. This statement is not inflammatory, nor profane, nor defamatory -- just an honest question about what recourses editors have when they become subject to harrassing behavior by other editors. PLEASE don't see "personal attacks" where none exist! My problems, such as they, with Abu have nothing to do with him personally; it's his "contribution by subtraction" methodology, often using a variety of trickery and ever-shifting rules interpretations that I find completely unhelpful in the goal of building Wikipedia. Abu's RFC and Arbcom cases should make clear - this is a contributor who has upset a lot of good faith editors, and one way or another, it is HIS contributions that are making the problems worse. Digging through contribution logs to find and eliminate every last part of another users contributions is ONE interpretation of his actions, and one that I think is supported by the evidence. Obviously, the arbcom will have a say on that, but at some point, the whole "You can't say anything about Abu's actions because that's a personal attack" thing gets to be a bit more than ridiculous. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 07:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jenolen, please allow me to respectfully direct you to the box "This page in a nutshell" from Wikipedia:No personal attacks. It reads

“

Comment on content, not on the contributor.

”

— WP:NPA

I believe that Nv8200p meant to say that, when discussing about an image deletion, it's not fruitfull to comment on the editors involved (no matter how right we believe to be about that editor). In the end, only the arguments about the policy will be taken into account. A valid argument by a soon-to-be-banned vandal will always be a valid argument. I hope you accept this message in the spirit it was intended.

p.s.: About the evidence, I wonder if you would be interested in my view.

p.s.2: Sorry for chatting in your page, Nv8200p!

--Abu badali ^(talk) 14:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

July 6 ifds

Hi, Nv8200p. Are you processing today's IFDs already? --Abu badali ^(talk) 02:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, do you have a link for the IFD on Image:Irangay teens.jpg? Exploding Boy 02:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks

you've recently removed an image from the Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks^{the removal}.

if you inspect both images that were used in the article and the article body before the removal, you'll notice that two images are used from AP.

the image of the woman, that you have deleted is extremely integral to the article and i implore you to return it to the article (perhaps instead of the children's image) while giving it the copyright info given to the children.

feel free to comment here, i will be watching. Jaakobou 09:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you are mistaken, there was no discussion as to which image is preffered for the article. a quick glance at the article, and the note that the woman in the image is mentioned not only by name but she is also quoted and there is expressed doubt by a german station about the authenticity of the footage, clearly portrays that if we had to choose only one of the 2 images, then i would have been the one with the woman rather than the image with the children.

i did not change the notes about the source of this image since i felt the discussion was open and did not wish to disturb the proccess, however, now that i've witnessed that a mistake has occured, i turn to you so that we can fix this issue... what exactly is missing from the source of the image? i'm sure we can fix this issue with a quick search for her name (noted on the article) or perhaps for the photographer at the location (his name is not an enigma to me).

for the meantime, can you please revert and open a discussion window as to which image is preffered by the community?? (althogh i'm sure the image of the woman should be the one preffered). Jaakobou 17:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

regarding BROscgraph.jpg

It's true this was never published. It is in fact very similar to the graph which was published in J. Chem. Educ. (Briggs and Rauscher,1973). We used it to avoid copyright issues. It's certainly not misleading, being very similar to the published one. The fact is, we don't know how to include a published graph in the article. The graph is informative and relevant to the article. We consider it pretty harmless. Certainly everything else in the article is supported by references. Thanks for comments Wrauscher 22:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]