Misplaced Pages

User talk:Fasach Nua: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:37, 3 August 2008 editIslander (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users12,083 edits Edit summaries← Previous edit Latest revision as of 07:14, 6 May 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB 
(711 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
== File:Turtle_crossing_sign_JPG.jpeg ==
== Nemp ==


Could you comment over at ] about this image. Regards, ] <sup>(])</sup> 22:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
] (]) 23:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


==] FAC== ==]==
Sorry for the late response; yep, it checks out. ]<sup><small>(])</small></sup> 19:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


== ] ==
Hi Fasach. Many thanks for your kind comments! I have done as you suggested and removed the Echologo and marked the newspaper picture as <nowiki>{{trademark}}</nowiki> Is there anything else I can do to earn your support? --] 11:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
:I only look at criteria 3, and to get FA status you need to pass all criteria. I hope it does get FA status, as it is a great example of getting the image licencing right, and I fully intend to use it as an example of best practice in this reagrd. I wouldn't worry about getting support, the process is not a ], but editors coming to a consensus on criteria and issues. I wish you the best with the FAC, but my expertise are limited to images. ] (]) 11:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
::Totally understand your point of view - and I wouldn't want to be the one to specialise in image problems as you must get quite a bit of stick! Would it be OK for you to mark the changes as done? (Or I could do it, but don't want to step on your toes!--] 12:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
::Many thanks!--] 13:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
:::Hey - see you liked my Dr Who pic!--] 17:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
::::You have no idea how rare an image that is, TV/Film fiction are notoriously difficult to get free images for. I nominated it for ], maybe you'll get that and your article on the front page on the same day! ] (]) 18:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
::::(I havent had too many dealings with featured images so don't get your hopes up) ] (]) 18:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::I'm not bothered about that! Just happy to help. Only commented cos of the supper speedy time span between upload and the photo appearing on a totally different page! FIC is tough, very tough. Not sure it will succeed - but best of luck anyway. --] 18:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::::I don't think they liked poor old Tom very much at Featured Pics! I've lodged permission for the pic with Misplaced Pages via email, but asked for the photo to be withdrawn as so grainy. (I've got another at FP now, which I want to concentrate on. Although, they seem to ask the most highly technical things that just go over my head...)--] 11:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
::::::::They seem more interested in art, than encylopedic value. I tend to do a lot of work with fair use images is TV/film, and you have no idea how rare it is to get something like that. True the quality isnt good, but I think they have been desensitised to the licencing issues, by the overly liberal fair use policy used on the English language Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 12:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::Licensing sorted now...At least the Tom Baker article has a nicer Dr Who pic anyway!--] 21:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


Your tag was reviewed and your concern was dismissed by two separate editors. Do not edit war. If you would like to stop wasting everyone's time with drive by tagging, and demonstrate that you are actually acting in good faith, then post your rationale on my talk page and we can discuss it. Before you do, I would suggest you actually read the article, because at this point, I very strongly doubt you have. ]] 23:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
== Re: Fair use montages ==


== History of Sesame Street FAC ==
No, I don't unfortunately. The closest I can think of would be the ] centralised discussion. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 10:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
:Thats exactly what I was thinking of ], ty ] (]) 10:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


Hi Fasach,
== Images on ] page ==


I wanted to let you know that I moved the discussion you were involved in regarding ] to its talk page, as per Sandy's recommendation. I moved your oppose, too, but returned it after I was told that I shouldn't have done it. I was also told to ping you, although as it turns out, it's not going to make much difference because it looks like Sandy's going to archive it because of lack of consensus.
Hi, Fasach. I've recently been in contact with ] about the images on the page ]. You can see the discussion on our talk pages, but the gist is that of the four images formerly on that page, one of the two which remains is the least appropriate. I'd like to remove ] and restore either ] or ], depending on which is favored by local discussion. But there's no point in my starting that discussion if the restored image is going to be deleted again. Do you object to the Gooderson image being replaced with one of the deleted ones? --] <small>(] • ])</small> 16:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I also wanted to ask your opinion about an idea I had regarding the article's images. I've suggested that instead of the images being too few or not high enough quality, that we just not have any images at all. Does a featured article, especially one about the article's subject, *need* to have images? What do you think? Be honest, now! ;) ] (]) 22:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


== Image assistance ==
:Incidentally, I've added some sourced material to the ] article which I think can be used to support the inclusion of the Wisher and Bleach images. (I may be able to find similar material for Molloy, but I'm traveling tomorrow and probably won't return to Misplaced Pages until late tomorrow evening.) —] <small>(] • ])</small> 03:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
::All image that meet in full the ] criterai will not be deleted ] (]) 06:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


Am working on a page now that has a lot of images. Appreciate any advice on what to look for in terms of questionable stuff. See here: ] (]) 06:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
:::That's not a terribly helpful reply, because the NFCC has been interpreted differently in different circumstances. My question is whether ''you'' would oppose the restoration of one of these deleted images in exchange for the less encyclopedically helpful Gooderson image. I'm slightly confused because I'm not clear on why you nominated the Wisher and Molloy images for deletion as opposed to either of the other two. If the primary issue is excess usage of non-free images (NFCC #3), it should not matter which image is present. But if the other concerns are more significant, and there's some reason why you felt the Gooderson image met the NFCC criteria more than the others, then it ''will'' matter, and restoration of one of the deleted images would not be appropriate.


:HEY! '''That was a serious request for help.''' Would like a gander at these images with a bunch of different licences, and maybe learn myself how to think through some of these issues as well. Also, in particular wonder of this issue of when something is listed as government derived, but it's not really obvious the source (govt document or current web precense). ] (]) 21:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
:::I had not noticed that ] was insufficiently sourced; unless you object, I'll try to provide a better-sourced copy of that image and upload it later (after my travel today), replacing the Gooderson image.--] <small>(] • ])</small> 12:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


::::A FU image must have a valid reason to be there, if it is eye candy of course it will be deleted, if it meets the NFCC then it won't be deleted. However I couldn't imagine an article about Davros not having an image of Davros, and unfortunetly I cant imagine a free image popping up anytime soon. When I nominated the Davros images before, the issue was criteria 3 (minimal use), as there were about four virtually identical images and I wanted the DW community to pick the most useful one, and dump the rest. You have put a lot of thought into this and discussed it with Nv8200p who knows his stuff, so on the balance of probabilities I probably wont have grounds to object ] (]) 13:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC) ::I had not been on wiki between first and second messages and would encourage you to check activity before leaving follow up messages. I have had a superficial look over this article and for the most part it is fine. I have concerns about ] regarding the email (not huge concerns, but concerns none the less), ] is fine, it is basically CC with attributions, ] has serious problems, it is derived from four different images, and the licensing for all must be compatible with the one used on the montage, this is currently not the case! On ] issues it is generally best practice to have images with faces look into the text, and for lists it is much tidier if all images use the same aspect ratio. ] (]) 14:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
:::If you are having trouble tracking images back to their source I would recommend ] (]) 01:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


::::OK. Thanks for the comments! ] (]) 08:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
:::::Thanks. (Although I'd quibble with "virtually identical", but perhaps it takes a fan's eye to see the differences; and, indeed, far too much of that article was in-universe, with not enough discussion of the character's creation and development.) I'll start a discussion at ] to see what image the community thinks would be best. Again, thanks for the feedback. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 21:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


==]==
== Re: Alleyway ==
Hi, I restored the non-free use rationale, you gave no reason for its removal. There was a discussion about that image in the FA nom which you started but did not reply to any further, sadly. Why remove the note now that the discussion is over? Regards ] (]) 01:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


== Image question ==
Hi, sorry to bother you, but you brought up one of the images on the FAC for the ] article and I responded. Wanted to see if you're satisfied with the response or something still needs to be done instead.--] (]) 22:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
:It looks loike a derived image from , I will tag it at potentially unfree images ] (]) 10:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
::It's a replica (never actually realized you replied to this at all until I was informed about the image tagging). I left a more detailed response at the potentially unfree images report site.--] (]) 04:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


Your thoughts on ? It ''sounds'' good but ... Thanks,--] (]) 19:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
== ] thank-you ==
:It is not implausible, although I would be wary of terms like "generally considered", the definition of "published" is crucial here, and the method and extent of publication should be stated, along with the states in which the publication was made ] (]) 21:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your question regarding ], which I have responded to there. If your questions/concerns have been resolved, I would ask you to please offer a supporting vote on the list's behalf. Thank you for your consideration. --] (]) 13:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
:Thanks for your recent comment. I have replied and hope you will continue to participate in the FLC until you feel you can support the list. Thanks again! --] (]) 20:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC) ::I'd really like to see something a bit more authoritative on the legal side, too.--] (]) 21:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


::: is a photo lawyer's blog. Very far from definitive legal opinion that Wehwalt is going to buy, but still I donno...interesting. ] (]) 21:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
== Your tagging of Frank Zappa article ==
::::Which entry do you feel bears on this?--] (]) 21:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


:::::None. Sorry. :( There was one that did bear on something important a while ago. But I can't even recall what that was. I guess if you wanted an opinion you could pay her for one. Although I'm sure you could just look up right sort in DC as well at some big firm. Sorry, too much segue. Brain blood pressure dropping again (grr...) ] (]) 22:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I just saw that you tagged the ] article with <nowiki>{{NFimageoveruse}}</nowiki> stating "serious image problems". I went though all images, and could not find anything questionable. So is it the sheer number that is a problem? The editors have been quite meticulous in only using low-resolution images depicting various phases of a person's long career (spanning many different activities; guitarist, group leader, composer, conductor, political spokesperson, studio owner to name a few). The issue was never raised in the GA process (I know that is not an argument, but just mentioned to show that I was in good faith when I nominated the article). Please drop me a note at your convenience. Cheers. --''']''', '']'' 14:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Not a problem. Anyway, including that in ] would be too much trouble for the worth.--] (]) 22:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


== Frank Zappa FAC == == Request for image Assistance ==


Hi. I didn't actually '''write''' any of the article, thus, it's not important that I made any contributions to the article. I think I made maybe two edits in which I actually changed the text of the article. (] (]) 21:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)) I have little experience with the 'legality' of images and am presently reviewing a GAN. There are four images. Could you review them? I don't want to pass to GA until I'm absolutely sure the images are legal. The article is ]. I simply don't have the expertise to make any decision on the images. Thank you! ] (]) 12:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
:They all seem fine, either the copyright has expired, or they are ], I would prefer they were tagged as <nowiki>{{PD-EU}}</nowiki> where appropriate so that they can be moved to commons which requires images to be free in the US and their country of origin, and thus allows them to be enjoyed by other projects ] (]) 12:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
:: Thank you! We're fortunate to have someone here with your expertise! Thank you again! ] (]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 16:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


== FU means? == ==Malmö FF==


Hi, could you please specify which images made you tag the article with the copyright warning? Thanks!--] (]) 22:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry did not get your sentence in the FLC for ], what did you mean by "FU". Also, since you do seem to be an expert on image licensing, what is the procedure for me to follow to see if those images are indeed copyrighted material or not, they might be free or properly licensed to Misplaced Pages and we are wasting time in the discussion over technical terms. Thanks, ] (]) 11:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


== Your opinion please ==
:FU means fair use, if an image has a free licence then you dont have to justify it's usage in terms of ]
:The common side of all Euro coins are free (to a point), so they can be used reasonably friviliously.
:Probably the easiest way to track down the copyright is to look for other Austrian coins in wikipedia, and see how they are licenced, if you are lucky another editor may have provided a link to the licencing. Although dont copy the licence, as lot of people upload copyrighted and tag them as free, which is exceptionally annoying. (])
:The German language wikipedia is '''exceptionally''' good at finding free content, if you look through there numistics article you may also find something ] (]) 11:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


I uploaded for possible use in the ] article. You have one side, the other is a Johnny Walker Red logo. My position is that as it contains for the most part dates and city names (plus the team name of the Jets and the football image, I believe the TM refers to the other side, or possibly to the name "New York Jets"), it is too simple to be copyrighted and is PD. If your opinion is adverse, I will of course delete it, that is why I uploaded it to en wiki. Many thanks for your help.--] (]) 16:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
::Fasach, this could be very good news, I followed your advice, and went to German Misplaced Pages, search for four Austrian coins, all of the free of use license. What shall I do next? Thanks a lot for this tip! ] (]) 13:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
:::I went to the Austrian Mint website and found this line (it is difficult to find, there is no Legal section per say, but it is in several places): "Leagal statement: All pictures can be published without naming the Austrian Mint as the holder of the copyright". Does this mean that I can change all licenses as free to use based on that statement? Advice please, ] (]) 22:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
::::Good Job! I would maybe make a ], link the Austrian mint licence's page, and label it as free. After that add the template to all the relevant images. I would put a note on the FLC page that you are in the process of resolving this issue, and then again when you have completed the licencing tag ] (]) 09:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


== Appreciation for participating in an FAC ==
== Edit summaries ==


{{clear}}
<div style="background-color:#F9F9F9; border:1px solid #AAA; padding:5px;"> ] Hello. Please don't forget to provide an ]. Thanks, and happy editing. <!-- Template:Editsummary --></div> ''']''' <small>''']'''</small> 15:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
{| style="border: 2px solid red; background-color: white;"
:To repeat the above, please start using edit summaries. Without them, there is no way of knowing whether your edits are disruptive or not (removing content without discussion/a summary is most definitely disruptive). ]] 15:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
|align="center" |]
|<font=3> Thank you for your image checks and comments &mdash; ] is now a ] of the ]!</font> ] (]) 22:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
|align="center" |]
|}

== ] ==

Hi, I was just wondering if you could quickly run over the images and make sure they're all okay? It shouldn't take more than a few minutes, and I would appreciate it. Thanks! <span style="color:#ffffff; background-color:#ff3300;"> – ]<sup>]</sup></span> 19:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

==Deletion review for ]==
An editor has asked for a ] of ]. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. <!-- This originally was from the template {{subst:DRVNote|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~ --> ] (]) 10:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

== ] ==

As you took part in the first FAC for this article, I though you might be interested in participating in the current FAC for ]. Regards, ''']''' ] 20:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

==Season's tidings!==
] FWiW ] (]) 13:35, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

{{Clear}}
== ] ==

{{Tb|Template talk:Infobox GB station|Page move|ts=<span style="white-space:nowrap;">-- ]</span> (]) 11:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)}}
== ] of ] ==
]] has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> ] (]) 17:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

== Notification of automated file description generation ==
Your upload of ] or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions ]. Thanks!<!--Template:Un-botfill-null--> ''Message delivered by ] (])'' 14:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

*Another one of your uploads, ], has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks!<!--Template:Un-botfill--> ''Message delivered by ] (])'' 15:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
== Possibly unfree File:Wales Ireland 1950.png ==
A file that you uploaded or altered, ], has been listed at ] because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the ]. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at ] if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. <!-- Template:Fdw-puf --> ] (]<small> • </small>]) 18:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

== ] ==

{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} ] (]) 13:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=692009577 -->
== File:IFA international Cap 1909-1910.png listed for discussion ==
] A file that you uploaded or altered, ], has been listed at ]. Please see the ] to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. <!-- Template:Fdw --> ] (]) 15:23, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
== Nomination for deletion of Template:Famous players generic ==
]] has been ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> <span style="color:green">'''Ten Pound Hammer'''</span> • <sup>(])</sup> 21:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
== ] of ] ==
]

The file ] has been ]&#32;because of the following concern:
<blockquote>Orphaned image with no foreseeable encyclopedic use.</blockquote>

While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ].

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ].

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> ] (]) 12:32, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
== ] of ] ==
]

The file ] has been ]&#32;because of the following concern:
<blockquote>unused, low-res, no obvious use</blockquote>

While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ].

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ].

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify -->

<span style="color:red;font-weight:bold;">This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the ] of each individual file for details.</span> Thanks, ] (]) 01:02, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
== ] of ] ==
]

The file ] has been ]&#32;because of the following concern:
<blockquote>unused, low-res, no obvious use</blockquote>

While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ].

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ].

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify -->

<span style="color:red;font-weight:bold;">This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the ] of each individual file for details.</span> Thanks, ] (]) 01:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 07:14, 6 May 2022

File:Turtle_crossing_sign_JPG.jpeg

Could you comment over at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Turtle crossing sign JPG.jpeg about this image. Regards, SunCreator 22:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

File:ZX81 concept design.jpg

Sorry for the late response; yep, it checks out. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 19:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Calgary Hitmen

Your tag was reviewed and your concern was dismissed by two separate editors. Do not edit war. If you would like to stop wasting everyone's time with drive by tagging, and demonstrate that you are actually acting in good faith, then post your rationale on my talk page and we can discuss it. Before you do, I would suggest you actually read the article, because at this point, I very strongly doubt you have. Resolute 23:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

History of Sesame Street FAC

Hi Fasach,

I wanted to let you know that I moved the discussion you were involved in regarding WP:Featured article candidates/History of Sesame Street/archive1 to its talk page, as per Sandy's recommendation. I moved your oppose, too, but returned it after I was told that I shouldn't have done it. I was also told to ping you, although as it turns out, it's not going to make much difference because it looks like Sandy's going to archive it because of lack of consensus. I also wanted to ask your opinion about an idea I had regarding the article's images. I've suggested that instead of the images being too few or not high enough quality, that we just not have any images at all. Does a featured article, especially one about the article's subject, *need* to have images? What do you think? Be honest, now! ;) Christine (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Image assistance

Am working on a page now that has a lot of images. Appreciate any advice on what to look for in terms of questionable stuff. See here: TCO (talk) 06:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

HEY! That was a serious request for help. Would like a gander at these images with a bunch of different licences, and maybe learn myself how to think through some of these issues as well. Also, in particular wonder of this issue of when something is listed as government derived, but it's not really obvious the source (govt document or current web precense). TCO (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I had not been on wiki between first and second messages and would encourage you to check activity before leaving follow up messages. I have had a superficial look over this article and for the most part it is fine. I have concerns about File:Collared_Lizard_Albuquerque_NM_Preview.JPG regarding the email (not huge concerns, but concerns none the less), File:Cnemidophorus-ThreeSpecies.jpg is fine, it is basically CC with attributions, File:Reptiles.jpg has serious problems, it is derived from four different images, and the licensing for all must be compatible with the one used on the montage, this is currently not the case! On WP:MOS issues it is generally best practice to have images with faces look into the text, and for lists it is much tidier if all images use the same aspect ratio. Fasach Nua (talk) 14:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
If you are having trouble tracking images back to their source I would recommend tineye Fasach Nua (talk) 01:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
OK. Thanks for the comments! TCO (talk) 08:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Cruttwell.jpg

Hi, I restored the non-free use rationale, you gave no reason for its removal. There was a discussion about that image in the FA nom which you started but did not reply to any further, sadly. Why remove the note now that the discussion is over? Regards Hekerui (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Image question

Your thoughts on this? It sounds good but ... Thanks,--Wehwalt (talk) 19:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

It is not implausible, although I would be wary of terms like "generally considered", the definition of "published" is crucial here, and the method and extent of publication should be stated, along with the states in which the publication was made Fasach Nua (talk) 21:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd really like to see something a bit more authoritative on the legal side, too.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
is a photo lawyer's blog. Very far from definitive legal opinion that Wehwalt is going to buy, but still I donno...interesting. TCO (talk) 21:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Which entry do you feel bears on this?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
None. Sorry.  :( There was one that did bear on something important a while ago. But I can't even recall what that was. I guess if you wanted an opinion you could pay her for one. Although I'm sure you could just look up right sort in DC as well at some big firm. Sorry, too much segue. Brain blood pressure dropping again (grr...) TCO (talk) 22:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem. Anyway, including that in Allegro (musical) would be too much trouble for the worth.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for image Assistance

I have little experience with the 'legality' of images and am presently reviewing a GAN. There are four images. Could you review them? I don't want to pass to GA until I'm absolutely sure the images are legal. The article is Delphine LaLaurie. I simply don't have the expertise to make any decision on the images. Thank you! 56tyvfg88yju (talk) 12:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

They all seem fine, either the copyright has expired, or they are freedom of panorama, I would prefer they were tagged as {{PD-EU}} where appropriate so that they can be moved to commons which requires images to be free in the US and their country of origin, and thus allows them to be enjoyed by other projects Fasach Nua (talk) 12:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! We're fortunate to have someone here with your expertise! Thank you again! 56tyvfg88yju (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC).

Malmö FF

Hi, could you please specify which images made you tag the article with the copyright warning? Thanks!--Reckless182 (talk) 22:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion please

I uploaded this image for possible use in the History of the New York Jets article. You have one side, the other is a Johnny Walker Red logo. My position is that as it contains for the most part dates and city names (plus the team name of the Jets and the football image, I believe the TM refers to the other side, or possibly to the name "New York Jets"), it is too simple to be copyrighted and is PD. If your opinion is adverse, I will of course delete it, that is why I uploaded it to en wiki. Many thanks for your help.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Appreciation for participating in an FAC

<font=3> Thank you for your image checks and comments — Battle of Towton is now a featured article of the Wars of the Roses! Jappalang (talk) 22:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Eduard Streltsov FAC

Hi, I was just wondering if you could quickly run over the images and make sure they're all okay? It shouldn't take more than a few minutes, and I would appreciate it. Thanks! – Cliftonian 19:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for File:Stover at Yale book cover image.jpg

An editor has asked for a deletion review of File:Stover at Yale book cover image.jpg. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. TCO (talk) 10:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Somerset County Cricket Club in 2009/archive2

As you took part in the first FAC for this article, I though you might be interested in participating in the current FAC for Somerset County Cricket Club in 2009. Regards, Harrias 20:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:35, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

Template:Infobox GB station

Hello, Fasach Nua. You have new messages at Template talk:Infobox GB station.
Message added -- Trevj (talk) 11:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nomination for deletion of Template:ORList

Template:ORList has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Botanic gardens belfast sign post.JPG or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Wales Ireland 1950.png

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Wales Ireland 1950.png, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (tc) 18:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

File:IFA international Cap 1909-1910.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:IFA international Cap 1909-1910.png, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:23, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Famous players generic

Template:Famous players generic has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer21:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Bloomfield park sign.PNG

Notice

The file File:Bloomfield park sign.PNG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned image with no foreseeable encyclopedic use.

While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Pkbwcgs (talk) 12:32, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Fermanagh outline.png

Notice

The file File:Fermanagh outline.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Oak leaf.PNG

Notice

The file File:Oak leaf.PNG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

User talk:Fasach Nua: Difference between revisions Add topic