Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:23, 18 December 2008

Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). If you're new to Misplaced Pages, please see Welcome to Misplaced Pages and frequently asked questions. I will reply to messages left here below your comment, not on your talk page. Archives Archive 1 (31 October 2005 - 23 December 2005) Archive 2 (23 December 2005 - 31 December 2005) Archive 3 (31 December 2005 - 16 January 2006) Archive 4 (18 January 2006 - 3 March 2006) Archive 5 (3 March 2006 - 18 April 2006) Archive 6 (22 April 2006 - 26 May 2006) Archive 7 (26 May 2006 - 7 June 2006) Archive 8 (7 June 2006 - 21 July 2006) Archive 9 (22 July 2006 - 1 November 2006) Archive 10 (29 November 2006 - 22 June 2008) This is Ian13's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

Regarding "Kirk.plaque.Riverside.jpg"

According to the deletion log for the file, you speedy deleted the image, as per CS 17. If I may ask, what was the patently irrelevant fair use template used? Can it be fixed and replaced? - Arcayne () 15:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

It was immediately marked for deletion after 48 hours when uploaded (it should have told you this in big letters) because no non-free use rationale was provided (see Template:Non-free_use_rationale). Users are given 48 hours to fix the problem, otherwise CSD I7 (invalid fair use claim) is implemented. This is because to provide an image under a claim of fair-use, but without a rationale, is a copyright violation. You are welcome to re-upload (or I can undelete if necessary) if a valid rationale is present. Cheers, Ian¹³/t 16:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. I didn't upload the image, but I am pretty sure I can create a fair use rationale if given the opportunity. Could I trouble you to undelete the image and notify me? I will supply the rationale shortly thereafter and notify you, so you can take a look and make sure we are green-good-go. Again, thanks for getting back to me, Ian. - Arcayne () 06:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about this, but looking at the image, any rationale given would fail. If the plaque still exists, fair-use cannot be claimed because a free alternative could be sought (you could (well, in the eyes of the law at least) go there and take an image of the object yourself). This obviously doesn't apply of the plaque doesn't exist any more, or an historical version of it is significant, but this doesn't seem to be the case here. Please correct me if I am wrong. Cheers, Ian¹³/t 10:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I wasn't intimating you were wrong. As I am not inclined to venture out to the Dead of Iowa to visit a town seeking income revivification, until someone snaps a picture while roadtripping, the article is out of luck. I am somewhat concerned if that leaves the article in the lurch a bit. What is your impression? - Arcayne () 19:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

As luck would have it, a little creative commons hunting turned up a picture of the plaque freely licensed. I have uploaded it to Image:Future Birthplace of Captain James T Kirk.jpg, so please feel free to add this to the article. Cheers, Ian¹³/t 22:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The image you mentioned has a banner that says "This image, which was originally posted to Flickr, has not yet been reviewed by an administrator or trusted user to confirm that the above license is valid." The picture was on the Riverside article page before I did some copy editing. It wasn't there when I looked last, I didn't remove it.--Sultec (talk) 23:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it hasn't been reviewed yet, but I see no reason it will fail given it is listed as CC-by-sa-2.0 on the flickr page. This is a different image (of the same subject) to the one I deleted if you are confusing it with this? Additionally, it seems you did inadvertently remove it last night. Ian¹³/t 15:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

You are right. Good thing there are other editors to fix up things. I would never intentionally screw up a page as badly as I did. I will have to study the diff again and try to figure out how I managed to do all that damage when all I was intending to do is remove the square brackets around redlinked items and put italics around some book titles. --Sultec (talk) 22:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It's no problem, we all have to learn. :-) Ian¹³/t 22:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

User Oguzhantr

Hello Ian13,

you probably remember User:Oguzhantr. Last month you deleted all his uploaded pics, as they were all copyright violations, than you blocked him for a week, as he had vandalized articles about military stuff. Well, he returned, and immediately uploaded half a dozen pics that are all copyvios or useless stuff (I think he uses Misplaced Pages as his private webspace to host pics). As I am very busy right now and don't have much time, I'll just drop this message to you and wont mark each of them with a speedy deletion request. I'm sorry for that. But I'll now leave him to your administratorial guidance :) (Oguzhantr's logs)

--DavidDCM (talk) 23:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

All images have either been deleted as copy-vio or posted at IfD now. Additionally, I have blocked the user for 3 weeks (obviously 1 week wasn't enough). False copyright claims are a very severe issue, and if it continues afterwards it will probably be best to launch a discussion at the administrators noticeboard about a significant ban. Thanks, Ian¹³/t 17:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I thank you for your fast response to this issue. :) --DavidDCM (talk) 19:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

B Roads in Norfolk, Again?

Hello Ian13,

Can you have another look at Talk:B1149 road, B1156 road, B1436 road and B1149 road again, as these article seem to be under threat again from another editor. Once again it is the Notability question which has arisen. I thought that the reason for these roads to be notable had already been established but once again this is being questioned and I think there is likelihood that this editor may redirect these pages once more.  stavros1  ♣  22:35 28 September 2008 (UTC).

The previous editing dispute which removed page content without discussion did indeed trouble me, but my actions were to prevent disruption rather than endorse a particular revision. I quote from the statement itself "The best way to address this concern is to reference published, third-party sources about the subject. If notability cannot be established, the article is more likely to be considered for redirection, merge or deletion". If consensus and lack of citations favours redirection, on matters which cannot be addressed, then such action would appear valid. I hope this helps, Ian¹³/t 22:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Image permissions

• hi sorry for bother you.I want upload an image for make a template.(this photo).this image took by someone in www.millaj.com and he is my friend.if i ask him send an email for wikipedia and in it allow to me use that image is it enough?

which email address i have to ask my friend send permission to it? can i use that image for farsi wikipedia with that permission?-thanks alot--Hassanmirabi (talk) 12:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look at WP:CONSENT for how to provide consent. It's best to upload it to commons if you want it to be usable on more than wiki, (see http://commons.wikimedia.org), but the permissions procedure is the same anyway. Hope this helps, and sorry for the belated response. Ian¹³/t 17:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Ieuan Gwyllt.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:Ieuan Gwyllt.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section I7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free image with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria.

If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the image can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{non-free fair use in|article name that the image is used in}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the image. If the image has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on ] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Stifle (talk) 12:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Please don't tag images using {{non-free standard test image}} unless they really are standard test images. There's a list of available tags at WP:ICT. Most of the National Library of Wales images are public domain anyway because the copyright has expired — any that were published before 1923 should be tagged {{PD-US}}; if the photographer is more than 70 years dead, {{PD-old-70}} will do it. Stifle (talk) 13:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see where I indicated it was a standard test image, and neither does another editor by the looks of it. Could you please clarify if you are still concerned? Cheers, Ian¹³/t 17:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Welsh Highland Railway files

Please explain your interpretation of the GFDL violation. I have explained as original creator of both, and cannot understand you refer back to something, without quoting what you mean. i.e. I could refer to the Bible, but its a pretty big book and has many points ..... see what I mean?? --Keith 11:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

As I said in my reply, my apologies, there isn't a GFDL problem with the infobox, and I have reversed my removal (as you said, you are the sole contributor to the infobox). However, if you plan to manually copy the article from one name to another over time, rather than creating one sole article and doing a history-preserving move of that page to the new name, there will be a GFDL problem, as all the contributors to the article at WHR(P) whose work has been moved will not have been credited in the history of WHHR. I hope this clarifies my concerns. Ian¹³/t 11:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Cheers Ian. What you say proves a conundrum only Wikioedia can create!! I dont really see any problem with the transfer. The main content of article on the WHR(P) file will be slightly altered to reflect the new name. The history of both files will remain, as the old file will become a redirect. The changes done by others are minimal............

HANG ON - "LIGHT GOES ON IN BRAIN" The other answer would be, come change date, to have WHHR file deleted (I could ask you to do that), and have WHR(P) file "moved" to new name WHHR, and re-edited to reflect new name. Therefore history would be preserved and a redirect created - how's this grab yer?

HANG ON - "second LIGHT GOES ON IN BRAIN" Do the WHHR delete now and within a short space of time it will be updated --Keith 11:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

So are you suggesting going with the proposed merge, whereby WHHR will become a redirect, or are you planning to do something else with it? Ian¹³/t 14:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

No No - wrong way round. Try this - (to be done in a matter of minutes) 1) Delete WHHR page 2) Move WHR(P) page to WHHR (Talk $ history move automatically) - also creates a redirect at WHR(P) to the WHHR file 3) I then bring WHHR file upto date by changing the text as required.

Your point on maintaining history is satisfied, and the need to keep the main info under the new name, rather than historic name, which becomes a redirect. (Oh and no need to keep mod'ing my talk - I check my watchlist first and note any changes on your talk page)

--Keith 15:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)