Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:21, 23 February 2013

Archives

Note: If you leave a message here I will most often respond here

Re: File:MIT ESG lizard mural with red lizard.jpg

What's the unambiguous copyright violation? This is a mural in a public space at MIT, and students in the ESG program consider these lizards to be their unofficial symbol. It was painted by a group of anonymous students as a group project at ESG some years back, so the creator is not available to ask for permission. I will try to get the ESG administrator's permission if you would find that satisfactory, but in any case, the photo we took represents only a small portion of the entire mural, and should therefore OK under "fair use."

Syed Abul Hossain Biography

Hello, this is hossaine. I appreciate your work and I know my posted biography wasn't neutral point of view. Cause to be honest I'm working on his Company named Sahco and found Mr. Syed Abul Hossain CV and just posted few content same to same. Now I realize what to do. Next time I will be neutral. Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hossaine (talk • contribs) 17:10, January 30, 2013‎ (UTC)

Request for an undoing of the two pictures you removed today of Icelandic politicians

I can now see, that you today have deleted the following two images:

• File:Bjarnibenediktssonjr.jpg
• File:Arnipallarnason.jpg

In my reply at both file pages, I have uploaded an argued reason why I think it was okay to keep having them uploaded at the English wikipedia page. The main reason is, that the Icelandic wikipedia page already have acquired a license for the use of the photos, and that they have been accepted to be fully used at the Icelandic wikipedia during the past 4 years. I fail to see or understand why you have now removed those photos from the English wikipedia. Please either undo the change, or post me a reasoned reply. Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but there is really very little flexibility in our policy on such matters. The rule (per WP:NFC#1 is very clear: we need to get a fully free license (i.e. free for re-use elsewhere and for all purposes), or we can't use it. You made it clear in your statement that you were conceding that the license we had was not free in that sense. You also conceded that "a completely free replacement of the official photograph (to be used outside the borders of Misplaced Pages or any other encyclopedic works) would perhaps also be possible for someone to upload at some point of time". As far as Misplaced Pages policy is concerned, that settles it. Whether or not such a free image already exists is immaterial; what counts is that it is possible as a matter of principle. (And, seriously, a member of parliament, in a smallish democratic country, should be one of the easiest targets to get photographs of. Such people lead immensely public lives. I'm sure he is easier to find – and easier to convince to smile into a camera – than your average poet, industrialist, four-star general or author or whatever else we tend to have articles on.)

As for what the Icelandic Misplaced Pages does, it's of course beyond my powers to fix, but if they are using these photos, they really ought to stop doing so and they ought to know better. The Icelandic Misplaced Pages absolutely doesn't have the right to allow itself using such non-free images. This is not just an English Misplaced Pages rule; they are violating a WikiMedia Foundation rule (see binding resolution) if they are doing this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I have already provided you the direct links for the Icelandic Misplaced Pages in my previous reply, but here they are again:

* is:File:Bjarnibenediktssonjr.jpg

* is:File:Arnipallarnason.jpg

My upload of the photos to the English Misplaced Pages was a direct 1:1 copy. I thought it was okay, as they had been accepted to be used at the Icelandic Misplaced Pages. If it is indeed true that these photos do not carry a sufficient license, then I think you should at least also contact the Icelandic Misplaced Pages, and ask them also to remove those photos from their domain. They have used them during the past 4 years for more or less all 63 Icelandic politicians elected to their parliament (at least for those where no user taken photos were available). As far as I understand, they have received an email by the parliament, which in general approves for all the photos of MP's found at the www.althingi.is website to be freely used by any Misplaced Pages page in the world (as long as it happens for non commercial purposes). Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, after taking time to carefully read through the entire WP:NFC policy article, it helped me to understand the situation a bit more. The detail that confused me during my previous upload process of the photos, is that it is not enough for us just to have legal permission (by receiving a "free to use on Misplaced Pages" or "free to use for non-commercial purposes" licens) in situations where we want to use a photo of a living person (or one with a still active career, in situations where the picture represents how he is encyclopedic recognized by common people at the time of being encyclopedic notable). Because beside of satisfying the "legal" side of the case, we also need to satisfy the "Wiki policy" side of the case. I had accidently missed that second part of it, and was not aware that Misplaced Pages actively had decided to prohibit the use of images where "only" Misplaced Pages have been granted a legal license to use them (not being completely free for any kind of use outside the borders of Misplaced Pages), and that Misplaced Pages only in the rare alternative make exeptions for use of the "non-free images". Only the moment the politicians are retiring from the parliament, we have the right according to the WP:NFC#UUI policy to add their non-free photo (licensed to Misplaced Pages), as it then can be argued it was indeed not possible to create a free photo taken at the time during their active carreer (of which the photo needs to be - in order to fulfill its encyclopedic purpose for the use in the article).

To further justify my own actions in the current case, I can tell you that I first searched for an available free image photograph for the two Icelandic politicians at Wikimedia Commons, but found nothing there was available. Then I searched the Icelandic Misplaced Pages and found the two photos we now discuss. Obviously I can now see (and agree) that you are 100% correct, that the Icelandic Misplaced Pages need to remove the photos if their license indeed (as claimed) has been limited only to be used by Misplaced Pages or limited to non-commercial use. Right now I need your help to contact and push the Icelandic Misplaced Pages to either delete their pictures or acquire a completely "free license" from the Icelandic Parliament. If we do not push the Icelandic Misplaced Pages for that, then nobody will be engaged to acquire the "free photos" that we obviously also need access to at the English Misplaced Pages. When you contact the Icelandic Misplaced Pages, I will suggest you also refer to the {{Non-free Parliamentary copyright}} template, as something that perhaps also could be a good idea for the Icelandic Misplaced Pages to start using (as part of a solution where they reach a special photo license deal with the Icelandic Parliament). I want to help Misplaced Pages by pushing for a true solution here (but think it is best that you establish the contact and explain the case for them). If you can re-use some of my formulations above in your post/mail to the Icelandic Misplaced Pages, then you have my full permission. Please give me feedback here at your talkpage about your actions in the case, and the response you get from the Icelandic Misplaced Pages. Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 01:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I have been waiting for your reply to the Icelandic case during the past three days. It is important we find a solution for the Icelandic photos. Once again, I request that you contact the Icelandic Misplaced Pages to solve the matter. My main problem is, that if they over at the Icelandic Misplaced Pages continue to have uploaded photos striving against the policy of being used for upload at Misplaced Pages, then we will never ever get "free licensed" photo of the politicians uploaded with availability for the English Misplaced Pages (where the picture policy is actively patrolled). So I will really appreciate, if you help me to at least push for a solution here! Getting an Icelandic wikipedian engaged to solve the matter, either by deleting the "partly restricted" photos or having a true unlimited "free license" granted by the Icelandic parliament, is what we really need. Once again, I will suggest you copy this {{Non-free Parliamentary copyright}} as a solution proposal into your post/mail to the Icelandic Misplaced Pages. Please keep me informed of your actions. Thanks in advance. Best regards, Danish Expert Danish Expert (talk) 11:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding earlier, but I'm not really finding the time to address problems on other Wikipedias right now. From what I can quickly gather, I'm getting the impression that the Icelandic Misplaced Pages is a project with very limited activity, and its image policies are in general disarray, just like those of many of the other smaller projects. If I were to wade in there now with a demand to get those image usages fixed, I'd probably lose an awful lot of my time, would alienate more or less everybody in that small community, and the end result would be either a mass deletion of like 90% of their images, or no such mass deletion and continuation of the horribly policy-violating status quo, but either way, a huge amount of frustration, probably on all sides. At some point, I believe the Wikimedia Foundation will have to take some steps to address such issues in its smaller daughter projects, because this is really not an isolated case, but personally I just can't muster the time and strength for it.

As for {{Non-free Parliamentary copyright}}, I'm afraid it wouldn't really solve the issue either, because, according to our policies, it's still a "non-free" template, so we'd still not be entitled to invoke it on portraits of living people. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Fortunately the Icelandic problem is not currently as big as one might fear. The category of the "wrong used license" (with license to "Icelandic Misplaced Pages" without the uploaders providing a fair use rationale) has been limited to these 91 pictures (of which 75 are photos of contemporary Icelandic MP politicians - being uploaded by the now inactive user named Kjerulf). I know and accept that the template I refered to (if created over at the Icelandic Misplaced Pages) would still only be a workable solution for deceased or retired MP politicians (but still think they should offer that solution as well for the "historic cases"). The 75 photos of the currently active Icelandic politicians of course need to be deleted. I think we can accomplish this without too much drama. But the longer we wait, we will get an increasing amount of pictures to delete from the category and much more drama entailed in the turmoil. I of course fully respect that you are out of time to take affair for the moment. But if you can help me just to find a link to an active Icelandic administrator talkpage, then I am willing to contact him and can refer him to the main findings we have made (here from our internal debate at your talkpage). Would that be okay? If you prefer to write him a short note - that will of course always be me highest wish (as you have a higher rank tha me) - but if you are out of time I will gladly write him a friendly formulated note about the problem. :-) Danish Expert (talk) 08:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, their equivalent of our WP:ADMIN is at is:Misplaced Pages:Möppudýr. (I like that word; it sounds like "mop-wielder", and they have a picture of a cute monkey on it, which means they are probably primates, like me. ;-) It's got a list of all their admins; if you try the first few you'll find several that have been reasonably active. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Please link to discussion page when deleting files

Hi, as an admin I was able to view the history of deleted file File:ST-VOY Basics Part 1.jpg and thereby trace the discussion page. In order to help ordinary readers to trace it, please could you link to the discussion page in the edit summary when deleting? – Fayenatic London 17:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Notice of complaints filed against you

You are the subject of complaints filed at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents by Paavo273 (talk) 23:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:In the Bedroom film poster.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:In the Bedroom film poster.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

A little frustrated

Hi, if I remember correctly, you deal with Armenia-Azerbaijan stuff (for your sins). I'm getting a little frustrated at some rather blatant tendentious editing I've found. The nomination of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Armenian Congress of Eastern Armenians seems obvious bad faith to me but it was immediately greeted with lots of "delete" votes by Azerbaijani and Turkish nationalist editors who are clearly tag-teaming. I do the detective work, find out this did indeed exist according to academic sources and is simply an alternative name for Armenian National Congress (1917). Therefore the page should be a redirect. Neutral editors agree with me. Yet the AfD simply gets relisted as no consensus.

The nominator Konullu (talk · contribs) is an obvious sock puppet master with a blatant anti-Armenian agenda who often edits logged-out to avoid ARBAA2 sanctions (he's been warned here ) and vote-stack using socks. I've put him up for an WP:SPI investigation here . Seems like beyond WP:DUCK to me. But SPI is a ghost town nowadays and nothing has come of it yet.

Maybe I don't have the patience for Misplaced Pages any more, but this blatant tendentiousness and tag-teaming annoys me.

Anyhow, I'll understand if you don't want to deal with this, and if that's the case maybe I'll try Sandstein instead. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 09:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Cheers.--Folantin (talk) 10:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Three Questions for you

Dear Future Perfect at Sunrise,

I know--and respect--the fact that you probably lead a busy real life outside wikipedia and that as an Administrator here, you presumably get targetted by vandalism. On the matter at hand, I ask for a little common sense on some of these Voyager images. I am not perfect and I did not contest your removal of this image file which probably wasn't a good one for this Voyager article. But it seems as if you almost have an agenda to Delete all the Voyager images on their wikipedia articles even when you haven't seen the Voyager shows. My question is three-fold? How do you know that an image is inappropriate for the show if you haven't seen it? An image might convey a critical aspect of the show--which you might consider unimportant but other Trek fans who have seen the shows consider significant. Secondly, why is it that when you remove an image from an article that I uploaded, I don't get a notification on my talkpage? User Miyagawa did this to about 2 or 3 images and I got a notification on my talkpage. (I agreed with Miyagawa and asked that the images be deleted--after he gave his reasons why the images were not important to the article--but that's just courtesy.)

Finally, the Non-Free review was supposed to be a discussion of images to be singled out for deletion but as I said, you seem to want to delete ALL of the images mentioned for discussion here before the discussion is over? Is that how wikipedia works. How many good people could wikipedia lose if there has been no agreement? I gave some reasons why some images should be kept and I ask if you will 1. either offer your suggestion to keep any images or 2. agree to keep some images. If I was an Admin (and I am not) I might be open to allowing the use of a few images that were borderline important if I was deleting 25-30 others that are junk. But since you are not a Star Trek fan, how could a Trekkie on wikipedia know that you would treat them fairly here if they upload an image for a show which they have seen but which you haven't?

PS: On the 29th century timeship image, I decided to ask for an uploader's own delete after both your and and Masem's comments at NFC. The Voyager producers did not talk about the timeship's technical features. Thank You, --Artene50 (talk) 20:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, where to start?

• "How do you know that an image is inappropriate for the show if you haven't seen it?" – Easy: Not having seen the show actually puts me in a better position to judge this, because I'm exactly in the position of the reader we're writing for. Articles are meant to inform readers who haven't seen the show. As a reader, I can tell whether or not the image teaches me something that the text couldn't. Of course, I can only go by what is in the text, but that's as it should be. If there were something terribly important that the image might convey, but the text fails to make that point, then of course we should not have the image, until the article has been improved.
• About notifications: Everybody was notified that the images were under review, and you in particular were of course fully aware that deletion was being discussed. More notification is not necessary.
• I went ahead beginning to delete things when I saw that in over a week no other editor had stood up for any particular image and made a case for its retention. I began deleting what I considered the obvious ones, just as David Fuchs had also done with a few earlier. Others I merely removed from articles and tagged as orphaned. Of course I'm going to hold off on deleting those you've picked out, even though I think most of those will eventually have to go too.
• Do I agree that some of this whole bunch should eventually be kept? I don't know. I haven't looked at all of them yet. But from those I have seen, none has struck me as particularly keep-worthy. Most of this is simply due to the fact that the articles themselves are of such miserably poor quality. With a high-profile science fiction series like this, there are normally relatively frequent situations where one might legitimately end up wanting to use an image – but those situations will only arise if the article has substantial encyclopedic content to begin with. The keep rate in this bunch is so low because the encyclopedic value of most of the articles is precisely zero (i.e. no real content beyond the plot renarration).
• Do I have "an agenda"? Well, I have the agenda that image use in this whole topic area (not just Star Trek but TV series in general) needs to be cleaned up. It's a mass problem, with probably thousands of bad images in thousands of articles, and we need to find procedures of speeding up the cleanup work. These images were uploaded unthinkingly, in huge numbers and without any individual discussion over many years, so we can't really afford getting bogged down discussing every single case now when we're cleaning them up.
• Please stop casting aspersions on my perceived "fairness" or my qualifications in dealing with these topics because I am "not a fan". This stance of yours is really quite offensive and annoying, and not conducive to further reasoned discussion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• OK. I see your point and its fair comment. Its just that as a fan of one show, I felt that you targeted Star Trek because of its larger profile but ignored many other TV shows with their own non-free images like Dr. Who, etc. I wondered how many other TV shows must have their own copyrighted images on wiki until you disclosed that link--and it is many, I admit. I was also a bit peeved that after I tried to expand the plot for Future's End here (there was an existing tag asking for a large plot expansion since this was a 2 part Voyager episode but the plot for its wikipedia article was ridiculously short) including a suggestion about 'Sarah Silverman' by George Ho, the image for the article faced deletion. I gave references to star trek.com to this article which was run by CBS. Thank You, --Artene50 (talk) 09:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Krste Misirkov

Hi. Can you help us here? I am three times reverted. I attempt to solve the issue with Stan, but he does not want to argue. He reverts sources, gives quotes out of context and bring back his POV. Here you can see what he deletes (neutral text, it's not mine). Thanks.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 11:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The R&I sock

Found this on the talk page: "On the subject of evasion, the editor operating out of 101.0.71.0/24 appears to be using PureVPN to hide their IP address. Note that PureVPN's Australian hostname resolves to 101.0.71.2. --92.4.162.209 (talk)23:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)" I've been talking to that dynamic IP on my talk page and they've been active on at least the article's talk page and BlackHades page - but this makes me think they are another sock. Dougweller (talk) 14:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, something is fishy about that IP guy. Such a small range (just a */24), such frequent changes of IP within that range, but getting reassigned the same IP repeatedly over several days; no other contributions from that range ever – that's not the signs of a normal dynamic ISP. If he bothers to turn up again, let's take a good sharp look at him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

He questioned whether you were too involved while also telling BH the SPI was a bad idea and that I wasn't a meatpuppet. But that doesn't convince me that we aren't dealing with a sock. I wish I could AGF but I'm all out of assume. Dougweller (talk) 15:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

He's turned up here and here since the range block. A year ago as his excuse for not registering an account he said he couldn't think of a username. Now he's using several different excuses (in the second diff, he says he's using someone else's computer). Take your pick. Mathsci (talk) 05:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I have filed a report on the Brazilian proxy used by the IP hopper at WP:OP. Mathsci (talk) 07:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

AN notification

I have brought up the issue with the IP range at AN.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mensural notation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Score (music) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

Please remove the accusation above that The Devil's Advocate violation his interaction action ban by posting here. NE Ent 23:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The posting of The Devil's Advocate was problematic in several ways. Future Perfect at Sunrise has now had a significant period of time to read it. He has presumably also seen The Devil's Advocate's further protests at WP:AN. He is free to do whatever he likes with that posting. NE Ent elsewhere has called the edit summary "inflammatory"; here he calls it an "accusation".

NE Ent has consistently shown a lack of WP:CLUE w.r.t. sockpuppetry issues connected with WP:ARBR&I. He prematurely closed an ANI thread related to Echigo mole socking. It concerned a blatant troll sock, trying to stir up trouble. NE Ent, inventing his own version of wikipedia policy, created a fake SPI assessment on Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole/Archive. However, prior to Future Perfect at Sunrise's block, the user page had already been tagged as a suspected sock (per "obvious sock is obvious"), a tagging reverted by the IP hopper; a quite complex enquiry had already been put in place at WP:OP about the nature of the ipsock, which has been confirmed by experts to be some kind of abusive proxy with an unindentified entry IP; and long before that the ipsock had been reported by another user at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikemikev. That initial report by ArtifexMayhem was a mistaken identification. Nevertheless, because the Mikemikev page is on my watchlist, that's how I found out about this latest Echigo mole sock. Mathsci (talk) 04:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)