Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:49, 10 June 2014

I'm largely inactive / 99% retired. There are more important things in life. If you're an admin looking to ask about a block or delete I made, feel free to reverse it. If we would grant each other the presumption that we are acting in good faith, we could dispense with some of the drama and long ANI threads. Please don't use the {{talkback}} template - if you have something to say, say it. If you are asking me to review a situation, please provide links to articles and diffs to the edits in question — I cannot read your mind to figure out what you are talking about.

Nomination of List of family relations in American football for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of family relations in American football is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of family relations in American football (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --Bejnar (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Template:Non-free use rationale

When you created {{Non-free use rationale}} back in 2006, you added a number of HTML ids. What purpose do these serve? See Template talk:Non-free use rationale#Markup issues. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  10:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't remember why I would have added them, but I'm going out on a limb and guessing that there were probably IDs in whatever I was copying it from and I just assumed that it was a standard practice to include them. I was strictly a C++ guy back then and didn't really know web standards so I doubt I even knew what HTML IDs were. (Obviously, I do know what they are now and if I were creating the template today, I wouldn't add IDs just for the sake of adding them.) --B (talk) 13:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts on Portal:American football

Hey, just saw you were the guy who created Portal:American football back during the Neolithic Age. I was wondering what you think about its new look, which I created in 2011-12 after practically everything on that page fell into disuse. I've been meaning to ask you this for some time, just didn't know who you were (as in, I didn't know who created the portal). Buggie111 (talk) 04:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks fine ... I always liked the dated things better, but if nobody is able to maintain it, we can't really do those. The one thing I do notice is that a few of the selections are coming up as red links ... they either need to have everything filled in or be hidden until they are filled in. --B (talk) 12:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I'm slowly getting around to doing. Buggie111 (talk) 14:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Picture

I placed it there so it would be across from where it mentions his UW-Madison playing career. Andy — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyLindgren (talk • contribs) 23:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep in mind that where the infobox appears relative to the article text depends on your monitor size or if you are reading on a mobile device. And having two pictures in there makes it really huge. --B (talk) 05:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Reading comprehension

Apparently, both you and I fail at it. The first time I read the disambig page, I saw that there were multiple films named Thief. So I moved the film page. It was only after review of the relevant Wikdiata entry, followed by review of the disambig page, that I realized that there was only actually one film named Thief. The rest all had a "The " prepended to them... Naturally, this was after I had edited the redirect. Oops.

Anyway, you took care of the move just fine. Thanks. --Izno (talk) 04:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Template:WHO-Recognized English Medium Medical Schools (China)

Regarding : I'm confused. That template links to nothing. I don't know why What links here says that. Please tell me which articles still contain that template. Thank you kindly, and sorry for the trouble. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I see now. Let me fix it. (I thought I already did.) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Solved with .

Now, all articles contain only:

• Template:WHO/MOE-Recognized English Medium Medical Schools (China)

None contain:

• Template:MOE-Recognized English Medium Medical Schools (China)
• Template:WHO-Recognized English Medium Medical Schools (China)

I think it's save to delete those last two now. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

{{MOE-Recognized English Medium Medical Schools (China)}} contains a lot of history. It is arguable that it needs to be retained for purposes of attribution since you have merged its contents into another page. But even if it doesn't need to be retained (it may not need to be if it doesn't rise to the level of being a creative work), we can't just delete it under the guise of being a misnamed redirect - that rule is for if you move an article called "Appple" to "Apple", not for when you merge "Apple sauce" into "Apple". As for {{WHO-Recognized English Medium Medical Schools (China)}}, what links here still shows a lot of inbound links (albeit not transclusions). Maybe the view or edit button on the new template is pointing to the wrong place? --B (talk) 02:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. Let's just leave it as is. It was a bit of an odd one, as it was combining two templates into one. I was worried about using a redirect for a navbox, and thought it messy having 4 old names hanging around and redirecting to the current name. So, the rightly-named template is now in each article to bypass the redirect. Considering the history, you are right to avoid deletion on any or all of these. They're not in use, but as they area cheap and contain histories, sure, leave them. Many thanks. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:FFD Relists

I have a question for you. I work a little in the image space, and there have been a few images recently, that have needed more discussion. Sometimes various admins relist them on newer pages to attempt to generate a better consensus. Are these relists admin only? Or can a non-involved experienced editor relist a stale discussion? Thanks in advance for your response. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 19:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know of any policy one way or the other. As long as it's done correctly and not to excess, I wouldn't see any harm in it, but that's just my personal opinion. --B (talk) 19:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your speedy response. It just seems like there has not been very many active admins working FFD recently, and I want to help out in ant non-admin way I can. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 19:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Shirt58 RfA

Hi B, I noted you recently opposed Shirt58's RfA in part due to his non-answering of questions. Shirt58 has now explained that this was in part due to a car accident and has since answered some questions. I was wondering if you might come back to the RfA page and take another look. Worm(talk) 11:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Can I just thank you for coming back to the RfA? I do appreciate the time you took on writing that comment and you raised some very valid points. Hopefully Shirt58 will take them into account for his future editing, whether or not he passes. Worm(talk) 08:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Deleted image

Can you please provide a rationale for the deletion of Misplaced Pages:Files_for_deletion/2013_February_19#File:The_Legendary_Marvin_Pontiac.jpg? Diego (talk) 19:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

As ТимофейЛееСуда argued based on NFCC#8, the text of the article was sufficient to communicate the information. Under NFCC#8, we only use non-free images where the reader's understanding would be impaired by the lack of one. This is the case with something like Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima or Kent State shootings where their respective iconic photos are inextricably linked with these events. I read the discussion and read the relevant portion of the article and didn't see how that was the case here. The selection of this image is arbitrary and decorative - not something that enhances a reader's understanding. It was even miscaptioned ("The Legendary Marvin Pontiac") so that someone casually scrolling through the article would think that it was a serious photo. --B (talk) 21:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

IFD closures

Thanks, that will make it quicker, I wasn't aware of the bot. James086 09:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Talk

Commented http://commons.wikimedia.org/User_talk:GhiathArodaki GhiathArodaki (talk) 20:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. --B (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Junta swearing-in ceremony.jpg

Hi B. The discussion on the File:Junta swearing-in ceremony.jpg has died down. As I no longer care that much about this rather protracted affair I would request if you have the time to close the discussion and delete the file. Thank you again for all your help. Take care. Δρ.Κ.  21:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done --B (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Really obliged. All the best. Δρ.Κ.  01:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Deleting request

Hi, I refer here to what you posted in http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Toronto8793&redirect=no

Of course I am ready to delete the image if any infringement has occur from my part. On the other hand, in the website (http://ferradanoli.wordpress.com/miguel/) from which the image has been taken to be posted elsewhere in the internet, it is given "Photos below are of my private collection, and I post them here for public domain (copyright exempted)".

If in spite of the above explanation you'd insist that I will have to remove the file, please indicate where exactly should I place the tag that you indicated.

Sorry to bother but it is the first time I am dealing with uploading of photos in Misplaced Pages.

I thank you in advance. /Toronto Toronto8793 (talk) 16:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, I will update the image description page accordingly. --B (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

--- I thank you so much for fixing the image description and attribution. And for pointing out the right procedure, which I am now aware of. Thanks/.T8793 Toronto8793 (talk) 16:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism on Dana Brunetti

Actually, none of the 'jokey' references were intentional (I wrote this in notepad and pasted it). I did some quick revisions inline, then after your reversion realized I left them in when I put it in wikipedia. I took all the jokey references out, and doublechecked them all.

I'm not 100% sure why the photo got a speedydelete request, but I went ahead and found another one and explained the fair use rationale. If I could make one small request, please be careful if you make any other edits; it took some time to find the references and other pieces to make it more complete.

I have a few other edits for the 'Digital Media' section that would be pretty interesting, but need to do them later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcr (talk • contribs) 22:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The photo is not appropriate under Misplaced Pages's fair use policy. No fair use photo of a living person will ever be appropriate to use. --B (talk) 22:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

If that's the case, how do people like Kevin Spacey, Matt Damon, Stephen Colbert and other celebrities have photos on their articles? Just curious, want to make sure I understand/don't violate policy. Fcr (talk) 23:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

If you click on the photos in those articles, you will see that they were taken by someone who released their photo under an acceptable license - either releasing all rights to it or publishing it under a free content license such as the GFDL or an acceptable Creative Commons license. --B (talk) 23:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review for File:Lincoln Bank Tower.jpg

An editor has asked for a deletion review of File:Lincoln Bank Tower.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. Davodd (talk) 04:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

File undeletion?

Hi, I'm not even sure this is possible, but I'm looking to undelete a file that was deleted because it was orphaned. I'm not sure whether it was specified in the file permissions, but we have permission to use this logo. My guess is that I forgot to include the permissions when I originally uploaded, which caused it to be removed from the article per NFCC and later deleted. If you could restore it, if that's possible, I'd appreciate it and be able to correct any permissions issue to prevent this going forward. Thanks jheiv 19:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi jheiv, I have undeleted the requested file and reset the timer to today (you can remove the template when you add it to an article) ... though from looking at the image, I don't see that this image is appropriate for fair use in Sean Plott if that's where you are planning to use it. We generally use logos in an article about the organization itself, but not in an article about someone who founded or works for the organization. --B (talk) 19:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks B, the logo was sent to me along with the standard press packet after I requested a better bio to improve the article last year. I originally tagged it with Template:Non-free_promotional, but it was later removed. I do think it helps the reader understand Sean Plott, the article I had added it to and was thinking about re-adding it to, but I could see that being debatable. Do you think the Non-free promotional tag would help ensure it's stay, or do you think it's doomed nonetheless? Thanks jheiv 15:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's a logo, not a promotional image, so the {{Non-free promotional}} template is definitely not right. The issue isn't finding the right hoop to jump through - the issue is whether or not the logo is necessary for the reader's understanding of the topic. If the article is about the organization itself, then our theory behind having a logo is it helps the user know what company the article is about ("oh, THAT Microsoft"). Whether this logic is good, bad, or indifferent, it's a harder argument to make when the article isn't about the entity itself and, as you say, it's likely doomed regardless. --B (talk) 16:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the insight. In that case, I won't bother re-adding it and taking up peoples' time (as I already have yours). It's (obviously) your call if you want to go ahead and re-delete or just let it expire, but I won't re-add it to the article so it'll remain orphaned. Thanks again for the explanation. jheiv 18:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Logos

Hi, B!

Thanks for the positive input!

The tone of voice is beside the point, I think my arguments here are well laid-out. My point is that old logos are OK for WP articles - as I say, BBC and NBC are cases in point where there are full separate articles. Even without a separate article - e.g. the LA Clippers have all 3 of their logos in their article, and I could list a myriad of other articles here that have all of their old logos within the article text. I do believe galleries should be acceptable, especially as there is not so much to say about these particular 3 logos as to actually have an entire explanatory section on them, when the Vivacom article is, for the minute, clearly short - hence why I opted for the gallery view.

But did Stefan2 need to just a) delete them from the article and b.) nominate them for deletion from Misplaced Pages itself? Clearly not. He could have merely interspersed them as thumbnails along the right-hand side of the article, say, or asked me to do so. Right? I did initially think of that myself, but, entirely stylistically I thought gallery view looked better. I'm all for proposing it as a policy that galleries should be acceptable, precisely because in certain articles they appear better stylistically. But the logos themselves are part of the company history and all WP company articles do try to include all their past logos, where they can. BigSteve (talk) 20:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Let's continue the convo here! Save us juggling aound :-) BigSteve (talk) 20:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Black Theotokos Icon

Thank you for your help with figuring out which category my image needed to be in. I'd never done this before and I honestly wouldn't have been able to save the image without you. Konstantinos (talk) 03:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome - glad to help. Our image policies and practices can be very confusing. --B (talk) 03:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:VPP

I don't know if you've noticed this, but a user apparently started a discussion about you and me without telling us at WP:VPP#Historical logos. Also, there was apparently a short discussion about the same thing at WT:NFC. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. --B (talk) 20:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:JaredLeto.gif

Thanks for the help regarding image permissions. I've never contributed an image before. I have sent the requested statement to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. --Mmhnto (talk) 21:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. --B (talk) 22:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Twilight Zone image

See what? There's nothing about The Twilight Zone on the page you gave a link to. Here's the whole story: On March 20, AldezD erroneously requested deletion of an image, I guess thinking that this article was about the original series. Then, Stefan2 makes an off-topic and irrelevant comment, evidently also thinking that the article was about the original series (which is why I changed the title to The Twilight Zone (franchise)). Then, after explaining it to AldezD, he moved it from the infobox to the section about the 1985 series. Which led me to say, "Issue resolved," which was the last thing said in the discussion, until all of a sudden you remove the image without being involved in the discussion. So, again, where is the violation? --Musdan77 (talk) 21:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what was irrelevant about Stefan2's comment. It seemed perfectly clear and relevant to me. Misplaced Pages only permits images to be used under a claim of fair use if they significantly increase the reader's understanding of a topic and their omission would be detrimental to that understanding (WP:NFCC#8). The reason that Misplaced Pages accepts any logos under a claim of fair use at all is under the theory that they help the reader to identify the subject of the article ("oh, that Microsoft"). This is highly questionable logic, but it is our current practice nonetheless. "Historic logos" or "alternate logos" have been a matter of some question in various debates on IFD and elsewhere. In other words, the question is, if you have one Twilight Zone logo, do you really need a second one in order to tell what the Twilight Zone franchise is? Different IFD discussions have answered this question in different ways. However, since you have asked nicely, I have relisted the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Files_for_deletion/2013_March_28#File:The_Twilight_Zone_1985.jpg so that a clearer consensus may be obtained on whether the updated use is acceptable under our rules. Please feel free to opine there. --B (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Shehzad Ahmed - Denmark.jpg

Got an opinion about this file? I think it looks as if it might be a screenshot from a TV broadcast, but I'm not sure. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Dubious, but considering that it was uploaded less than an hour ago by a brand new user, I think asking him and politely informing him of our image policies is a better alternative than guessing. I have posted a message on his talk page. --B (talk) 00:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Liam Watson

What exactly is inappropriate about a manager sharing a hug with his chairman after winning the league? Narom (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Nothing whatsoever. What was inappropriate — and what I changed in this edit — was having that image in the infobox for a biography with no context given to the reader. The reader, just from looking at that picture would not have had a clue which of those two people the article was about or what was going on. Are they father and son? Are they brothers? Are they a married couple? Pictures where there is something going on need context, not to just be dropped into an infobox. I moved the photo down to the appropriate spot chronologically and gave it a caption that helps the picture make sense. Sure, an alternative would be to leave the photo in the infobox but add a caption there, but infobox photos really should just be the person. By leaving the spot blank, there's more of a chance that someone will be motivated to donate a freely licensed photo. --B (talk) 21:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense, for some reason I thought it may have been deemed offensive :S. Tiredness should stay away from wikipedia. ta! Narom (talk) 22:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Quadrant count ratio

Wow, sorry about the Quadrant count ratio deletion. I've been up too long today and thought I was placing the deletion notice on the old draft in my userspace. Definitely not my intention to delete the actual article. How embarrassing. Douglas Whitaker (talk) 22:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

No problem. --B (talk) 23:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Can i get a copy on my page

Can i get a copy on my page of the penny stock scam?? Uncletomwood (talk) 00:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Copyright violations cannot be posted to Misplaced Pages and you don't have email turned on, so I can't email it to you. --B (talk) 01:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

 Ryan Vesey 01:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure this isn't what you meant to say

Your proposal note at WP:ANI#Fourth proposal currently seems to imply that anyone who feels that DC violated the "no on-wiki discussion" clause of CHILDPROTECT is a pedophile or an advocate of pedophilia. Might I suggest that you re-word it? — PinkAmpers& 18:46, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I said exactly what I meant to say. If you're reading that into what I said, then you're looking for something to be offended at. --B (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Confirmation of request

Confirming that I am UserB (talk · contribs). --B (talk) 21:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Have you seen m:Single User Login finalisation announcement? It seems that the Wikimedia Foundation has decided that you and I won't have to keep maintaining separate accounts for Commons after the end of this month and that the Wikimedia Foundation forcibly will rename all conflicting accounts, presumably making lots of users upset. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow. I had not seen that - thanks for pointing it out. I'm certainly thrilled, but I can't imagine that the Commons user:B (who was an active user on :de as de:User:Balû as recently as November of last year) would be too happy. I wish they would provide some kind of capability for merging accounts ... like if I could get my Commons:User:UserB contributions merged into my (what will be newly created) Commons:User:B account. --B (talk) 15:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

A lot of people will probably be upset. de:User:Stefan2 was active as recently as August last year. I asked on Meta and it sounded as if stewards will be able to rename and attach my Commons:User:Stefan4 account to my Stefan2 SUL account. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I made a similar request at meta and COM:BN, so I guess I'll see what they say. I thought the current system was fine - keep it as is for legacy accounts but going forward require user names to be unique. There's obviously a maintenance hassle with having to maintain hundreds of different user databases, but the hassle of countless many Wikipedians suddenly not being able to log in because their account was renamed without them knowing would seem to be even worse. I'd think it would make more sense to do it in an orderly fashion ... maybe auto-rename only those accounts who have no non-deleted edits in the last two years ... then handle active users on a case-by-case basis. --B (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that the chosen method is awfully disruptive for lots of users. I don't want to be the messenger here - the German user might think that I am the user who decided that he must rename. I won't do anything until the WMF has acted. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

That's a very good point too. And at least in your case, you know what's going on so if he were to complain to you, you'd at least be prepared for it. But there's probably hoards of less active users who will be affected. One of them has 100 edits on their wiki and one has 101 on their's. So the account with 101 "wins" but neither one of them has a clue what is going on. The one with 100 screams why did you rename me, but 101 has no earthly idea what he is talking about. Incidentally, the German guy who has B on Commons has had it since before I did. In 2007, there was a "single letter name" craze on Misplaced Pages and a gold rush to usurp them while they were available. But Commons B has had his name since July 2005 - before I even joined Misplaced Pages. Seeing it from his perspective, he'd certainly have a legitimate beef, but it is what it is. --B (talk)

de:User:Stefan2 was created before I created my account, unaware of his account. All renamed users are supposed to be templated with m:Single User Login finalisation announcement/Personal announcement which will give them some explanation if they can read the text. The most urgent thing is to get the notification translated into lots of different languages. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Removed deletion discussions

Do you have an opinion about this? A user removed three discussions from yesterday's page and they weren't restored until today. Should the discussions be relisted in case someone missed them? Please reply in that section on my talk page so that this discussion isn't split up more than necessary. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

No opinion - either is fine. --B (talk) 16:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Toby Mott image

Hi, my image got deleted... I made the suggested edits to the image. I emailed permissions-en@wikimedia.org with the proof of copyright, similar to that of all images that I have uploaded ...I don't see why the image should therefor be deleted... http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=File:Celeb-Toby_Pimlico.jpg&action=history Thanks! Chaosandvoid (talk) 10:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I have restored the image pending verification. --B (talk) 11:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Please see commons:Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#en:File:Celeb-Toby_Pimlico.jpg for a discussion about verifying the OTRS permission. --B (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Overture Networks images

Hello! I see by the note that you left on my talk page that three of the images being used for the Overture Networks page have been scheduled for deletion due to the licensing of the images. I spoke with Overture Networks, and they're willing to change the license so that the images can be used freely. Can you please advise whether changing the license on these images would prevent their deletion? If so, we'd be happy to make that change.

Thank you very much,

Mdrozdowski (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Please see Misplaced Pages:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a sample declaration of consent that the copyright holder could use. If they follow the instructions there and send a message to permissions-en@wikimedia.org releasing the images under the "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" license, then that would be considered sufficient. --B (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the swift reply; it's much appreciated. We'll get the correct form filled out and submitted for all images in question. Mdrozdowski (talk) 19:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello again - Mark Durrett of Overture Networks has submitted the required email to the permissions team at Wikimedia; will they let us know if there's any problems with his form? I believe we included all of the correct information but you never know.

Again, thanks for your help. Mdrozdowski (talk) 20:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. There is a significant backlog so it may be some time (weeks) before anything happens. Do you know how to add a page to your "watchlist"? You can hit the little star up at the top of the page on each of the three images and then they will show up in your watchlist if anything happens to them. If there were a specific problem, unfortunately they can't tell us exactly what it is because emails are confidential. I have left a message at commons:Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#Overture_Networks_images asking for someone with OTRS access to check and see if the permission has been received, but it may be that nobody will know anything until the email is processed in the natural order of things - I don't know if they can search for something or not.I have tagged the three images with {{OTRS-pending}} and left a note on the image deletion page, so nobody will delete the images before someone has time to review the email. Great work on getting the permissions, by the way. --B (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Maria Tallchief

Thanks for uploading a picture of Maria Tallchief. I am working on getting some nice pics from vintage copies of Dance Magazine, but this picture is a nice stop gap. I may revert to the full add and use it like that after I have betters pics of her, as it is a very nice ad. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

It's maddening the way we accept fair use photos with no effort at finding a free replacement. If someone was an omnipresent public figure in the 50s, it's darned near certain that there are publications that either had no copyright notice or the copyright wasn't renewed. (I'm guessing that's the case with Dance Magazine? Or are you getting permission from the magazine itself?) It took less than 30 minutes for me to find a public domain photo of her ... less time than was spent arguing over the deletion of the fair use one. ;) --B (talk) 01:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed on all points. Dance Magazine failed to renew their copyright, just like 90% of all publications from the time period. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

To reinforce your point, on the very first page I scanned from Dance Magazine for a Tallchief picture there was also a picture of Merce Cunningham. His article had a fair use image on it (now deleted) despite the fact there were 4 free images on him already uploaded to commons! --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, with Google News Archive, it is often very easy to find images, since Google allows you to search for text in newspapers. Just go to http://news.google.com/archivesearch and limit the search to newspapers published before 1964. Skip the links to newspapers where a price is indicated (those newspapers were normally renewed) and then check whether the newspaper was renewed.

A question about renewals, though: Lester Lewis currently has no image. This newspaper has a photo of him (go to what Google calls "page 3"), and the newspaper wasn't renewed. The photo is claimed to come from the Associated Press. What happens if it was also published in other newspapers which were renewed? Did all newspapers have to be renewed, or was it enough that one newspaper didn't renew the copyright? --Stefan2 (talk) 16:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I should have checked this more carefully: that was a different Lester Lewis. This means that the image is useless. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The AP can (must?) renew their copyright directly, so appearing in one non-renewed paper is not enough AFAIK. What I am unsure about is appearing in a renewed paper is enough or if the copyright holder (AP) must renew the image directly --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Newspapers (sometimes? usually?) credit who the photographer is, so we (sometimes? usually? nearly always?) know if it was an AP photo. --B (talk) 21:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Al Rosen (actor).jpg

Got an opinion here? This is a screenshot from Cheers, but the guy has also appeared in lots of other TV series. Don't you think that some of them might satisfy {{PD-US-not renewed}}, and wouldn't there be other images, for example in newspapers, which satisfy {{PD-US-not renewed}}? It's getting very tiring to nominate photos for deletion today... --Stefan2 (talk) 13:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

For someone who was a public figure pre-1963, I think a pretty good search needs to be made before we use a fair use image. List of films in the public domain in the United States lists a bunch of films by RKO Radio Pictures, the company that made Footlight Fever, where they failed to renew the copyright. Is there a definitive copyright renewal search for films? I would think that we have a reasonable expectation here until proven otherwise. --B (talk) 14:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

There is http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/ but you have to search by year and not by title, although titles are listed alphabetically. The problem is that you have to check both the 27th and the 28th year after publication and that there sometimes are separate lists for January-June and July-December, so it takes some time to check. Very tiring. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

So if Footlight Fever was a 1941 film, if we check, say, from 1966 until 1971, we should have it covered right? (In case they originally copyrighted it on December 31, 1940 or something like that ... covering a few years on either side) --B (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done I found it ... it was renewed in 1968, unfortunately. --B (talk) 14:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's the way to do. As you have to check multiple places, it quickly gets tiring.

Also, you can try searching for the person's name on Google and limit the results to news.google.com. That should bring up lots of newspaper articles about the person (but sadly Google only has newspapers from certain English-language countries so it is often useless for people from other countries). That is how I found those {{PD-US-not renewed}} photos in the FFD discussion today. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Or this one? There's Commons:Template:PD-AR-Photo, but {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} requires that it additionally entered the public domain in Argentina before 1996. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I saw that one and just skipped over it ... but I had no idea that the Argentina copyright term for photos was so short. So basically any photo of him published in his lifetime is public domain? Of course we shouldn't be using something under a claim of fair use! --B (talk) 14:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, basically anything published during his lifetime was in the public domain on the URAA date. The only issues, as I see, would be with unpublished photos, photos first published in a different country and subsisting copyrights (published with US copyright formalities). --Stefan2 (talk) 14:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

RAMI Pictures

Thanks for your comments on the RAMI pictures. RAMI by J.M.K. cars were made from 1958 until about 1969. They were definitely sold in the United States before 1978, but how much before is a question. David Sinclair's (diecast and model importer) 1979 Automobile Quarterly article has them. He was selling them in the U.S. several years before that. Though the model selection of RAMIs is amazing, Rio Models and Brumm are usually considered even better.--Cstevencampbell (talk) 21:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you look at your car and box and see if there is a copyright notice? --B (talk) 21:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Advice needed

Hi B. Since you are an image upload expert I would like to ask you regarding the NFCC status of this recently uploaded cartoon File:GreekcartoonmistrustingAlbanians.gif as well as the comments in the fair use rationale made by the uploader about xenophobia etc. Thank you for your time. Best regards, Δρ.Κ.  01:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't think this is appropriate on several levels. For one thing, surely if anti-Albanian sentiment is as prevalent as the article is claiming, some example of it could be found that does not require the use of a "fair use" image. For example, you could use an old cartoon for which the copyright has expired. Or you could use a photo showing vandalism on an Albanian-owned building or some such thing. But also, I don't think that seeing this cartoon substantially enhances my understanding of the topic any more than it would to just tell me that there's anti-Albanian sentiment. If the central focus of the article were bigotry in Greece, then maybe I could see it ... but the central focus of the article is immigration and alleged anti-Albanian bigotry is a minor piece to that puzzle. So it definitely fails NFCC#8. Also, as a side note, from reading this passage, it seems EXTREMELY preachy. From reading this, I get the idea that Greece is run by the KKK. Maybe it really is that bad - I have no idea and don't about anything outside of my corner of the world - but I definitely pick up on a point of view here. --B (talk) 02:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much B. I appreciate your advice. I will put it up for deletion under NFCC8. Take care. Δρ.Κ.  02:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

2 Cents

Can I get you to take a look at WP:AN#NFCR ? Thanks, Werieth (talk) 13:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Wavell p.134.jpeg

You deleted this file on 18 April. But the typo in the PD which caused the alert had been fixed. So there was no need to delete it. Please undo your delete. --Rskp (talk) 01:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Wavell p.134.jpeg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was deleted pursuant to this discussion: Misplaced Pages:Possibly_unfree_files/2013_April_10#File:Wavell_p.134.jpeg. {{PD-UK}} says that images are public domain in the UK 70 years after the death of the author. But in order for the image to be used on Misplaced Pages, it needs to be public domain in the United States (where Wikimedia's servers are located) - it doesn't matter if it is public domain in the country of origin. If it was published in 1933 in the UK, it's still copyrighted here. Now, all that said, please see commons:Commons:Derivative_works#Maps. The underlying facts of the map are not copyrightable. So you could ask at the Misplaced Pages:Graphics Lab and someone could probably make a nice map that shows the information embodied in this map, but is an original creative work. --B (talk) 01:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

However given the ubiquitous publication history of this particular source which was first published in 1928, that's 85 years ago, and has been continuously in the public domain since, being published 25 times including in the United States, surely so prominent a source should be included. --Rskp (talk) 03:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:FAIR#UUI #4. A fair use map is only permitted if the purpose of it is to offer critical commentary on the map itself. If you're just using it to depict the underlying facts of the situation, then it's not permissible. --B (talk) 11:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The reason this file was put up for deletion was because of a typo in the Public Domain tag. This was fixed. Yet you still deleted it even tho the problem had been fixed.

Your completely new assertion made after the file was deleted, that the Misplaced Pages servers being in the US has a bearing on this is interesting. Can you provide a link to support this?

The Fair Use link you provide talks about maps in atlases. I have not attempted to use the fair use rationale. This is a Public Domain copyright issue which is ok in the UK where Wavell has been published and republished.

Your suggestions for having a map drawn by the Graphics Lab or providing critical commentary on the map would both be original research, wouldn't they? --Rskp (talk) 01:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

First off, I didn't make up anything new after the discussion. Stefan2 correctly pointed out in the discussion that the image is copyrighted. As for where the servers are located and whose laws we are subject to, you can find this any number of places, for example, our own article on Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages:COPYRIGHT#Governing_copyright_law says it. For Misplaced Pages to accept an image as public domain, it has to be public domain in the United States. For Commons to accept it, it has to be public domain both in the United States and in its country of origin. As for fair use, the link I cited is giving specific examples, not saying that atlases are the only example of inappropriate maps to use. If you're using a map of the real world (as opposed to a map of a fictional location like Middle-earth) under a claim of fair use and you're not discussing the map itself, then it does not qualify for fair use under WP:NFCC#1. As for a map drawn by the graphics lab, no, Misplaced Pages:No original research#Original images specifically says this is NOT the case. As long as the user-authored image is not publishing new original ideas, it is not considered original research. For example, if you had your own theory about the route that a particular general took, it would not be appropriate to create a map advocating that view. But if you're using established facts, there is no problem there and if you look at Commons:Category:Maps of wars (particularly at the more recent wars), you will find plenty of user-authored maps. --B (talk) 01:50, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that I'm starting to see what's going on. So, is the problem now that the map has not been discussed in the article? Because the articles in which the map appears are still being developed in my User space. I've just got all the info together and am now going through the articles editing them up before publishing them and Wavell's map will definitely be discussed in the body of the article. --Rskp (talk) 02:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

What is the article in question and where would it go? --B (talk) 02:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

There are two articles. Here are the links. ‪User:RoslynSKP/Battle of Hareira‬#74th Division and ‪User:RoslynSKP/Battle of Sheria‬#6 November. I hasten to add there is still quite a bit of editing to do before they get out there. --Rskp (talk) 05:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I took a look. Unless your purpose is to analyze the map itself (which I don't think is your purpose), it's not appropriate for fair use on Misplaced Pages. --B (talk) 11:33, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• Can't you wait until I've had a chance to fully develop the articles before making that decision? If you reinstate the map, I will contact you when I'm about ready to publish the articles, so you can make an informed decision about the uses I've made of the map. --Rskp (talk) 01:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Fair use maps aren't supposed to be used in user pages anyway. If I restore the map, a bot will just remove it at some point. Can you use a placeholder until you're ready to go live? --B (talk) 02:45, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes, I've got one in place. I'm sorry I've been such a pest but I'd really like to use the map if possible. Thanks a lot for your time and advice. Regards, --Rskp (talk) 07:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
      • I remember that at one point awhile back an exception for fair use images in article drafts was mentioned, but I just looked at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content and no such exemption is mentioned. (The only exemption is for categories of fair use images that are pending deletion.) --B (talk)
• Would be possible to use the "This file is NOT necessarily in the public domain in the United States because ..." disclaimer which appears on a number of files? --Rskp (talk) 04:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

animated gifs

Misplaced Pages:Non-free_content_review/Archive_21#Animated_game_GIFs.3F

I'd like to invite you to re-read the discussion for the Animated game GIFs at Captain Tsubasa 5: Hasha no Shōgō Campione. There was general agreement to keep at least one of the images, not to delete both.Diego (talk) 06:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Were we to engage in an exercise of counting heads, it's 4-1 for deletion of one image and 3-2 in favor of deleting the other. I realize that Masem's comment is obviously not an explicit !vote, but I read "And importantly, the computer animation itself needs to be discussed" and his counterexample of an appropriate animated GIF as a statement that he feels these are not appropriate. I did read and strongly consider both arguments for keeping Captaintsubasa5.gif. Toshio Yamaguchi said, "File:Captaintsubasa5.gif shows some of the gameplay and a short cutscene, which seems good enough to illustrate the overall elements of the game." This is not especially a policy-based reason for keeping it or evidence that it complies with NFCC#8 (which was the only valid reason I saw for deletion - Dianna's point that they failed NFCC#1 as well is only relevant if you first agree that they failed NFCC#8 and nobody took issue with NFCC#3b compliance). Just because it illustrates something doesn't mean that illustration is necessary to a reader's understanding. I also considered your comments. I even looked back at the history of the article to see if it was different in December (it was basically the same as it is now). You said, "I definitely wouldn't have understood what the 'Cinematic Soccer' scenes are without the comparison of the two cutscenes". I discounted that argument for compliance with NFCC#8 because both images depict the Cinematic Soccer genre and the topic of this article is not Cinematic Soccer itself. Perhaps if we had an article on that topic, a cutscene would be appropriate. "The article makes a big deal about Captain Tsubasa 5 having a different style than the predecessors." This is the best argument for NFCC#8 compliance I saw. And I did look for a while at the article and the two animations. I could not see anything necessary to my understanding that could not be conveyed with words. You don't need to see the new characters to understand that they have new characters. You don't need to have graphics to understand that there are new graphics. I couldn't see any reason that this statement would override the concerns expressed by the other participants in the discussion. So I closed it as delete. --B (talk) 11:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

While the topic is not Cinematic Soccer itself, Cinematic Soccer is important to the game; one can't understand the game without understanding the genre to which it belongs. Given that we don't have an article about the genre, the game can't be understood without the image. If we had that article, then yes a wikilink to it and some still images could be enough to understand the game, provided that other article included images about video games in the genre, but that's not the case. Removal of these images have definitely hurt undesrtanding the topic for me. Maybe Masem and the others already know how the genre works, and commented without realizing they have a good deal of prior knowledge? Diego (talk) 14:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

(BTW I also disagree with Dianna's assessment, but didn't have time to comment on it - the discussion was closed before I saw it). If cinematic soccer is not described in the article, that's a reason to expand the article and explain it, not to consider that "Cinematic soccer" is not relevant to the topic. Diego (talk) 14:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I've opened a deletion review at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2013 April 21. Diego (talk) 07:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review

You couldn't be more correct; this was a case of me being very lazy in dealing with edit conflicts. Thank you very much indeed.--Launchballer 13:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

RE: Your other photo uploads

B, to answer your first question, yes I was the actual photographer of those Styx pictures. In July of that year, there was a concert at a park in my city where Kansas, Styx and Foreigner all headlined and I was lucky enough to be in VIP seats. Needless to say, those were my easiest uploads haha. But thank you for the examples. Please give me about a month's grace period to read through it and fix the photos. Thank you for your guidance, I appreciate it.

-Nirvanafanatic619 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirvanafanatic619 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding deleted file. I personally removed the watermark recently. Confused?

Regarding:

"(Deletion log); 15:37 . . B (talk | contribs) deleted page File:800,Experimental pots awaiting deployment.JPG ‎(G4. The image was deleted because we're not interested in watermarked images, not because of licensing. If you contest the deletion, please see WP:DRV.)"

I personally removed the watermark from the image, File:800,Experimental pots awaiting deployment.JPG, recently and overwrote the file. I thought I had removed the {{watermark}} template entry from the page as well. Although that may have been the night wiki servers were acting up. Perhaps it didn't 'stick' somehow.

Anyway, I still have the edited file (watermark removed) in my personal archive and can easily re-upload it if need be when the page is restored. The image was included in an article (might have been an article in development in user space, I was working with multiple images at the time). Yep, here's the article (which now has broken image links): User:Gurnard/QBEX.

I found this very similar file File:QBRX Module 2, Experimental pots awaiting deployment.JPG still in the archive. And the user page linked above appears to have been idle awhile. So likely no harm done.

Regardless, I'd still like to understand how the image came to be deleted. Was it one of the ones where the thumbnail in the change list was displaying different from the primary preview at the top of the page? Was this a simple mistake (like an overzealous bot) or... ? If there was a valid reason for deletion it would help me as an image editor to have a clear understanding of it so as to avoid spending time on doomed images in the future. I'd found the image via either Files for cleanup or Images for cleanup.

Thanks for your time and attention, --Kevjonesin (talk) 03:06, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Kevinjonesin. There is a bug/feature/server problem with the cache not getting refreshed properly. When I looked at the image, it showed a watermark (because the server was still showing the old cached version). I have restored File:800,Experimental pots awaiting deployment.JPG. --B (talk) 03:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. :  } --Kevjonesin (talk) 06:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for the welcome note and information relating to image uploading. I intended to reply sooner but was recovering from recent illness. I will definitely stay in touch and thank you again for your help. Jen Campbell (talk) 05:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Glad to help. --B (talk) 12:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

T-80UD

Hello,

Recently, you added di-no permission tag to this image File:T-80UD Pakistan Army.jpg ( http://en.wikipedia.org/File:T-80UD_Pakistan_Army.jpg ) .. The file is scheduled for deletion after 1 June 2013 . The license has been sent and is available at ticket 2013052510000661 .. then, is this tag appropriate? .. and regarding the EXIF data, I view it as the author's name and the publisher is Pakistan Military Review and it has licensed it under cc-by ... Is anything else required??

Thanks ..--Maxx786 (talk) 17:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The ticket did not contain sufficient information to confirm the copyright status of the image and the person who submitted the ticket has not responded to a request for followup information. The EXIF data credits "MK CHAUDHRY", thich is the name of a Corbis photographer. If you look around on that site, plenty of his images are clearly from elsewhere, for example is watermarked with "gettyimages". So unless we get something really, really convincing, I have no confidence that the license is legitimate. --B (talk) 17:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

And actually, upon further review, all three images on the source website come from Corbis. I have deleted File:T-80UD Pakistan Army.jpg in accordance with WP:CSD#F9 as a flagrant copyright violation. --B (talk) 17:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Nickaang sockpuppetry fallout: Luis D Ortiz

You deleted Luis D Ortiz as a creation by blocked User:Nickaang or his sockpuppets. But the user who AFC notified about the page's creation, User talk:Senencito, isn't blocked and wasn't named in the SPI. Could you please take another look? This should be resolved one way or anoter. Huon (talk) 23:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

When I deleted the page, it was a redirect to Luis D. Ortiz, which had been created by TankThank (talk · contribs), a Nickaang sock. Luis D. Ortiz appears to have started out as a copy/paste move of Luis D Ortiz and then TankThank expanded on it. I will add Senencito to the Nickaang checkuser - there is sufficient reason to believe that both incarnations of this article were created by Nickaang. --B (talk) 23:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

This is user Senencito. I am new to wikipedia so I need some help understanding this. I created the Luis D Ortiz article and no one else. I don't know who tankthank is or who nickaang is and to my knowledge I am not writing for any of them. If you need some evidence on who I am by all means google my username, it will lead to my website www.senencito.com and you can contact me there to confirm my identity. I really don't understand why am I being linked to this person and it's becoming pretty frustrating.

I apologize if writing here is not the right media but I do need to understand this. -- User talk:Senencito —Preceding undated comment added 01:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Senencito, based on your statement here, I have restored the revisions of the article prior to the banned individual's edits and moved it to Luis D. Ortiz. I apologize for the inconvenience. --B (talk) 02:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I appreciate it. - Senencito —Preceding undated comment added 23:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding a file I uploaded

This with regard to the file A scaled down model of Brahmos-II at Aero India 2013.jpg which I had uploaded. I had sent the permission to use the file to permissions@wikimedia.org to which you (most probably) responded on May 4 saying that - "we cannot use content on the basis of statements such as "I allow Misplaced Pages to use my photos". Because Misplaced Pages content is designed to for reuse, the media needs to be released under a free license in order for it to be included in Wikimedia projects." Then I again sent a mail to Shiv Aroor, the author asking if he agreed to release the file under public domain, to which he replied "Yes". I had forwarded the mail to permissions@wikimedia.org on May 5, to which I have got no response. The file will be deleted on June 3 i.e. day after tomorrow. This the reason I am requesting for your help by taking a look at that mail. Thank You. - Jayadevp13 16:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

FYI, when you reply to a permissions message, please include the ticket number in the subject line (something like ). When you do that, the software automatically links it with the previous message and sends an email to whoever previously answered (me in this case). Regarding the message itself, we still need (1) a clear statement of authorship and (2) a clear statement of license. There are lots of "free content" licenses - the GFDL, the GPL, the LGPL, a handful of Creative Commons ones, the Free Art License, beerware, the WTFPL, etc. We need a specific license to be specified or for the copyright holder to unambiguously state that he is releasing the content into the public domain. --B (talk) 17:42, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank You for extending the deletion date. I will take care of your instructions next time. Were you able to find the mail I sent you? It shows that I asked if he agreed to release the file in public domain, to which he replied positively. What should I do now? - Jayadevp13 17:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I replied to the email you sent. You didn't say "public domain", you said "free license". There are lots of free licenses - that's like asking someone, "do you want a beverage" - it doesn't tell you which one. What we really need is for him to fill out and submit the WP:CONSENT form. --B (talk) 23:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Should he need to fill the form and send it to me (the uploader) which I will forward to you or he has to send it to permissions@wikimedia.org? I think the earlier one might be easier. Please reply immediately. I have to mail it to him accordingly. - Jayadevp13 04:07, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

He can send it to us directly ... or he can send it to you and you can forward it ... either way is fine. --B (talk) 11:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

He has sent me a reply and I have forwarded it to you. Please take a look. - Jayadevp13 17:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done, I have marked the permission as accepted, all is well. --B (talk) 19:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Image File Aif-logo.jpg deleted on June 14, 2013

I uploaded a file titled Aif-logo.jpg, (see > http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=File:Aif-logo.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1) and you deleted it on June 14, 2013 because the article on which I intended it to be used was still being reviewed. That article, Aspen Ideas Festival, has since been created, and I am wondering if you would be able to reinstate the Aif-logo.jpg page for the purposes of using it on the Aspen Ideas Festival page. Thank you. Jesch.001 User talk:Jesch.001 08:56, 18 June 2013 (MST)

File:DavidRosen.jpg

And the related discussion at PUF Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree files/2013 May 20#File:DavidRosen.jpg. There's an OTRS ticket from Rosen covering the point about the sculpture and I've asked him to confirm who took the image. Question is how do we mark this up on the file description that there is a release for the 3d work of art? Oh and to complicate it, the uploader has also uploaded it to commons (same file name) which makes me think they are also the person who took the image. NtheP (talk) 20:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Is there any dispute that Iluvendan took the image? We normally take someone at their word unless it's a fanciful claim. The only dispute was whether it was an unauthorized derivative work, which, as Niteshift36 pointed out, when you pose for the picture, you're obviously authorizing the derivative work. His consent for the terms of the license is not necessary - if he consented to the creation of the derivative work, then the copyright holder of that work is free to do with it as she pleases. As for how to describe the image, I would just say, "photo by ________ depicting David Rosen and his sculpture __________" --B (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Destroying the work of others

If you have something you want me to do or look at, please include a link to the article or photo in question. If you just want to complain about our image use policy or fair use policy, there are other fora for that. --B (talk) 17:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

By the way, if you're talking about File:Photo of Zhang Yi Tang.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), you uploaded it claiming that it is public domain because it is "freely distributed by the University of New Hampshire". That's not what "public domain" means. That just means it's publicly available (not confidential). It is still subject to copyright. Misplaced Pages does not accept such things and so they are deleted. If you would like to request permission from someone that Misplaced Pages would accept, please see WP:COPYREQ for instructions. WP:CONSENT has a form that can be used by the copyright holder to give consent. --B (talk) 18:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand why you've closed the discussion just as it was starting. You have now effectively hidden the paragraph that I wrote. Please undo. Aberdeen01 (talk) 05:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Uh, Aberdeen01, dude, this is B's personal user space talk page. The host is entitled to a bit of latitude.

If you really wish to continue and you're looking for comments to persist you may have chosen the wrong venue. One might consider dropping a link and forking to their own user space as B is perfectly free to delete or archive this thread at will. --Kevjonesin (talk) 08:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

If you have a question, an image you would like for me to review, or a specific action you would like me to take, then please feel free to make that request. If you just want to object to the image use policy because you believe that Misplaced Pages's copyright and licensing needs should not apply in your case, then that is not something I have the authority to grant and so there is no need to discuss it. You uploaded a photo that was very clearly not public domain and tagged it as public domain. I deleted it. Unfortunately, in 1976, the US Congress saw fit to abandon the American tradition of "free content" where if you did not actively pursue copyright, your work was considered to be public domain. Because of this decision, every creative work is copyrighted from the moment of creation. If you publish a cell phone photo of your friends on Facebook, that photo is copyrighted. Even if you don't know or care that it's copyrighted, it is. The vast majority of websites on the planet don't really care - they will just use whatever they want without understanding or caring about copyright. Misplaced Pages doesn't work that way. We don't use someone else's photo without an explicit grant of a license compatible with our Creative Commons attribution/share-alike publication. I realize that this is annoying at times and it can make things very difficult if the copyright holder is not easily ascertainable or contactable, but it is what it is. This isn't me destroying someone's work - if it hadn't been me, it would have been someone else a few hours later. --B (talk) 19:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding deletion of WebDonuts

Hello,

I just wanted to ask if you could possibly restore this article? It seems to be a very popular web comic and I'm interested recreating it so that more information can be added.

Thanks a bunch!

Challe11 (talk) 18:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

This article is deleted because it was the creation of a banned user. It will not be restored. This is not, however, a ban on creation. If you are not working on behalf of the banned user, you are more than welcome to create a new article under this title. You may also, if you would like, use the articles for creation process if you would like to get help creating an article. --B (talk) 19:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

inre Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (film)

Yes, the topic of the planned film is getting and will likely continue to get lots of coverage, but when considering planned films we look to the applicable guideline and consider whether of not that coverage gives us anything solid about the film itself... casting, production, plot, ect. To be fair to our readers, I think a temporary redirect to either J.K. Rowling or the article on the 2001 book "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them" by that author (and where this adaptation is already written about), is a valid consideration. The arguments about how the film topic might become supremely notable have a bit of merit, but I think it logical that we send readers for now to where it makes sense under policy, guideline and essay to keep readers informed. What'cha think? Schmidt, 02:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree with a pedantic enforcement of notability guidelines in this case. It's something with a major fan following, which means lots of people googling it, and Misplaced Pages is most useful when it has an article about something that lots of people are googling for. --B (talk) 00:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Griffith College Ireland logo.jpg

Any updates to this ? LGA _talk 07:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

No. I just looked at it and no reply was ever received from a followup request that we sent. The permission received is not sufficient. It's been long enough that this really needs to either be retagged as fair use (if appropriate) or removed. --B (talk) 19:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Taken to PUF to have this settled once and for all. That said, I think that this image can be kept as fair use per WP:NFCI §2. There are lots of very old files with {{OTRS received}} which should probably be checked and often deleted. Old files with {{OTRS pending}} since last year were only deleted last month. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

OTRS tickers

Two things about OTRS ticket 2013043010005577 -

• You probably meant to add {{OTRS_permission}} not {{OTRSreceived}}. Please see the two templates for why that common error could have been made.
• The copyright for the image was not with the subject. See the note I left on the ticket for more information.

Regards, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC) (Please leave a talkback or ping when replying)

Please block IP

Hi B. You blocked this guy in 2007!!! He is back, and doing nothing but vandalism! Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 22:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

It looks like this is a school, not one guy, and almost certainly not the same person who was there seven years ago. Please notify WP:AIV while the vandalism is happening as you are more likely to get a timely response. --B (talk) 00:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Expanding cita_web for Spanish parameters

Hi, User:Wikid77 here. I am expanding the Template:Cita_web to handle Spanish parameters, acting as an "exact copy" of es:Plantilla:Cita_web, plus allow any English-language parameters in the mix to run {{cite web}}. I think this design, feasible now using Lua, is following the idea you had suggested in the RfD of July 2010
     • wp:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2010_July_18#Template:Cita_web
As you had predicted, the prior redirect had become "not useful" as rejecting the unrecognized Spanish parameters, while the newly expanded template can show actual formatted cites and links from Spanish parameters, as typically written by various users. Likewise, other templates provide dual support for German parameter names, such as "Einwohner=" or "population=" with Austrian towns. Hence, I implemented your suggestion, tested as the /sandbox version Template:Cita_web/sandbox, and installed. However, now there is a debate to prevent the expanded template. See discussion:
     • Template_talk:Cita_web#Expanded as a full template
Your opinions would be appreciated in that discussion, when you have time. Thanks. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Raycom/LF Sports

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Raycom/LF Sports requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• I wish people would look at this stuff before just deleting something that has been around for 8 years. Raycom Sports is very much a notable company and a fixture in sports broadcasting. Raycom/LF Sports was the name of this entity for a few years when Raycom and LF Sports events were co-branded, before Raycom purchased Lincoln Financial Sports. While I have no opinion whatsoever on whether this rates a separate article, if you don't believe it does, you should have turned it back into a redirect rather than having it deleted. I created it as a redirect 8 years ago. Someone else made an article out of it. Whether the article should exist or not, I don't care, but if it shouldn't then certainly the redirect should. --B (talk) 22:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

ToBk (talk) 16:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

You, letter B, deleted my redirect page!!!

It was only just a redirect page to my user page, but you definitely deleted it, letter B. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Pina (talk • contribs) 04:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• Redirects from article space into user space are not permitted. --B (talk) 11:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

ARE YOU INSANE?!?!?!?!?!?!

How could articles redirect to user pages but they are not permitted? That's no fare, letter B!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Pina (talk • contribs) 19:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Just because the technical means to do something exist does not mean it is a permissible action. Redirects into user space are not permissible. --B (talk) 19:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)