User talk:Nv8200pa - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ElinorD (talk | contribs) at 03:35, 6 September 2007 (→re: []: there is precedent). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 03:35, 6 September 2007 by ElinorD (talk | contribs) (→re: []: there is precedent)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Cookies

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

Award

I hereby dub thee an official "Upholder of the Wiki" for thy dedicated work on WP:IFD, closing cases and reducing the backlog. Hear hear! – Quadell 14:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Person of the Century

A very excellent solution to the Gordian knot of the problem that was being presented. Good work. howcheng {chat} 16:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Permission granted by copyright holder for Amy Mihaljevic picture - Please to reload?

Hi Mr. N,

We got fair use permisssion from Ohio School Pictures on Misplaced Pages. Release from Ohio School Pictures to use photo of Amy Mihaljevic in the Misplaced Pages Article (implied Fair Use Release)

Can you please reupload the image again? TexasAndroid told me that since you or Elinor were one of the two deleting admins, that you could re-load the image and end the debate. Isn't that rather logical, given that permission was granted?

Thanks so much.

Blue BlueSapphires 00:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

I offer my sincere thanks with respect to your handling of the situation with the Einstein-Planck image that was the subject of recent debate and argument. Both your analytical skills and wider sense of perspective were increasingly evident as the debate went along. Also, the way you handled the situation as new information and argumentation was brought to our collective attention was, IMO, admirable. Thank you for that, and I apologize for having missed it at first glance. ... Kenosis 03:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Jack_Jones.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Jack_Jones.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Misplaced Pages articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 19:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The image deletion makes no sense

"02:02, 22 August 2007 Nv8200p (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Image:Light from Death Note.jpg" (Remove image per wWP:IFD) (Restore)"

Listen, this image deletion makes NO SENSE. Look at the IFD. It states that it has no fair use rationale. Listen - All I need to do is give it fair use rationale. Then the reason for IFD is no longer there. I gave the image fair use rationale, so the deletion was undeserved.

Well, why did you delete it due to the IFD reason when I solved the IFD reason in a different way? Before re-deleting stuff, look over the comments. WhisperToMe 06:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring the image :) WhisperToMe 14:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Image:KISSCollage2-1000.jpg

Hello - I restored this image, which you deleted today. This is because there was no consensus to delete the image (I in fact raised an objection on the debate section that no one responded to), nor was the original uploader notified of the deletion debate as is instructed on the admin instructions page. If you wish to relist it on IFD I'd be happy to discuss it. --cholmes75 17:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ffvii worldmap new.png

Hi, you deleted this image earlier today when there has been no consensus to delete at IFD. Perhaps you missed that debate and were looking at the older one? User:Quadell had recently restored it and re-listed it for IFD since the first IFD was mis-listed. Axem Titanium 03:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry again but maybe you missed my last message. Do you think there may have been a mistake or oversight on your part? Axem Titanium 19:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Axem Titanium 19:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Picture peer review/Big Tree

Just thought I'd let you know that I nominated this picture for a peer review to be a possible featured picture. Great work its a nice image.--Southern Texas 19:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Images for deletion

Regarding Image:Trimedfilm_battleofchina.jpg and Image:The_Buttle_of_the_China2.jpg, the latter was the subject of an edit war at The Battle of China. Here is a diff of that one image in use. As far as I know, Image:Trimedfilm_battleofchina.jpg was never used in an article. I believe it was uploaded to explain the derivation of Image:The_Buttle_of_the_China2.jpg. I think these images are encyclopedic and in fact fascinating but unfortunately original research at the present time. -- But|seriously|folks 16:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review—Image:Classic_gun_pose.gif

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:Classic_gun_pose.gif. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Forgive me for not following the customary procedure of first taking this up with you one on one, but your deletion rationale seemed to make it clear that this should go straight to review. Best, Dan—DCGeist 02:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review—Image:DailyShowClinton.jpg

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:DailyShowClinton.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Another one—with the review case a bit more focused and succinct.—DCGeist 06:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Strict interpretation of Misplaced Pages:Non-free content criteria

Hi, you have demonstrated, I believe, a very strict interpretation of the non-free content criteria concerning the images of Mock & Horn ("no significance") and Toni Sailer ("no source") while you did not delete Image:Neville_Chamberlain2.jpg although there it is claimed by Abu badali that neither significance nor source have been established.

Who decides whether an image is "significant" for the understanding of a text? Who decides whether a source is given or not?

Before you tell me I can initiate a deletion review I'd like to say that I'm certainly not going to do that: experiences in the past have shown me that all I would be getting (or rather, all that would count) is "fair process, keep deleted" arguments but nothing content-wise. I'd just like to know why you think Misplaced Pages, and the Toni Sailer article in particular, is better off without an image (as the other image there has recently been deleted as well).

Best wishes, <K F> 07:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent design book covers

Not sure if you noticed this. Your edits on the images themselves were also reverted. Videmus Omnia 20:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It's being discussed now at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Problem_at_Intelligent_design_and_associated_articles. ElinorD (talk) 00:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

re: Irreducible complexity

Thanks for your message. I was just coming to your page to drop you a note. The proper place to sort out whether or not an image is being used appropriately on a particular article is not deletion review (it's outside their scope because no page deletion has occurred). Nor is it RFC or the ARBCOM. We are supposed to try to sort things out ourselves before throwing those hand grenades into the mix. The proper place to sort out whether or not a fair use claim can be made is either on the image's Talk page or the article's Talk page. Given the expertise of the usual participants, it's my experience that you get more informed discussions on the image's Talk page. Accordingly, I've opened an initial discussion there. Please bring your comments to that discussion.

I don't particularly care about the image in this case but I feel quite strongly that you need to follow the proper process. Repeatedly removing content when others are immediately restoring it is edit warring. You've already exceeded the three-revert-rule - and while blatant copyvios are exempt from 3RR, you are basing this decision on a very narrow interpretation of an ambiguous clause which has already been discussed by multiple people who appear equally well versed in the law and in Misplaced Pages's image policy and was not confirmed in the recent IfD. Neither was it specifically excluded but it's clear that whatever the decision is, it's not a blatant call either way. Your edits are, if not already over the line, skating perilously close to it. Rossami (talk) 01:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You're missing the fact that this was an admin's closing decision on an IfD. The image should remain out of the article until someone who disagrees takes this to an appropriate forum. Videmus Omnia 01:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. ElinorD (talk) 01:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You're joking, right? I have "no right" to undo your actions which clearly violate the page protection policy? No. You show that you haven't got the least respect to Misplaced Pages policy or procedure, and you make a fuss because you are upset by my language? Serious?

Please tell me that your comment is a joke. I can't imagine that you would really whine about me complaining about your abuse of your admin tools. Try acting like a member of the community. You aren't a newbie. You should have figured out what the page protection policy says by now.

You have no right to behave the way you are behaving. Guettarda 03:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hear hear Guettarda.OrangeMarlin 04:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Eccovi! Seems to me that an admin's proper duty is to uphold policy, not to create one's own policy, don't you agree Nv8200p? Apprarently not. You were edit-warring on the page, which is bad enough, but then you use your admin tools improperly and thus inculpating you further. That VO and Elinor come to you defence is no surprise, after all, you're all part of the self-appointed Bildpolizei. However, this defence is specious, and given that absolute disregard for policy on the part of an admin is as much an issue of civility as anything else, somewhat uncivil (Eccovi! Civility is not limited to words but encompasses actions as well). Heed Guettarda's and Rossami's words. Jim62sch 18:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe Nv8200p already acknowledged the errors, and in fact used the words "I apologize" at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Problem_at_Intelligent_design_and_associated_articles. Possibly it had gone unnoticed. I trust the acknowledgement and apology is immediately accepted by everyone concerned. Speaking for myself, AFAICT, the issue presently appears to be finito. Nv, I appreciated your directness; thanks. ... Kenosis 18:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did miss that. My apologies Nv. I'm very happy that you apologised. Jim62sch 18:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Nv8200p, one last issue w.r.t. this particular matter. I would appreciate it, as I'm sure would others, if you would follow up the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Problem_at_Intelligent_design_and_associated_articles to correct the stated outcome of the two IfDs so as to note that the result was "keep" and defer to the local discussion, noting accordingly on the respective IfD pages and image talk pages? Those pages are:

Thanks Nv. ... Kenosis 01:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

But that wasn't the outcome. The result was "Keep" in the articles about the books, and "delete" from the other articles. ElinorD (talk) 01:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

IfD isn't the place to make decisions like that, I wonder for someone apparently as experienced as you, that you don't know that yet. ornis (t) 01:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

There is precedent for making such decision at IfD. See Image:John Cleese.jpg. ElinorD (talk) 03:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The outcome was "keep" because the closing admin said it was keep at the time of closing. Or were the "errors" that Nv was "apologizing" for merely among admins, with no regard for the people who actually form the articles at the local level?. ... Kenosis 02:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Image Deletion

Hi. As the original uploader of this image, it is now orphaned, wondered if you could close out the debate please. ♫ Cricket02 03:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Can it be at the request of the uploader? Point is I didn't have any involvement in it going back for ifd for a second time and I'd just like the misery to end. I'm not here for controversy. ♫ Cricket02 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cricket02 (talk • contribs) 03:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Woops, sorry about that. I missed this discussion and unorphaned the image! -Susanlesch 04:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration request

A request for arbitration involving you has been filed here. Please view the request, and add any statements you feel are necessary for the ArbCom to consider in deciding whether to hear the dispute. Videmus Omnia 03:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)