Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Frontierjustice (talk | contribs) at 02:00, 26 December 2016. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.Please consider using other venues such as WP:REFUND, where most of my deletions are considered uncontroversial and can be restored upon request. Alternatively, you can consult other experienced users and admins for any guidance or help, or simply await my response.

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist. Please click here to leave me a new message.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2016 November 11#File:Pikachu seizure-2.jpg

Hi Explicit. You deleted the screenshot per Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2016 November 11#File:Pikachu seizure-2.jpg, but made no mention of whether File:Denno.ogg could replace it in the articles where it was used. Would that have to be something discussed in another FFD discussion? -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: At this point, it is more of an editorial decision that should be discussed on the respective articles' talk pages. — ξ 01:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Understand. Thanks for the clarification. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

191.187.197.227

Please block user:191.187.197.227. 2602:306:3357:BA0:ECC4:7A0A:61BE:4620 (talk) 01:55, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done, blocked for 24 hours. — ξ 01:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Donnie Yen Images

I was away in Shanghai for 5 weeks for business trip and I notice the Donnie Yen pictures which I uploaded are gone. I am in the process of obtaining OTRS for the pictures. If I sent the OTRS emails to wikipedia this week, will the photos be reinstated? Or do i need to upload them again?

Brazilian Tiger (talk) 14:58, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

@Brazilian Tiger: Yes, the images will be reinstated once permission is confirmed. — ξ 00:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Explicit,

We are in the process of sending the email for OTRS. And I have not re-uploaded the photos as you instructed, and will look forward to the photos being re-instated once the email goes through. The photos in question are https://en.wikipedia.org/File:DY_Training.jpeg

https://en.wikipedia.org/File:Dy_wiki.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/File:Donnie_Yen_Formal.jpeg Respectively.

I believe once the email is sent, the ball is in your court and there is nothing further from my part? Let me know.

PS： Update, the email is sent. =) Let me know the next steps!＝）

Brazilian Tiger (talk) 08:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@Brazilian Tiger: Now that the email has been sent, the OTRS team will get back to you shortly. If there are any more steps to be taken, you will be instructed via email. — ξ 05:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

The email has been sent over a week ago. I need the pictures up ASAP. Is there any way to expedite the process? Brazilian Tiger (talk) 13:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@Brazilian Tiger: According to the OTRS noticeboard, there is currently a 110 backlog. It won't take that much time, but a delay is to be expected. Have you received a ticket number? — ξ 00:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, my ticket number is 2016112810006767 This is very urgent. Is it okay if I re upload the pictures first while they check for the OTRS?

Its really urgent.

Let me know.

Thanks. Brazilian Tiger (talk) 12:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

CIO Magazine

Why did you delete CIO Magazine? It is one of the most prominent magazines in the CIO environment? Can you put it back up and instead help to create content to keep it up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by L1b3rtas 4E (talk • contribs) 05:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@L1b3rtas 4E: Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. — ξ 01:09, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

File:William Lygon, 7th Earl Beauchamp.jpg

Hi, Could you please add a detailed rationale to the discussion of Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2016 November 23#File:William Lygon, 7th Earl Beauchamp.jpg? In your decision to close the discussion, you mentioned only F5. But the discussion is precisely about the fact that the file is probably free and thus not a case of F5. (The documentation was also provided in the description page of the file.) I think in this case the closing decision should include a rationale about why the decision concludes that the file is not free. Since the file is deleted from wikipedia, can you transfer it to Commons? -- Asclepias (talk) 15:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Asclepias: Hi, I actually came across this file in the daily maintenance category Category:Orphaned non-free use Misplaced Pages files as of 24 November 2016. I didn't notice that it was listed for discussion, which was automatically closed by a bot. I've transferred the file to Commons and have adjusted the discussion closure as well. — ξ 01:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Address Collection

Congratulations! You have more than 4 accepted articles in Misplaced Pages Asian Month! Please submit your mailing address (not the email) via this google form. This form is only accessed by me and your username will not distribute to the local community to send postcards. All personal data will be destroyed immediately after postcards are sent. Please contact your local organizers if you have any question. Best, Addis Wang, sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

There is no such ship as

HMS Protector (D 36). That redirect should be removed unless you are unclycopedic.Freyjaceleste862 (talk) 10:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

@Freyjaceleste862: Okay, that's great, but as I explained in my edit summary, redirects are not eligible for deletion via WP:PROD. As it states: "PROD is only applicable to mainspace articles, lists, and disambiguation pages; it cannot be used with redirects, userspace pages..." If you believe the redirect should be deleted, you are free to nominate it for deletion at the redirects for discussion venue. — ξ 23:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

File:MgcKeyMED.jpg

Just wondering why you deleted this image per WP:F4 when it was marked CC-BY-SA 3.0? It was the lead image to University of Michigan Men's Glee Club so at the very worst I could have made up a FUR for it. Ritchie333 17:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: There was no evidence that the logo was released under that license. I've gone ahead and restored the file, and I also converted it to fair use. If you could, please provide a source for the image. — ξ 00:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I AGFed that the original uploader (who hasn't been here in 9 years) redrew it himself in Corel Draw or something similar. I've seen other people do that. Anyway, a FUR will suffice for now. Ritchie333 10:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Old Bridge Township Raceway Park

Please restore Old Bridge Township Raceway Park, I am challenging the PROD. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:08, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Looking for input

Hi there, I was wondering if you would be willing to share your input here on these files at FFD. Thank you! Jon Kolbert (talk) 20:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

The Bronx Times

You deleted my The Bronx Times article. I do not know what your deal is and who do you think you are, but I will do my best to alert Misplaced Pages of your cowboy approach o handling things here. Your totalitarian approach of deleting my article without any dialog or help offered only shows your attitude of entitlement and impunity for your actions. My article stated the facts abut The Bronx Times. I do not have to be a rock star or to have somebody else, God knows who, write abut me and my online edition for it to exist and serve millions since 2006! Comprende? So, unless you restore my article and offer edit, which I do not see how it would be possible as there was nothing made-up in it, I will spend every minute of my time bringing your actions to the attention of whoever gave you this job. You need training at the very least to do what you have been allowed to do properly. I am deplored with your actions and attitude! I expect an immediate and meaningful response to my satisfaction. PeterMilosheff (talk) 15:04, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

@Milosheff: K. — ξ 23:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Just curious

I had PRODed Rajesh Verma (journalist) on 21 November and you had deleted it on 01:29, 30 November 2016 (log here). However, I do not understand how the current article shows history dated back to 24 August 2016‎!?! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@Dharmadhyaksha: The history comes from another user's sandbox; it was created on that date and moved from User:Crtew/Rajesh Verma (journalist) to Rajesh Verma (journalist) just a few days ago. — ξ 01:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Wow! Such a silly thing that I missed. I was thinking we have some woodoo on this article! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Adriana Díaz.jpg

Again... For what reason the file was deleted this time? Seriesphile (talk · ctb) 06:22, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@Seriesphile: The statement on the ITTF website is insufficient to conclude that the copyright holder allows the modification and commercial use of its images. This is discussed and explained in detail here: Commons:Deletion requests/Photos from ITTF. Unless the ITTF clearly asserts the allowance of such uses, it can not be considered a freely licensed image by any of the projects' standards. — ξ 06:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

DYK for I Am Seven

On 15 December 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article I Am Seven, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that I Am Seven was released by Eleven9 Entertainment, a new agency in which South Korean singer Seven had invested six billion won (US$5.24 million)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/I Am Seven. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, I Am Seven), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Akwasi Frimpong Deletion

I am a contributor to Akwasi Frimpong's Misplaced Pages page, and was surprised to see it deleted recently. Frimpong is still a notable athlete, and is currently the first Ghanaian skeleton athlete competing internationally with plans for the 2020 Olympics. He has been racing in international contests as recently as just a few weeks ago. He also is head of BSF-Ghana, the Olympic committee-recognized bobsled and skeleton Olympic federation. I am confused as to why you deleted the page. Could you clarify, and consider undeleting it? Thanks. KMNeely (talk) 19:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

More files to be deleted in FFD

Hi. Thank you for closing the FFD (Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2016 December 7#File:Everything we create is not ourselves 2.jpg) and deleting the first file. You may not have noticed that there were more files listed in that request that should be deleted for the same reason:

• File:Everything we create is not ourselves 1.jpg
• File:Hexiangyu Death of Marat.jpg
• File:Tank Project Details.jpg
• File:Tank Project.jpg
• File:Coca Cola Project 1.jpg

Could you delete them as well? Or should I re-list them for FFD if it's more appropriate? Please let me know. Thanks! --Wcam (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@Wcam: None of the files were properly tagged with {{ffd}}, and deleting them would have been out of process. You will need to nominate them in a new discussion thread and make sure they are all tagged as such. — ξ 23:59, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of Lepin-logo.giv

Explicit,

I am new to adding media files and apparently did something wrong as you have deleted Lepin-logo.gif with an F4 reason. I don't understand what should be done to allow this logo.

I see many corporate logos on Misplaced Pages, from companies from around the world, and some of the people adding those logos seem to be unaffiliated with the mentioned company. This therefore leads me to believe the publicly available corporate logos are completely acceptable, as long as they are tagged in the proper way.

How can the Lepin-logo.gif be properly tagged and/or documented so that it can also be allowed just like the many other corporate logos? Sthubbar (talk) 00:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@Sthubbar: File:Lepin-logo.gif was deleted because you did not document a source for the logo; this is needed to verifiability purposes. Where did it come from? — ξ 01:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@Explicit:, it came from the company homepage http://www.lepinjimu.com/.Sthubbar (talk) 02:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@Sthubbar: Very well, I've restored the file and added the source. — ξ 01:32, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Harry Curtis, football manager, 1926.jpg

I disagree with the deletion of this file. It was created in 1926, meaning that it's only copyrighted in the United States if a notice was filed and it was renewed with the copyright office within 28 years of first publication. The probability of that occurring from a football club outside the country who wasn't in the top tier at the time is extremely low. Upon reviewing the records of the US Copyright Office for 1926, I see no notice there. Would you consider undeleting and restoring it to the four articles it was automatically removed from? ~ Rob₁₃ 09:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13:  Done. — ξ 01:32, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a second look. ~ Rob₁₃ 06:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I made the original upload, glad to see the pic back online. I was just wondering, there are many more images I could upload from Brentford handbooks, dated from 1911 to 1929. What license would I use to ensure they were not listed for deletion? The same as on Harry Curtis? Cheers. Beatpoet (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

@Beatpoet: If the handbooks don't bear a copyright notice, it should be okay to upload these images under the same license. — ξ 00:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Image deletion

About a week ago you deleted this image per WP:F4. It's since been uploaded again by the same editor, and still without licensing information. Could I get you to delete it again and maybe have a word with the uploader about copyright. Thanks in advance. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@Sir Sputnik: I'll give it a look. — ξ 01:32, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Recent reverts

Fair enough on the out of process nature of the tagging. I was not aware of that fact when I put them up for G4. However, I do believe that they are still copyright violations and eligible for F9. Those photographs can be found all over the Internet. For example, File:Tank Project.jpg can be found here. The others are just the same. The files are going to be deleted in five days anyways when the, correctly done, FFD times out. Just thought you should know that the images are most likely copyvios anyways. --Majora (talk) 02:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@Majora: I don't doubt that they aren't, but because they were initially not tagged in the original deletion discussion, it's just best for the process to carry out how it's meant to. — ξ 05:57, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Epps, C. Flowood Police Department.jpg

I uploaded a mugshot for Chris Epps. I followed Misplaced Pages guidelines scrupulously, including getting opinions from the state university's freedom of information center and getting confirmation directly from the credited Flowood police department that took the image in question which explicitly stated that it was not copyrighted. I left an ample record of that correspondence. I would appreciate your restoring the image and restoring it as well to the article in question. Thank you. Activist (talk) 04:42, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

After I posted the note above, I went to the top of your TALK page where I found that you had referred situations such as this to WP:REFUND At that REFUND page I found this instruction:

Note that requests for undeletion are not a replacement for deletion review. If you feel an administrator has erred in closing a deletion discussion or in applying a speedy deletion criterion, please contact them directly. If you discuss but are unable to resolve the issue on their talk page, it should be raised at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review, rather than here.

I spent hours on the phone, on email, reviewing state laws, corresponding with other Misplaced Pages editors and the National Conference of State Legislators, etc., conclusively verifying that the image in question was appropriate for posting. It wasn't tagged for deletion and I wasn't pinged despite having contributed perhaps 90% of the content of the article and 100% of the discussion of this issue on the article's TALK page. If I was in your shoes, I would think that an apology was in order. Activist (talk) 05:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

You are wrong on various levels, so let's start with the easiest. First, the file description page of File:Epps, C. Flowood Police Department.jpg was properly tagged for deletion with {{ffd}} as policy requires. You were promptly notified of the discussion and the file's impending deletion here. Second, as an OTRS agent at the discussion explained, the people you spoke with were clearly incorrect in regards to the copyright of the image. There are very few states (less than five) where works by said state fall under the public domain, and Mississippi is not one of them. The image you uploaded is copyrighted and not under the public domain. Lastly, since I've made a grand total of zero errors, I owe an apology to no one. — ξ 05:57, 22 December 2016 (UTC) @Josve05a:, @MarchJuly:, @Ramaksoud2000:, @BU Rob13: You are, Explicit, in my opinion, which would seem to have equal weight as yours, wrong. I am not a copyright attorney, so please inform me if you are so I can be properly deferent, if appropriate. However, I got the perhaps mistaken impression that you had made the decision to delete the file somewhat autonomously. The agency that took the mugshot distributed it widely to the media, hoping obviously that it got maximum exposure. The Flowood P.D. explicitly stated in an email to me that I passed along that it was not copyrighted. The Mississippi state Freedom of Information Center told me it was not copyrighted. The National Conference of State Legislatures indicated there was no copyright violation. So you have assumed, perhaps not entirely autonomously, but also not hardly unanimously, that your judgement supersedes theirs. I became aware that the incorporation of the mugshot in the Epps article was contested. I provided substantial information that seemed to satisfy those questions. I was never informed that any other Misplaced Pages editor differed. The tagging had been removed. I was never knowingly invited to or aware of the discussion as to its propriety had existed. Secondly, the reservation stated by Josve05a, "...one participant in the discussion stated rather clearly: I have verified permission by the policy agency that the image is free of copyright. If the image should be used in an article or not in regards of BLP should be discussed on the article's talk page. This is is public domain No one of course, outside myself, made the effort to participate in any discussion on the article's talk page. Next, a reservation was expressed about the purpose of the inclusion of the mug shot into the WP article. I'd thought about that and looked at the articles on serial necrophiles I recalled: Jeffrey Dahmer (4 mugshots and his high school graduation photo), Ted Bundy (3 mugshots, ditto), Edmund Kemper (2 mugshots) and Gary Ridgeway (2 mugshots, who may have killed only slightly less than 100 young women). At least two of those four were cannibals. Two are still alive in prison, so I hope those weren't WP:BLP violations. Dahmer was killed by another lifer serving time for murder. Marchjuly wrote, ..sometimes it seems that these types of photos are being used more to further "punish" or "embarass" (sic) the individual than for encyclopedic relevance. I think care should be taken per WP:MUG I wasn't privy to this opinion, nor of the existence of WP:MUG. So I looked that up and it follows here: Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. This is particularly important for police booking photographs (mugshots), or situations where the subject did not expect to be photographed. So here's the contextual light in which the feelings of the subject of the article might be assessed. He and his bagman colluded to take a minimum of $1.4 million in bribes to write a minimum of at least $65 million in public contracts. That included splitting tens of thousands monthly for years from the for-profit prison operators to keep the lid on dozens of corrupt contracts, but most especially the one holding mostly teenagers at the unspeakably violent Walnut Grove Correctional Facility for which the pair got $12,000 a month. The Department of Justice, thanks to whistleblowers, got involved, as did the ACLU and the Southern Poverty Law Center. From the lede to the article at: Walnut Grove Correctional Facility: In the court ruling, Judge Carlton Reeves of the Federal District Court wrote that an assessment of its conditions "paints a picture of such horror as should be unrealized anywhere in the civilized world."Press reports indicate the jail was run by gangs which included corrupt prison staff. The federal Justice Department said that rapes of younger inmates was common. The floors of that prison were slick with blood, almost daily. It had been accredited with top marks from the American Correctional Association of which Epps, who was acutely aware of the actual conditions there, was the President. He only resigned when his indictment was made public. He may not actually have expected to have been photographed for his most recent mugshot, only because he didn't expect to be arrested for the Halloween burglary of the home that he'd turned over to the Justice department maybe 18 months earlier. Epps made plea bargain deals to wear a wire and give up many of the bribe suppliers in exchange for a sentence of 23 years, a much lighter term than could be expected for his crimes. I can't recall precisely how I found out about the proposal to delete the photo, but I think it was because I noticed the tag which was removed. I've looked in my notifications and alerts going back a year, almost all of which I've retained, and it isn't there. I may have somehow inadvertently deleted it, but I never saw the discussion before today. Now you, Explicit, have indicated there was a consensus to delete. That certainly wasn't my impression at the point of my last communication with the OTRS volunteers, nor is it my impression now, and some of the discussion in the archived article took place before the information from me which I thought had resolved the issue was received. Activist (talk) 09:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm wording this carefully to maintain confidentiality of the OTRS ticket, so my apologies, but I will not be able to expand on anything I say. Perennially, we face the problem of incoming emails from people who do not understand copyright law. We cannot treat what these people say as fact when it comes to the state of the law. The reality is that there is no law in the state in question which releases photographs taken by local or state employees automatically into the public domain. The ticket did not contain a valid statement of permission that released the image under a free license. One could still be submitted, but until it is, the file should remain deleted. This was a good call, in my opinion. ~ Rob₁₃ 10:07, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your caution and respect. However, the Flowood response seems very explicit and categorical. I'm pasting it here.

"In response to your inquiry regarding released photos from our department, no the photo you referred to is not copyrighted And is considered public record. In addition, any material or information released from this department to media and the general public is public record. Should you have additional questions or concerns, please feel to contact us. 2101 Airport Road, Suite B Flowood, MS 39232"

Activist (talk) 14:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

"Public record" has nothing to do with copyright, and works aren't automatically public domain. The department would need to explicitly license it under a free license or release into the public domain, technically. Ramaksoud2000 17:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I thanked you for obtaining permission because I'm not going to split hairs when the intent is clear, but OTRS volunteers probably have stricter rules, and they are correct. Ramaksoud2000 17:46, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Why did you delete the file Dreugenegu.jpeg ? An email from the creator was sent to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. The Ticket# is 2016122410001197