![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
nominated for GA. :) BOZ ( talk) 15:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Pictures related to Malik Ambar. Because you closed a deletion discussion for some of these images, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 02:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi there! I've added copyright tags to following images you nominated for deletion: Image:Bgc_belgacom.png, Image:Bgc_telindus.png and Image:Bgc_proximus.png. they should be okay now? Thanks. Samgreenwich ( talk) 07:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi i have upload photos which made with my own camera! But you want delete them! Please tell me what can i do to let them! Unluckyly i dont know how todo in this case.
Thanks Vernito —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vernito ( talk • contribs)
Your bot has deleted a photo for which a perfectly valid public domain rationale exists under the law of the State of Florida. This was done without advance warning or notice, contrary to Wiki protocols (the articles and related talk pages are on my "watch" list). Please restore the photo page and I will post the proper public domain rationale (see below). This photo was from the archives of the University of Florida, an agency of the State of Florida, and is subject to specific public domain rules under the laws of the state of Florida. Here is the public domain rationale, as posted by the University of Florida archivist on other photos related to the university:
The foregoing paragraph may or may not have been included on the image page that you deleted----we cannot tell because you deleted the image page and no history remains.
Thank you for your cooperation in resolving this matter. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 03:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, sir, for the "conditional restoration" of the E.T. York photo. I understand your position that a valid copyright rationale is needed. I have alerted my senior editors on WikiProject University of Florida to this issue. I have not checked, but I suspect that we will have a similar problem with other photos that have been released by the university archivist. I would like to see if we can't get a global solution and properly document all of them to your satisfaction and then upload the whole kit and caboodle to WikiCommons. We really do want to comply with Wiki protocols, but we ask for a fair hearing under the applicable state copyright law applicable in Florida. Hopefully, we can work this out in the next 7 days. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 15:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
You deleted one of the files uploaded by Bottracker ( talk · contribs), who I blocked for copyright violations and personal attacks but mainly to get him to enter into a dialogue which he was refusing to do, just deleting all the notices. 2 other Admins declined an unblock request, a 3rd blocked his user page and mentioned that his username was problematic, and now he's been unblocked and given a 'sincere apology' and that his block wasn't justified. Enough to make me just ignore copyvio in the future if this is how it gets treated. The discussion (which I think should be on ANI) is here. Dougweller ( talk) 09:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Since your own header say you do this a lot, you obviously have self-appointed yourself to be the Wikipedia police. As a contributor who is carefully following the rules and is posting accurate, sourced information, constant nagging by--I'll say people like you--is a hinderance to the content of Wikipedia. I feel like a one-armed paperhanger trying to chase down the latest idiotic bot-like unnecessary inclusion into content I, or other people have contributed. At least I am paying attention to protect the content I have contributed. Much of these insertion are irrational and non-sensical, made either by a bot that can't understand the content or by a human being that does not. If your intent is well founded, that is not apparent. Too much valuable information has already been deleted by the censorship gestapo of which you are a part. Before you click another attack on legitimate information (or your case, a legitimate picture). Stop. Think. Look at the content and its importance to worldwide knowledge. Back off. Deletion is not the only answer. Trackinfo ( talk) 20:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Drilnoth----As the shepherd for the university president articles within WikiProject University of Florida, I monitor those pages and noticed your flagging of this image for 7-day deletion. I have contacted the photographer and uploader (same person) by telephone to alert him to the issue. He is a University of Florida undergraduate (see name identified in the permission template on the image page), and has uploaded a number of his university-related photographs to Wikipedia. He has confirmed that they are his original works. He will be contacting you directly to resolve any issues you may have regarding the form of copyright permission/release. I would be grateful if you would take the time to explain your issue and how he may correct it in accordance with Wiki copyright protocols. He's the sort of image uploader we want to keep----he's good with a digital camera and he's willing to release his uploaded images unconditionally. We should help him all we can. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 20:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Drilnoth, I appreciate your "good faith" offer to remove the tag. However, if you can't make the connection as an experienced Wiki copyright cop, other Wiki copyright enforcers are likely to draw the same conclusion as you. Why don't we just flag it as "contested" (or other appropriate Wiki copyright template) for the time being. When Nikonmadness contacts you, please tell him exactly how you would like it presented. He has the potential to be a very significant photograph contributor to our project, and we might as well help him do things the right way. Nikonmadness and you can create the proper pattern for others on our project to follow. Thank you, once again, for your assistance in this matter. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 21:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, sir, what's the proper way to do it? Sign it with your real name and Wiki user name? Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 23:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your help, Drilnoth. I will relay this to Nikonmadness by outside e-mail, and I will include this thread to make it easy on him. I will also save this thread to my talk page archive to share with others in the future. I would like to standardize our license/permission/fair use/public domain language within our UF project so we don't have to spend so darn much time dealing with image issues. I was recruited to write key articles, not to be a Wikilawyer. I get enough of that at my day job. LOL Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 23:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 04:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey, Mr. Archives-Dude: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Ravenloft_(module)&curid=9863423&diff=307543132&oldid=307512928 BOZ ( talk) 15:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Third time is the charm! :) BOZ ( talk) 22:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I dunno if there'll be consensus to remove the templates with a bot, but in case there will be, I've created a list of all the templates and the categories they use. Thought it might be helpful. :) -- Conti| ✉ 09:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I didn't mean to be confusing. As I wrote to the first admin to delete File:Hazrat Ali, Afghan politician.jpg, I did pose my question first on the commons village pump.
I uploaded the image as fair use. And I subsequently listed it for discussion, because I was hoping for opinions on whether the two images I uploaded to the commons a year later: File:General Ali and his Afghan fighters, November 2001.jpg and File:General Ali and his Afghan fighters, November 2001 b.jpg should be considered replacements for File:Hazrat Ali, Afghan politician.jpg. They are in the public domain, and they are of much better resolution. The problem with them is that the source doesn't clearly identify the subject as Hazrat Ali, rather it identifies him as "General Ali".
The subject, in my subjective judgment, looks like the grainy picture File:Hazrat Ali, Afghan politician.jpg. But, since he is not explicitly identified as Hazrat Ali, I was concerned that replacing the first image for which I previously claimed fair use is open to a criticism of original research.
I have no problem replacing File:Hazrat Ali, Afghan politician.jpg with one of the PD images -- provided other contributors went on record as agreeing that all three pictures were of the same individual. On the other hand, if no other contributors are confident that all three pictures are of the same individual, then I think the initial fair use justification remains valid, because then the two PD images could not then be regarded as replacements.
Can I ask whether you are confident that all three images are of the same individual?
If you aren't confident, what would you recommend as the next step?
Thanks Geo Swan ( talk) 17:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I've been making my way through the future templates and came across a few protected ones, so I decided to take you up on your offer at the deprecation discussion. The protected ones I've found so far are:
The change is simple. Just paste the following code above the existing first line. See Template:Future game if you have any doubt about how it should look.
<noinclude>{{ombox|image=[[Image:Symbol opinion vote.svg|40px]]|text=The template has been deprecated (see [[Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Deprecating "Future" templates|discussion]]) and is in the process of being removed from Wikipedia articles. '''Do not use this template'''.}}</noinclude><includeonly><center><small>''The template below has been deprecated (see [[Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Deprecating "Future" templates|discussion]]), and will soon be replaced automatically with the corresponding category.''</small></center></includeonly>
Thanks, I appreciate it. Equazcion ( talk) 22:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
If fan sites are discouraged, please tell me why the following links are allowed to remain:
Extended content
|
---|
|
yet my site,
...is determined to be "not appropriate" because "there already is one to the official PRD"
The link to the official PRD was added by someone else to replace mine. When I edited the page again I kept the link to the official PRD as well as restored mine. In honesty, the PRD is not even a "System Reference Document" technically, it is a "Pathfinder Reference Document" hence it being called a PRD and not an SRD. Either way, Wizards of the Coast released an official SRD years ago yet there is no link to it in this section yet there are links to multiple other fan created and maintained SRD sites.
"and fan sites are generally discouraged"
If that is the case then why are all of the above sites still linked? Each and every one of them is a "fan site" and is not associated with the "official" sites or SRD's for their associated game systems in any way.
Please explain this change more clearly to me for I fail to see how my site is different from any of the above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jreyst ( talk • contribs) 07:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey, thanks! 'Tis much appreciated. I We are most honored. :) –
Drilnoth (
T •
C •
L)
17:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I decided to give it a try, and it worked! I figured I'd take a shot in the dark and look at White Dwarf's review of the Monster Manual, and lo and behold I got a quick blurb for the poor persucted mimic and several other creatures! :) I'm going to have a look at their review of the Fiend Folio and Monster Manual II to see what other creatures I can add a quick independent reference to. :) BOZ ( talk) 00:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
You may be interested in a discussion and poll I've started to decide the criteria that will be used for promoting users to the reviewer group at Wikipedia talk:Reviewers#New discussion and poll: reviewer criteria - please put your comments there. AndrewRT( Talk) 17:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I noticed your postings on this page, and several WP:Article Rescue Squadron members speak very highly of you. I have a question if these gadgets could be made and approved, and whether they are even feasible.
Ikip ( talk) 15:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello, We have the autorisation to use this image. Thank you Lulu97417 ( talk) 17:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Your recent bot approvals request has been approved. Please see the request page for details. Kingpin 13 ( talk) 01:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Animal_psychopathology&diff=308588608&oldid=277571639 third chunk down . Rich Farmbrough, 06:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC).
Hello, Drilnoth. I posted a request for plot references on the Icewind Dale II talk page, and was told that you might be able to help. I'm currently rewriting the Icewind Dale II article, and need references for the plot section. Unfortunately, I don't have access to the game right now. However, I discovered another way to get references. The manual says that if you hit CTRL-A while on the journal page for Icewind Dale II, the contents of the journal are downloaded to a text file. The text file is located in the /mpsave directory of Icewind Dale II, in the "folder of the last saved or last loaded save game." If you know anyone with a save at the end of the game, or if you have one yourself, I would really appreciate it if you could post the contents of that text file on the Icewind Dale II talk page. Also, since the journal is going to be pretty big, it probably be best if you hid it with <!-- and -->. Thanks for your time. 70.106.205.159 ( talk) 22:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Per the discussion, I think {{ Beta software}} should be added to your list of future templates in Conti's userspace (I'm assuming that's how the bot determines which templates to remove). Equazcion ( talk) 19:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
One other thing: I clicked around some random diffs just to check the bot's work, and noticed this diff. The article contains a future template, but bot didn't remove it, and instead just performed some general fixes. I don't know if the bot is meant to return to the article later to perform the removal or what, but I just wanted to make you aware of this in case it's a problem. Equazcion ( talk) 20:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
It would seem that you have tagged a few images as having no source, when the uploader has claimed to be the source and has licensed these images freely. Some examples I have found so far are as follows: [3] [4] [5] If you do not believe that the uploader is the author, then you should nominate these files for deletion, and not tag them for speedy deletion. Thanks -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 00:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey man,
I have a questions about your comment. Is Infobox Officeholder the ONLY false positive you know of? I could not find any others on the Wikiproject's page. I removed all the pages that use that template from the list i will work from (arround 3000) and i tested it, so far, i havent seen any significant problems. Theres no use for me making the same mistakes that you did when you tried this, so I would value your input. Thanks Tim1357 ( talk) 01:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Can you make a FA star version? Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 00:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 16:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh yes, it was in accident in that I thought it was one of those annoying messages about photo licensing. I didn't really read it to be honest, and I apologize. After reading it, yes, they are my work, and they should be PD-self. Thanks! Again, very sorry. -- Earl Andrew - talk 23:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Drilnoth, at Commons we emptied out Category:License migration candidates, but because Category:Wikipedia license migration candidates is not empty yet, images keep showing up in that category. Do you happen to know if anyone is actually working on the license migration now here at enwp? I noticed your bot, but it seems to have stopped. multichill ( talk) 21:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering if it is useful for your bot to make an edit like this. It appears that all it did there was switch the fact template to a citation needed template. Because the fact template redirects to citation needed, aren't these edits better when something else is getting changed as well?-- Rockfang ( talk) 01:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
File Copyright problem
defending knowledge can be difficult sometimes'. Thank you. 22:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freshymail ( talk • contribs)
Are you sure starting over is the best way to go? There was already a large discussion. Could we perhaps uncollapse the original discussion, move the RFC there, and merge the two? We could also move the "long discussion" to the talk page. Asking everyone to repeat their comments seems unnecessary and imposing, and sort of unlikely to happen in their entirety. Equazcion ( talk) 04:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm curious why the templates couldn't be re-added via bot. Couldn't you use its contribs list from when the templates were removed? Equazcion ( talk) 02:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello ! I've made an entry for Stanley Jedidiah Samartha many months ago. I wonder if you could search and send a picture of him. Better still if you can upload a profile picture.-- 117.195.206.79 ( talk) 08:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry that I placed my first response in a sort of weird spot. I must not have been paying much attention. The setting I'm referring to can be found by opening the IE8 options, going to the security tab, and clicking custom level. It should be down near the bottom of the scroll. RandomStringOfCharacters ( talk) 17:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey, do you understand why Category:Pakistani Sunni Muslims doesn't appear as a subcategory of Category:Pakistani Muslims even though it has the category? Thanks Hekerui ( talk) 18:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi I am unsure about the rules, but why has the photo of the Japanese period occupation money [File:Batu lintang camp dollars.jpg] been reduced to such a resolution that they are as good as useless as details can't be made out - such as the bunch of bananas that gave the currency their slang name? Other images, such as [File:Malaysia_1st_10ringgit_back.jpg] this one of an old banknote seem to be acceptable at high resolution so I'm not sure why the wartime ones aren't. Maybe I chose the wrong copyright status template? The licensing and rationale for the ringgit page is pretty much the case for the Batu Lintang one. I'm confused. Jasper33 ( talk) 16:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Seems that a bot can't do much more now. Last 252 images in Category:Wikipedia license migration candidates are not really images - only text. Should be deleted when it is checked that all info is on Commons. I moved the last images to Category:Wikipedia license migration needs review. Unless someone gets a good idea the 2.903 files needs to be checked manually. -- MGA73 ( talk) 22:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I reverted you. I think you were under the impression that all of that page would be transcluded to the each WikiProject's Article Alerts. In fact, only the most recent of each type of item is transcluded (only the latest edition of the signpost, for example). The rest in placed between <noinclude></noinclude> tags, meaning that they are only visible if you are on the Wikipedia:Article alerts/News page. Stuff is kept for a month, so if you see things older than a month, feel free to remove it. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 21:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I was once, and probably will be again, an amateur genealogist for my family tree. When visiting cemeteries, I often took snapshots of the front gate just for the heck of it. I have a lot of relatives buried in Acacia Park Cemetery, Chicago (grandfather, four great-grandparents, great-aunt, two great-great grandparents, one uncle) and so I just happen to have a couple of decent images there. If I upload one or both, could you help me set up a proper FUR for an image I created? :) All the other cemeteries I have pics of either have no article, or already have better images than what I've got, so this is the only one I'm going to concern myself with. BOZ ( talk) 23:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Ya see that? :) BOZ ( talk) 21:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Drilbot just came along and changed a book title from italics to Roman. In citation styles it says that book titles in complete citations are often given in italics. Therefore, does it not stand to reason that, book titles should be given in italics when included on their own? ~~ Dr Dec ( Talk) ~~ 19:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
''
is equivalent to tags, but it is more readable and shorter on the page. If you look at the bot's revision, you'll see that the book title was still displayed in italics. –
Drilnoth (
T •
C •
L)
19:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey there, I'm posting here to request for rollback status. My application is at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback#User:Addihockey10 Thanks! -- Addihockey ( t/ c) 22:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
It's not that, I use that background to save energy (hurray!). It's the fact the the text is tiny, try comparing the recent changes text to my scroll bar and task bar, level 1 headers are about 12 font size. This just happened at random, please help! -- Addihockey ( t/ c) 01:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
The problem is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Comics and animation. A bit of discussion at [User_talk:Peregrine_Fisher#Cats_for_deletion]] and User talk:Cbl62. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 05:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Sure, go ahead. I'm looking forward to it :). BTW, anther thought I had, if it's not too difficult, would it be possible to stop the "prod" tab showing up on deleted pages? Best, - Kingpin 13 ( talk) 08:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I noticed you deleted File:Tulane shield web.png as it did not have a fair use rationale. I believe this image consists entirely of simple geometric shapes and text and is therefore ineligible for copyright, therefore no fair use rationale was ever needed in the first place. Could you be so kind as to restore this image? Even if you believe I am in error, please restore the image and immediately renominate them for deletion if you feel I am in error at WP:FFD. — BQZip01 — talk 16:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Drilnoth,
Abu Torsam has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the
WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hi, I just learned you are expert in identifying false Images(in different terms), I wish to learn How can i identify the right image, uploading it, & describe it along with reporting false images..Thanks.( Abu Torsam 07:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)).
In light of the closure of the centralized discussion,
Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Deprecating "Future" templates, I regret to say, if any TfD arguments arise for a particular "future" template, it's probably desirable to insist that the template to be used is the generic (and already deleted) {{
future}} template, which is malleable for all purposes. Otherwise, we're on the path to template proliferation again.
Yellowdesk (
talk)
03:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
You can also ask me to assist you with that, I like to think I'm better than the old Google :) I think the wording you used is not so clear, perhaps you should change it to something like "GameStar considers the character development on par with the core Neverwinter Nights 2 game, with the dialogues surpassing it at times" (or something more formal). I guess you purposefully chose this part to highlight the comparison with NWN2, but in case you want another more general statement why not include this from the bottom line instead: "GameStar recommended the game despite perceived weaknesses in looks, humor, and mission quality due to its strength in storytelling". Hekerui ( talk) 22:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I just remembered I had also had problems with webcitation once, and I switched to freezepage.com Hekerui ( talk) 20:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I notice that File:Alan_Bond_22-02-2004.jpg was deleted under CSD F4, having been tagged as {{ di-no source}}. My question is, the licensing tag used in that case ({{ Multilicense replacing placeholder}}) states in it "I, the author of this work". Is that not a source (because I'm pretty sure self-made is acceptable as a source). I actually have nothing to do with this image apart from it being on page I worked on, but I'm just curious. Best wishes, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Interesting. BOZ ( talk) 19:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
The bot performed very satisfactorily on the former. Nice job. Please do the latter. Thank you. 7&6=thirteen ( talk) 12:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC) Stan
Moonriddengirl suggested I talk to you about image tagging because this is an area of interest to you. Here is what I posted on her talk page: "Since the copyvio purge started, I've been tagging so many images in the last month or so and all I am only dealing with new and recent uploads. I keep being asked essentially the same sort of questions, so I wrote an
IfD faqs-type page to reduce the issue (I hope) based on
User:Jonny-mt/CSD which I actually have usurped for myself too but refined for images." Besides needing a new image, would you kindly review it for me to see if if fits the bill or if I have missed anything obvious or if you think something needs changing. She suggested one small changes that I have added and of course I will be happy if other can use it when complete. TIA
ww2censor (
talk)
03:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you closed several FFDs I started for LA based maps. Would it be possible to delete similar sets of images for Oakland, San Francisco, and San Jose California. I had hoped to delete those files by bundling into AFDs without clogging FFD. The discussions can be found at Oakland, San Francisco, and San Jose. They are also all but one of the images in Category:California maps. - Optigan13 ( talk) 05:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
^^^
???
— BQZip01 — talk 14:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
(Just in case I convey the wrong impression, let me first emphasise that, as far as I'm concerned, this is "no big deal". It's just that something has happened which is contrary to my expectations, and I feel I need a better understanding of "the rules".)
I'm unsure of the process. Being an admin, I expect you know it in your sleep! So I also expect that you can explain it to me?
You deleted these 4 images:
Wikipedia:CSD#G8 says:
G8. Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page,
such as ... image pages without a corresponding image; ... This excludes any page that is useful to the project, and in particular: ... image pages ... for images that exist on Wikimedia Commons.
So does that mean you deleted them because, once-upon-a-time they DID appear on a page, and now they don't? Cheers, Pdfpdf ( talk) 12:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
There are many hundreds of images (perhaps even thousands?) that are "not used". Why did you delete these four? Cheers, Pdfpdf ( talk) 12:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid I can't remember just quite what these photos depicted. I had in mind to use some images. I'm not sure if this set includes any of the ones I had in mind, (because I can no longer see them!)
If you restore them, I can have a look, and then flag-for-deletion the ones I'm not interested in, and use the ones I am interested in. Cheers,
Pdfpdf (
talk)
12:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Honestly, I can't really help you from here. The image pages on Wikipedia only had one edit in their history—your adding the category to them (which, BTW, shouldn't typically be done... images on Commons should be categorized there, not here, but that's besides the point). I am not an admin on Commons so I can't look at the images and figure out what should be done. I would recommend asking User:Nilfanion on Commons about the images, since he deleted them there; you can link back to this discussion if you'd like. Unless the images are restored, I see no point to restoring the pages here with only their categories but no associated image; discuss this with Nilfanion, and maybe some conclusion can be reached. – Drilnoth ( T • C • L) 14:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, the image CSE_logo.jpg has been removed by you sometime back. File:CSE logo.jpg. This is the official logo of the Department of Computer Science & Engineering, University of Moratuwa, Sri Lanka http://www.cse.mrt.ac.lk/, so I believe it is in the public domain and can be used in the wiki page User:Namals/Dept. of Computer Science & Engineering, University of Moratuwa. Glad if you can provide some clarification on this. Thanks
Namals ( talk) 15:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 2, No. 5 — 3rd Quarter, 2009
Previous issue |
Next issue
Project At a Glance
As of Q3
2009, the project has:
|
|
Content
|
Hi, it has been more than 14 days now since the RFC at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Deprecating "Future" templates was closed. Could your bot start the job again removing the templates? Garion96 (talk) 07:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
You recently sent me a message about the image file I uploaded. I appreciate you help and info, but frankly I still don't have a clue. It was taken from Heflin's paper in American Speech. It is my understanding the page image was sent to him. As I stated below, I think it fall under fair use. I would appreciate anything you could do to make it street legal.
Thanks for your help.
JPFay ( talk) 23:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
No! Not Ok O.K. Okay :)
Should be: Ok O.K. Okeh :)
I meant to give you all this info in the first place, but I'm afraid I am pretty new at (and frankly still struggling with) Wiki routines. But I really want to get them down. Anyway, here's the info:
It's taken from Heflin, Woodford A. (1941) "'O. K.', But What Do We Know about It?". American Speech, 16 (2), 90.
I spent quite a bit of time on it and I think image is included here under Wikipedia fair use image guidelines. It is an image of iconic status or historical importance and the subject of critical and scholarly commentary (is it ever!). It not an image of an extended passage of legible text but rather is a 3 line detail taken from a full page image of the diary. The American Speech editor called it the locus classicus of any discussion of the expression "OK."
Hey, thanks again for your help. I really appreciate it. JPFay ( talk) 11:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
It is a page image of the 1815 diary entry. To my knowledge, no one has ever claimed copyright of the 1815 diary, which would have expired long ago anyway.
The page image was not included in the 1938 published book. I downloaded it from an 1941 issue in the the journal archives of American Speech. The image was sent to the author of the 1941 journal paper about the diary, and there is certainly no suggestion that its owner intended to transfer copyright to that author or publication.
If it is indeed in public domain (and what happened to it in 1941 is irrelevant), that would be terrific. Wouldn't have to tiptoe around with what constituted fair use.
Thanks again for your efforts.
JPFay ( talk) 11:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
You said in a previous message if I had any questions to ask you. Maybe you didn't know what you were getting yourself into.
First, should I be editing an existing section, i.e., the section on Choctaw etymology, when I message you or create a new section like this one?
How can I find out what you did regarding making the page image street legal? I realize there is an enormous amount of documentation on everything about Wiki, but I find it often contradictory and mostly overwhelming. I think the most pertinent info for me, instead of all the documentation, is just "What did you do?" Or more to the point, what should I do next time?
Do you have any suggestions about who might be interested in looking at my Choctaw etymology material and helping me get it posted? I am thinking I will start posting it a little bit at a time next week, but would certainly appreciate some help.
JPFay ( talk) 12:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
What were you doing with Template:Law unref, and where was that discussed? Debresser ( talk) 00:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Please also notice that your edits to the template were summarily reverted and the sharp reaction at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#Template:Law_unref. Debresser ( talk) 00:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for leaving a message on my userpage - that put my mind at rest. I have been informed it was to do with a Wikipedia in Mirandese - I had never even heard of that language! ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 22:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Why did you delete these three images ( Max Russo.jpg, Justin Russo.jpg, and Alex Russo.jpg) before there was any conclusion on the discussion? I gave evidence that the images as they were used, fit precedent as demonstrated on several other articles. I said that the images should be considered non-replaceable and no one responded to me before they were deleted. Pigby ( talk) 15:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Hey there.. I don't blame you if you totally hate me for my nitpicky opposition at the Westgate FAC. How about this — give me a week or so, see if there are other things you need to fix, and holler at me.. I'll do a thorough copyedit. I would like to see it get featured, and I'm willing to put in some time for finetuning the text. But I need a little time to take care of IRL stuff. Scartol • Tok 22:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm editing an article about my department in Paraguay that is the Misiones Department. I'm having a problem with the infobox. Hope you can check it and help me. Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcetw ( talk • contribs) 05:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I dropped my mouse on my keyboard. I tried to undo it but you (thankfully) beat me to it. Please accept my apologies, and if you find it necessary to remove my rollback, I understand. -- ArglebargleIV ( talk) 22:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, in case you are going further with the template removal. The only future category which has the template is Category:Future public transportation in the United States. Almost all the articles in there have the template. The other country categories I already did, this one was just too large to do manually. I couldn't do it with autowikibrowser for some reason, couldn't keep logged in. Garion96 (talk) 17:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
You deleted File:SpmLosCarlosCoy.jpg, what what the free use violation? I never saw that it had been tagged, or even where it came from. Sephiroth storm ( talk) 08:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, DrilBot recently performed this edit; surely the form should have been "July 7, 1977" with comma? If I were to be really pedantic I'd say "7 July 1977" was correct, because Steve Hillage is British; but I don't expect a bot to recognise that. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 10:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Template:Automatic backlog requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes ({{transclusionless}}).
Thanks. RL0919 ( talk) 12:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Drilnoth- I saw your input in the archived discussion of whether to move the section edit links (Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_49). I was surprised to see there were people against the idea of fixing the problem, and I can't believe there was no consensus. This is something I've struggled with often (see my tragic attempts on Lyonand Mont Saint-Michel). Have you heard of any new move to fix the problem? Eric talk 23:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar |
For having your bot remove all these future templates, dealing with a difficult RFC, and for being nagged by someone who wanted to remove all of them fast. :) Garion96 (talk) 21:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC) |
I'd like to request the autoreviewer right on my account. I wasn't able to find any process for it, so I'm assuming I can request it from an admin. I'd like the right so that any pages I create won't add to the burden of new page patrol. I've never vandalized anything in my ~4 year career. Let me know of any concerns you might have. Thanks! Equazcion ( talk) 00:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I see you have posted to his Talk page before - and he has not responded to me there. His uploads are still not tagged. He has done a great deal of good work around Worcester, Western Cape, but I am unfamiliar with the image for deletion process - perhaps you can talk some sense to him ? Wizzy… ☎ 12:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your edit made on the Amstaff article. I know a lot about the breed and breed history but I'm not a native English speaker. I also made an edit on the American Pit Bull Terrier article under the History section. It was reverted due the "neutrality" but my edits was mainly from official sources like United Kennel Club and American Dog Breeders Association's home page. Can you look at the article if it's really neutral or not?? Thank you very much. k84m97 ( talk) 18:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
THANKS, my edit wasn't finished, this is why it needed future work. k84m97 ( talk) 18:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi - I've posted my thoughts on the template redirects you put up for discussion. Can I make one suggestion - since I suspect the comments and arguments will be the same for all of them can we group them together for a single discussion? I am happy to make the change and do the grouping - but wanted your approval first. Thanks. 7 01:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:BeggarPrince-3rdrun.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? feydey ( talk) 11:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I understand your logic, and I will take the photo off until futher copyright info is discoved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexOVRLORD ( talk • contribs) 18:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Please revert the changes to the images you removed on [WP:Self-reconfiguring modular robotics] before he history in recent changes goes away, i didn't find the right classification and thats the closest i could come up with. It is clearly not a logo, they are picutres of the robots that are made by the comapany but other people are not permitted to use pictures of Robotics Desgin's robots without prior consent from the company, excluding media. Please classify i correctly and then put the pictures back wwith the hstory thing, becaue i would take a while to get them back onlne, those were high qualiy pictures showing the innovaive architecture of the arm , the modules it is composed of, and the configurations they can be in to form different robots for different applications. If i am supposed to change it myself or if there is any problm whatsoever with this images being put back on wikipedia, please inform me at wikipedia or at helloman911777 at hotmail dot com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiansteve ( talk • contribs) 04:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
nominated for GA. :) BOZ ( talk) 15:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Pictures related to Malik Ambar. Because you closed a deletion discussion for some of these images, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 02:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi there! I've added copyright tags to following images you nominated for deletion: Image:Bgc_belgacom.png, Image:Bgc_telindus.png and Image:Bgc_proximus.png. they should be okay now? Thanks. Samgreenwich ( talk) 07:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi i have upload photos which made with my own camera! But you want delete them! Please tell me what can i do to let them! Unluckyly i dont know how todo in this case.
Thanks Vernito —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vernito ( talk • contribs)
Your bot has deleted a photo for which a perfectly valid public domain rationale exists under the law of the State of Florida. This was done without advance warning or notice, contrary to Wiki protocols (the articles and related talk pages are on my "watch" list). Please restore the photo page and I will post the proper public domain rationale (see below). This photo was from the archives of the University of Florida, an agency of the State of Florida, and is subject to specific public domain rules under the laws of the state of Florida. Here is the public domain rationale, as posted by the University of Florida archivist on other photos related to the university:
The foregoing paragraph may or may not have been included on the image page that you deleted----we cannot tell because you deleted the image page and no history remains.
Thank you for your cooperation in resolving this matter. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 03:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, sir, for the "conditional restoration" of the E.T. York photo. I understand your position that a valid copyright rationale is needed. I have alerted my senior editors on WikiProject University of Florida to this issue. I have not checked, but I suspect that we will have a similar problem with other photos that have been released by the university archivist. I would like to see if we can't get a global solution and properly document all of them to your satisfaction and then upload the whole kit and caboodle to WikiCommons. We really do want to comply with Wiki protocols, but we ask for a fair hearing under the applicable state copyright law applicable in Florida. Hopefully, we can work this out in the next 7 days. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 15:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
You deleted one of the files uploaded by Bottracker ( talk · contribs), who I blocked for copyright violations and personal attacks but mainly to get him to enter into a dialogue which he was refusing to do, just deleting all the notices. 2 other Admins declined an unblock request, a 3rd blocked his user page and mentioned that his username was problematic, and now he's been unblocked and given a 'sincere apology' and that his block wasn't justified. Enough to make me just ignore copyvio in the future if this is how it gets treated. The discussion (which I think should be on ANI) is here. Dougweller ( talk) 09:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Since your own header say you do this a lot, you obviously have self-appointed yourself to be the Wikipedia police. As a contributor who is carefully following the rules and is posting accurate, sourced information, constant nagging by--I'll say people like you--is a hinderance to the content of Wikipedia. I feel like a one-armed paperhanger trying to chase down the latest idiotic bot-like unnecessary inclusion into content I, or other people have contributed. At least I am paying attention to protect the content I have contributed. Much of these insertion are irrational and non-sensical, made either by a bot that can't understand the content or by a human being that does not. If your intent is well founded, that is not apparent. Too much valuable information has already been deleted by the censorship gestapo of which you are a part. Before you click another attack on legitimate information (or your case, a legitimate picture). Stop. Think. Look at the content and its importance to worldwide knowledge. Back off. Deletion is not the only answer. Trackinfo ( talk) 20:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Drilnoth----As the shepherd for the university president articles within WikiProject University of Florida, I monitor those pages and noticed your flagging of this image for 7-day deletion. I have contacted the photographer and uploader (same person) by telephone to alert him to the issue. He is a University of Florida undergraduate (see name identified in the permission template on the image page), and has uploaded a number of his university-related photographs to Wikipedia. He has confirmed that they are his original works. He will be contacting you directly to resolve any issues you may have regarding the form of copyright permission/release. I would be grateful if you would take the time to explain your issue and how he may correct it in accordance with Wiki copyright protocols. He's the sort of image uploader we want to keep----he's good with a digital camera and he's willing to release his uploaded images unconditionally. We should help him all we can. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 20:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Drilnoth, I appreciate your "good faith" offer to remove the tag. However, if you can't make the connection as an experienced Wiki copyright cop, other Wiki copyright enforcers are likely to draw the same conclusion as you. Why don't we just flag it as "contested" (or other appropriate Wiki copyright template) for the time being. When Nikonmadness contacts you, please tell him exactly how you would like it presented. He has the potential to be a very significant photograph contributor to our project, and we might as well help him do things the right way. Nikonmadness and you can create the proper pattern for others on our project to follow. Thank you, once again, for your assistance in this matter. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 21:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, sir, what's the proper way to do it? Sign it with your real name and Wiki user name? Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 23:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your help, Drilnoth. I will relay this to Nikonmadness by outside e-mail, and I will include this thread to make it easy on him. I will also save this thread to my talk page archive to share with others in the future. I would like to standardize our license/permission/fair use/public domain language within our UF project so we don't have to spend so darn much time dealing with image issues. I was recruited to write key articles, not to be a Wikilawyer. I get enough of that at my day job. LOL Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 23:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 04:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey, Mr. Archives-Dude: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Ravenloft_(module)&curid=9863423&diff=307543132&oldid=307512928 BOZ ( talk) 15:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Third time is the charm! :) BOZ ( talk) 22:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I dunno if there'll be consensus to remove the templates with a bot, but in case there will be, I've created a list of all the templates and the categories they use. Thought it might be helpful. :) -- Conti| ✉ 09:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I didn't mean to be confusing. As I wrote to the first admin to delete File:Hazrat Ali, Afghan politician.jpg, I did pose my question first on the commons village pump.
I uploaded the image as fair use. And I subsequently listed it for discussion, because I was hoping for opinions on whether the two images I uploaded to the commons a year later: File:General Ali and his Afghan fighters, November 2001.jpg and File:General Ali and his Afghan fighters, November 2001 b.jpg should be considered replacements for File:Hazrat Ali, Afghan politician.jpg. They are in the public domain, and they are of much better resolution. The problem with them is that the source doesn't clearly identify the subject as Hazrat Ali, rather it identifies him as "General Ali".
The subject, in my subjective judgment, looks like the grainy picture File:Hazrat Ali, Afghan politician.jpg. But, since he is not explicitly identified as Hazrat Ali, I was concerned that replacing the first image for which I previously claimed fair use is open to a criticism of original research.
I have no problem replacing File:Hazrat Ali, Afghan politician.jpg with one of the PD images -- provided other contributors went on record as agreeing that all three pictures were of the same individual. On the other hand, if no other contributors are confident that all three pictures are of the same individual, then I think the initial fair use justification remains valid, because then the two PD images could not then be regarded as replacements.
Can I ask whether you are confident that all three images are of the same individual?
If you aren't confident, what would you recommend as the next step?
Thanks Geo Swan ( talk) 17:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I've been making my way through the future templates and came across a few protected ones, so I decided to take you up on your offer at the deprecation discussion. The protected ones I've found so far are:
The change is simple. Just paste the following code above the existing first line. See Template:Future game if you have any doubt about how it should look.
<noinclude>{{ombox|image=[[Image:Symbol opinion vote.svg|40px]]|text=The template has been deprecated (see [[Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Deprecating "Future" templates|discussion]]) and is in the process of being removed from Wikipedia articles. '''Do not use this template'''.}}</noinclude><includeonly><center><small>''The template below has been deprecated (see [[Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Deprecating "Future" templates|discussion]]), and will soon be replaced automatically with the corresponding category.''</small></center></includeonly>
Thanks, I appreciate it. Equazcion ( talk) 22:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
If fan sites are discouraged, please tell me why the following links are allowed to remain:
Extended content
|
---|
|
yet my site,
...is determined to be "not appropriate" because "there already is one to the official PRD"
The link to the official PRD was added by someone else to replace mine. When I edited the page again I kept the link to the official PRD as well as restored mine. In honesty, the PRD is not even a "System Reference Document" technically, it is a "Pathfinder Reference Document" hence it being called a PRD and not an SRD. Either way, Wizards of the Coast released an official SRD years ago yet there is no link to it in this section yet there are links to multiple other fan created and maintained SRD sites.
"and fan sites are generally discouraged"
If that is the case then why are all of the above sites still linked? Each and every one of them is a "fan site" and is not associated with the "official" sites or SRD's for their associated game systems in any way.
Please explain this change more clearly to me for I fail to see how my site is different from any of the above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jreyst ( talk • contribs) 07:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey, thanks! 'Tis much appreciated. I We are most honored. :) –
Drilnoth (
T •
C •
L)
17:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I decided to give it a try, and it worked! I figured I'd take a shot in the dark and look at White Dwarf's review of the Monster Manual, and lo and behold I got a quick blurb for the poor persucted mimic and several other creatures! :) I'm going to have a look at their review of the Fiend Folio and Monster Manual II to see what other creatures I can add a quick independent reference to. :) BOZ ( talk) 00:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
You may be interested in a discussion and poll I've started to decide the criteria that will be used for promoting users to the reviewer group at Wikipedia talk:Reviewers#New discussion and poll: reviewer criteria - please put your comments there. AndrewRT( Talk) 17:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I noticed your postings on this page, and several WP:Article Rescue Squadron members speak very highly of you. I have a question if these gadgets could be made and approved, and whether they are even feasible.
Ikip ( talk) 15:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello, We have the autorisation to use this image. Thank you Lulu97417 ( talk) 17:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Your recent bot approvals request has been approved. Please see the request page for details. Kingpin 13 ( talk) 01:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Animal_psychopathology&diff=308588608&oldid=277571639 third chunk down . Rich Farmbrough, 06:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC).
Hello, Drilnoth. I posted a request for plot references on the Icewind Dale II talk page, and was told that you might be able to help. I'm currently rewriting the Icewind Dale II article, and need references for the plot section. Unfortunately, I don't have access to the game right now. However, I discovered another way to get references. The manual says that if you hit CTRL-A while on the journal page for Icewind Dale II, the contents of the journal are downloaded to a text file. The text file is located in the /mpsave directory of Icewind Dale II, in the "folder of the last saved or last loaded save game." If you know anyone with a save at the end of the game, or if you have one yourself, I would really appreciate it if you could post the contents of that text file on the Icewind Dale II talk page. Also, since the journal is going to be pretty big, it probably be best if you hid it with <!-- and -->. Thanks for your time. 70.106.205.159 ( talk) 22:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Per the discussion, I think {{ Beta software}} should be added to your list of future templates in Conti's userspace (I'm assuming that's how the bot determines which templates to remove). Equazcion ( talk) 19:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
One other thing: I clicked around some random diffs just to check the bot's work, and noticed this diff. The article contains a future template, but bot didn't remove it, and instead just performed some general fixes. I don't know if the bot is meant to return to the article later to perform the removal or what, but I just wanted to make you aware of this in case it's a problem. Equazcion ( talk) 20:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
It would seem that you have tagged a few images as having no source, when the uploader has claimed to be the source and has licensed these images freely. Some examples I have found so far are as follows: [3] [4] [5] If you do not believe that the uploader is the author, then you should nominate these files for deletion, and not tag them for speedy deletion. Thanks -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 00:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey man,
I have a questions about your comment. Is Infobox Officeholder the ONLY false positive you know of? I could not find any others on the Wikiproject's page. I removed all the pages that use that template from the list i will work from (arround 3000) and i tested it, so far, i havent seen any significant problems. Theres no use for me making the same mistakes that you did when you tried this, so I would value your input. Thanks Tim1357 ( talk) 01:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Can you make a FA star version? Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 00:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 16:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh yes, it was in accident in that I thought it was one of those annoying messages about photo licensing. I didn't really read it to be honest, and I apologize. After reading it, yes, they are my work, and they should be PD-self. Thanks! Again, very sorry. -- Earl Andrew - talk 23:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Drilnoth, at Commons we emptied out Category:License migration candidates, but because Category:Wikipedia license migration candidates is not empty yet, images keep showing up in that category. Do you happen to know if anyone is actually working on the license migration now here at enwp? I noticed your bot, but it seems to have stopped. multichill ( talk) 21:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering if it is useful for your bot to make an edit like this. It appears that all it did there was switch the fact template to a citation needed template. Because the fact template redirects to citation needed, aren't these edits better when something else is getting changed as well?-- Rockfang ( talk) 01:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
File Copyright problem
defending knowledge can be difficult sometimes'. Thank you. 22:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freshymail ( talk • contribs)
Are you sure starting over is the best way to go? There was already a large discussion. Could we perhaps uncollapse the original discussion, move the RFC there, and merge the two? We could also move the "long discussion" to the talk page. Asking everyone to repeat their comments seems unnecessary and imposing, and sort of unlikely to happen in their entirety. Equazcion ( talk) 04:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm curious why the templates couldn't be re-added via bot. Couldn't you use its contribs list from when the templates were removed? Equazcion ( talk) 02:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello ! I've made an entry for Stanley Jedidiah Samartha many months ago. I wonder if you could search and send a picture of him. Better still if you can upload a profile picture.-- 117.195.206.79 ( talk) 08:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry that I placed my first response in a sort of weird spot. I must not have been paying much attention. The setting I'm referring to can be found by opening the IE8 options, going to the security tab, and clicking custom level. It should be down near the bottom of the scroll. RandomStringOfCharacters ( talk) 17:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey, do you understand why Category:Pakistani Sunni Muslims doesn't appear as a subcategory of Category:Pakistani Muslims even though it has the category? Thanks Hekerui ( talk) 18:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi I am unsure about the rules, but why has the photo of the Japanese period occupation money [File:Batu lintang camp dollars.jpg] been reduced to such a resolution that they are as good as useless as details can't be made out - such as the bunch of bananas that gave the currency their slang name? Other images, such as [File:Malaysia_1st_10ringgit_back.jpg] this one of an old banknote seem to be acceptable at high resolution so I'm not sure why the wartime ones aren't. Maybe I chose the wrong copyright status template? The licensing and rationale for the ringgit page is pretty much the case for the Batu Lintang one. I'm confused. Jasper33 ( talk) 16:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Seems that a bot can't do much more now. Last 252 images in Category:Wikipedia license migration candidates are not really images - only text. Should be deleted when it is checked that all info is on Commons. I moved the last images to Category:Wikipedia license migration needs review. Unless someone gets a good idea the 2.903 files needs to be checked manually. -- MGA73 ( talk) 22:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I reverted you. I think you were under the impression that all of that page would be transcluded to the each WikiProject's Article Alerts. In fact, only the most recent of each type of item is transcluded (only the latest edition of the signpost, for example). The rest in placed between <noinclude></noinclude> tags, meaning that they are only visible if you are on the Wikipedia:Article alerts/News page. Stuff is kept for a month, so if you see things older than a month, feel free to remove it. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 21:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I was once, and probably will be again, an amateur genealogist for my family tree. When visiting cemeteries, I often took snapshots of the front gate just for the heck of it. I have a lot of relatives buried in Acacia Park Cemetery, Chicago (grandfather, four great-grandparents, great-aunt, two great-great grandparents, one uncle) and so I just happen to have a couple of decent images there. If I upload one or both, could you help me set up a proper FUR for an image I created? :) All the other cemeteries I have pics of either have no article, or already have better images than what I've got, so this is the only one I'm going to concern myself with. BOZ ( talk) 23:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Ya see that? :) BOZ ( talk) 21:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Drilbot just came along and changed a book title from italics to Roman. In citation styles it says that book titles in complete citations are often given in italics. Therefore, does it not stand to reason that, book titles should be given in italics when included on their own? ~~ Dr Dec ( Talk) ~~ 19:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
''
is equivalent to tags, but it is more readable and shorter on the page. If you look at the bot's revision, you'll see that the book title was still displayed in italics. –
Drilnoth (
T •
C •
L)
19:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey there, I'm posting here to request for rollback status. My application is at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback#User:Addihockey10 Thanks! -- Addihockey ( t/ c) 22:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
It's not that, I use that background to save energy (hurray!). It's the fact the the text is tiny, try comparing the recent changes text to my scroll bar and task bar, level 1 headers are about 12 font size. This just happened at random, please help! -- Addihockey ( t/ c) 01:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
The problem is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Comics and animation. A bit of discussion at [User_talk:Peregrine_Fisher#Cats_for_deletion]] and User talk:Cbl62. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 05:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Sure, go ahead. I'm looking forward to it :). BTW, anther thought I had, if it's not too difficult, would it be possible to stop the "prod" tab showing up on deleted pages? Best, - Kingpin 13 ( talk) 08:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I noticed you deleted File:Tulane shield web.png as it did not have a fair use rationale. I believe this image consists entirely of simple geometric shapes and text and is therefore ineligible for copyright, therefore no fair use rationale was ever needed in the first place. Could you be so kind as to restore this image? Even if you believe I am in error, please restore the image and immediately renominate them for deletion if you feel I am in error at WP:FFD. — BQZip01 — talk 16:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Drilnoth,
Abu Torsam has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the
WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hi, I just learned you are expert in identifying false Images(in different terms), I wish to learn How can i identify the right image, uploading it, & describe it along with reporting false images..Thanks.( Abu Torsam 07:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)).
In light of the closure of the centralized discussion,
Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Deprecating "Future" templates, I regret to say, if any TfD arguments arise for a particular "future" template, it's probably desirable to insist that the template to be used is the generic (and already deleted) {{
future}} template, which is malleable for all purposes. Otherwise, we're on the path to template proliferation again.
Yellowdesk (
talk)
03:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
You can also ask me to assist you with that, I like to think I'm better than the old Google :) I think the wording you used is not so clear, perhaps you should change it to something like "GameStar considers the character development on par with the core Neverwinter Nights 2 game, with the dialogues surpassing it at times" (or something more formal). I guess you purposefully chose this part to highlight the comparison with NWN2, but in case you want another more general statement why not include this from the bottom line instead: "GameStar recommended the game despite perceived weaknesses in looks, humor, and mission quality due to its strength in storytelling". Hekerui ( talk) 22:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I just remembered I had also had problems with webcitation once, and I switched to freezepage.com Hekerui ( talk) 20:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I notice that File:Alan_Bond_22-02-2004.jpg was deleted under CSD F4, having been tagged as {{ di-no source}}. My question is, the licensing tag used in that case ({{ Multilicense replacing placeholder}}) states in it "I, the author of this work". Is that not a source (because I'm pretty sure self-made is acceptable as a source). I actually have nothing to do with this image apart from it being on page I worked on, but I'm just curious. Best wishes, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Interesting. BOZ ( talk) 19:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
The bot performed very satisfactorily on the former. Nice job. Please do the latter. Thank you. 7&6=thirteen ( talk) 12:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC) Stan
Moonriddengirl suggested I talk to you about image tagging because this is an area of interest to you. Here is what I posted on her talk page: "Since the copyvio purge started, I've been tagging so many images in the last month or so and all I am only dealing with new and recent uploads. I keep being asked essentially the same sort of questions, so I wrote an
IfD faqs-type page to reduce the issue (I hope) based on
User:Jonny-mt/CSD which I actually have usurped for myself too but refined for images." Besides needing a new image, would you kindly review it for me to see if if fits the bill or if I have missed anything obvious or if you think something needs changing. She suggested one small changes that I have added and of course I will be happy if other can use it when complete. TIA
ww2censor (
talk)
03:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you closed several FFDs I started for LA based maps. Would it be possible to delete similar sets of images for Oakland, San Francisco, and San Jose California. I had hoped to delete those files by bundling into AFDs without clogging FFD. The discussions can be found at Oakland, San Francisco, and San Jose. They are also all but one of the images in Category:California maps. - Optigan13 ( talk) 05:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
^^^
???
— BQZip01 — talk 14:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
(Just in case I convey the wrong impression, let me first emphasise that, as far as I'm concerned, this is "no big deal". It's just that something has happened which is contrary to my expectations, and I feel I need a better understanding of "the rules".)
I'm unsure of the process. Being an admin, I expect you know it in your sleep! So I also expect that you can explain it to me?
You deleted these 4 images:
Wikipedia:CSD#G8 says:
G8. Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page,
such as ... image pages without a corresponding image; ... This excludes any page that is useful to the project, and in particular: ... image pages ... for images that exist on Wikimedia Commons.
So does that mean you deleted them because, once-upon-a-time they DID appear on a page, and now they don't? Cheers, Pdfpdf ( talk) 12:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
There are many hundreds of images (perhaps even thousands?) that are "not used". Why did you delete these four? Cheers, Pdfpdf ( talk) 12:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid I can't remember just quite what these photos depicted. I had in mind to use some images. I'm not sure if this set includes any of the ones I had in mind, (because I can no longer see them!)
If you restore them, I can have a look, and then flag-for-deletion the ones I'm not interested in, and use the ones I am interested in. Cheers,
Pdfpdf (
talk)
12:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Honestly, I can't really help you from here. The image pages on Wikipedia only had one edit in their history—your adding the category to them (which, BTW, shouldn't typically be done... images on Commons should be categorized there, not here, but that's besides the point). I am not an admin on Commons so I can't look at the images and figure out what should be done. I would recommend asking User:Nilfanion on Commons about the images, since he deleted them there; you can link back to this discussion if you'd like. Unless the images are restored, I see no point to restoring the pages here with only their categories but no associated image; discuss this with Nilfanion, and maybe some conclusion can be reached. – Drilnoth ( T • C • L) 14:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, the image CSE_logo.jpg has been removed by you sometime back. File:CSE logo.jpg. This is the official logo of the Department of Computer Science & Engineering, University of Moratuwa, Sri Lanka http://www.cse.mrt.ac.lk/, so I believe it is in the public domain and can be used in the wiki page User:Namals/Dept. of Computer Science & Engineering, University of Moratuwa. Glad if you can provide some clarification on this. Thanks
Namals ( talk) 15:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 2, No. 5 — 3rd Quarter, 2009
Previous issue |
Next issue
Project At a Glance
As of Q3
2009, the project has:
|
|
Content
|
Hi, it has been more than 14 days now since the RFC at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Deprecating "Future" templates was closed. Could your bot start the job again removing the templates? Garion96 (talk) 07:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
You recently sent me a message about the image file I uploaded. I appreciate you help and info, but frankly I still don't have a clue. It was taken from Heflin's paper in American Speech. It is my understanding the page image was sent to him. As I stated below, I think it fall under fair use. I would appreciate anything you could do to make it street legal.
Thanks for your help.
JPFay ( talk) 23:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
No! Not Ok O.K. Okay :)
Should be: Ok O.K. Okeh :)
I meant to give you all this info in the first place, but I'm afraid I am pretty new at (and frankly still struggling with) Wiki routines. But I really want to get them down. Anyway, here's the info:
It's taken from Heflin, Woodford A. (1941) "'O. K.', But What Do We Know about It?". American Speech, 16 (2), 90.
I spent quite a bit of time on it and I think image is included here under Wikipedia fair use image guidelines. It is an image of iconic status or historical importance and the subject of critical and scholarly commentary (is it ever!). It not an image of an extended passage of legible text but rather is a 3 line detail taken from a full page image of the diary. The American Speech editor called it the locus classicus of any discussion of the expression "OK."
Hey, thanks again for your help. I really appreciate it. JPFay ( talk) 11:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
It is a page image of the 1815 diary entry. To my knowledge, no one has ever claimed copyright of the 1815 diary, which would have expired long ago anyway.
The page image was not included in the 1938 published book. I downloaded it from an 1941 issue in the the journal archives of American Speech. The image was sent to the author of the 1941 journal paper about the diary, and there is certainly no suggestion that its owner intended to transfer copyright to that author or publication.
If it is indeed in public domain (and what happened to it in 1941 is irrelevant), that would be terrific. Wouldn't have to tiptoe around with what constituted fair use.
Thanks again for your efforts.
JPFay ( talk) 11:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
You said in a previous message if I had any questions to ask you. Maybe you didn't know what you were getting yourself into.
First, should I be editing an existing section, i.e., the section on Choctaw etymology, when I message you or create a new section like this one?
How can I find out what you did regarding making the page image street legal? I realize there is an enormous amount of documentation on everything about Wiki, but I find it often contradictory and mostly overwhelming. I think the most pertinent info for me, instead of all the documentation, is just "What did you do?" Or more to the point, what should I do next time?
Do you have any suggestions about who might be interested in looking at my Choctaw etymology material and helping me get it posted? I am thinking I will start posting it a little bit at a time next week, but would certainly appreciate some help.
JPFay ( talk) 12:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
What were you doing with Template:Law unref, and where was that discussed? Debresser ( talk) 00:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Please also notice that your edits to the template were summarily reverted and the sharp reaction at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#Template:Law_unref. Debresser ( talk) 00:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for leaving a message on my userpage - that put my mind at rest. I have been informed it was to do with a Wikipedia in Mirandese - I had never even heard of that language! ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 22:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Why did you delete these three images ( Max Russo.jpg, Justin Russo.jpg, and Alex Russo.jpg) before there was any conclusion on the discussion? I gave evidence that the images as they were used, fit precedent as demonstrated on several other articles. I said that the images should be considered non-replaceable and no one responded to me before they were deleted. Pigby ( talk) 15:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Hey there.. I don't blame you if you totally hate me for my nitpicky opposition at the Westgate FAC. How about this — give me a week or so, see if there are other things you need to fix, and holler at me.. I'll do a thorough copyedit. I would like to see it get featured, and I'm willing to put in some time for finetuning the text. But I need a little time to take care of IRL stuff. Scartol • Tok 22:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm editing an article about my department in Paraguay that is the Misiones Department. I'm having a problem with the infobox. Hope you can check it and help me. Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcetw ( talk • contribs) 05:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I dropped my mouse on my keyboard. I tried to undo it but you (thankfully) beat me to it. Please accept my apologies, and if you find it necessary to remove my rollback, I understand. -- ArglebargleIV ( talk) 22:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, in case you are going further with the template removal. The only future category which has the template is Category:Future public transportation in the United States. Almost all the articles in there have the template. The other country categories I already did, this one was just too large to do manually. I couldn't do it with autowikibrowser for some reason, couldn't keep logged in. Garion96 (talk) 17:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
You deleted File:SpmLosCarlosCoy.jpg, what what the free use violation? I never saw that it had been tagged, or even where it came from. Sephiroth storm ( talk) 08:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, DrilBot recently performed this edit; surely the form should have been "July 7, 1977" with comma? If I were to be really pedantic I'd say "7 July 1977" was correct, because Steve Hillage is British; but I don't expect a bot to recognise that. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 10:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Template:Automatic backlog requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes ({{transclusionless}}).
Thanks. RL0919 ( talk) 12:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Drilnoth- I saw your input in the archived discussion of whether to move the section edit links (Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_49). I was surprised to see there were people against the idea of fixing the problem, and I can't believe there was no consensus. This is something I've struggled with often (see my tragic attempts on Lyonand Mont Saint-Michel). Have you heard of any new move to fix the problem? Eric talk 23:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar |
For having your bot remove all these future templates, dealing with a difficult RFC, and for being nagged by someone who wanted to remove all of them fast. :) Garion96 (talk) 21:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC) |
I'd like to request the autoreviewer right on my account. I wasn't able to find any process for it, so I'm assuming I can request it from an admin. I'd like the right so that any pages I create won't add to the burden of new page patrol. I've never vandalized anything in my ~4 year career. Let me know of any concerns you might have. Thanks! Equazcion ( talk) 00:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I see you have posted to his Talk page before - and he has not responded to me there. His uploads are still not tagged. He has done a great deal of good work around Worcester, Western Cape, but I am unfamiliar with the image for deletion process - perhaps you can talk some sense to him ? Wizzy… ☎ 12:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your edit made on the Amstaff article. I know a lot about the breed and breed history but I'm not a native English speaker. I also made an edit on the American Pit Bull Terrier article under the History section. It was reverted due the "neutrality" but my edits was mainly from official sources like United Kennel Club and American Dog Breeders Association's home page. Can you look at the article if it's really neutral or not?? Thank you very much. k84m97 ( talk) 18:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
THANKS, my edit wasn't finished, this is why it needed future work. k84m97 ( talk) 18:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi - I've posted my thoughts on the template redirects you put up for discussion. Can I make one suggestion - since I suspect the comments and arguments will be the same for all of them can we group them together for a single discussion? I am happy to make the change and do the grouping - but wanted your approval first. Thanks. 7 01:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:BeggarPrince-3rdrun.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? feydey ( talk) 11:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I understand your logic, and I will take the photo off until futher copyright info is discoved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexOVRLORD ( talk • contribs) 18:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Please revert the changes to the images you removed on [WP:Self-reconfiguring modular robotics] before he history in recent changes goes away, i didn't find the right classification and thats the closest i could come up with. It is clearly not a logo, they are picutres of the robots that are made by the comapany but other people are not permitted to use pictures of Robotics Desgin's robots without prior consent from the company, excluding media. Please classify i correctly and then put the pictures back wwith the hstory thing, becaue i would take a while to get them back onlne, those were high qualiy pictures showing the innovaive architecture of the arm , the modules it is composed of, and the configurations they can be in to form different robots for different applications. If i am supposed to change it myself or if there is any problm whatsoever with this images being put back on wikipedia, please inform me at wikipedia or at helloman911777 at hotmail dot com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiansteve ( talk • contribs) 04:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)