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 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
Dear Nthep,
Thank you for rescuing the intro. to the New Age page.
I am one of the people who has not only made substantive additions to this page over the las two years, bu who has sought to protect it from a small army of vandals, ideological combatants, and sock-puppeteers. (The subject matter inexorably brings them out, I guess.) I no longer have the time for this, and I sense that others have also fallen away.
Do you have the stature to get this page "protected" from those who are not properly registred on Wikipedia? If so, it is probably in Wikipedia's interest for you to do so. All best, - Babel41 ( talk) 01:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
The message that you had problems with was because you included ref tags without surrounding the with nowiki tags. Unterminated ref tags cause subsequent text to be hidden. I added nowiki tags, but by the time I wanted to save it you had deleted the original. - David Biddulph ( talk) 23:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Can you offer your opinion on this question I've posed? I could really use your thoughts on the matter. Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 15:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi: On 1 November you deleted several images uploaded by this user as lacking evidence of permission. They all relate to New R. S. J. Public School Senior Secondary and included File:Top view of New R. S. J. Public School Senior Secondary.jpg, which was also deleted at Commons by Dianaa as lacking evidence of permission, but which he has subsequently re-uploaded, and File:Library of NRSJPS.jpg, which so far as I can see no one else has objected to and is in the article right now. (I may however have missed it in the long list of his deleted contributions here, and I can't see his deleted contributions at Commons). He has also uploaded multiple times File:Taekwondo classes at NRSJPS.jpg, which I was the latest person to delete - it's a copyvio of this. My question is, do you still think we should scrub the library picture? Despite the user's continuing re-uploads of at least one copyvio image and of images with no evidence of permission, the rest of us seem to be extending good faith to that one. And also, I have reinstated File:Yoga classes at NRSJPS.jpg in the article because unlike the others it has metadata supporting the user's claim of having taken it himself, and so far as I can find, no one else has deleted it. (It was redlinked because he muffed the syntax when he added it to the page.) It certainly is not from the same set as the Taekwando image, but I wouldn't know how to search beyond that and forget who first identified that source - it may have been at Commons. Yngvadottir ( talk) 19:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Hallo. About the question of Vera Dick and Titanic, I report to you that Thenick777 is creating two other articles. I've copyedited Alice Cleaver and tagged it per notability. The article Léontine Pauline Aubert (that could be more notable) still now has no content (only the infobox) and no refs. The name is also wrong (but valid as redirect): the correct one is Léontine Pauline Aubart ( as said here). Well, I just to inform you to request an eventual help for further actions. Imho, the articles should not be deleted (even if not notable) but, as for Vera Dick, redirected. My suggestion is a redirect to the page Passengers of the RMS Titanic#First class 2, in which they are listed. Note: I don't revise notability about Alice Cleaver. Thanks for attention and regards. -- Dэя- Бøяg 02:15, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 05:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
You deleted the images again without discuss or even notifying the restoring admin in question? Did you review the previous discussion? The user has provided ORTS permission for another image. Both images are published by the exact same person. Image was tagged that OTRS permission is pending. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
The Yorkshire WikiProject Newsletter | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
The Kent County Council website is down at the moment. Will be on to it as soon as I can. Mjroots ( talk) 13:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Greetings. Just trying to get the hang of posting an ancient (~1890) picture on a wiki page I am upgrading. As a newbie to Wikipedia, I am finding the Wikipedia-specific syntax and procedures obscure and the documentation nearly impenetrable. The picture in question was used in a 2006 newspaper article (source path given with the picture, possibly with the wrong brackets/keywords/format). But certainly the newspaper is not the first to use this photograph. It has been floating around in various newsletters, pamphlets, articles, for about a century. The newspaper article cited did not separatly cite a copyright for this picture, so any sin that has been committed has been committed many times before. Thus, I think there should be no problem with blessing this picture to be shown in Wikipedia as PD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwerty123uiop ( talk • contribs) 20:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm... Thanks for the tips. Of course, proving a negative can be very difficult, if not impossible. Establishing the early publishing provenance of an obscure 100+ year old photograph may well be fruitless. The best-quality version of this photo I have found is the one I posted, taken from the pages of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article cited, dated 2006. Note that such a newspaper is a professional organization that must worry about copyright issues all the time, more so than the amateur operation that is Wikipedia. They published it without attribution. To me, that is enough of a scholarly foundation to include the picture, citing the newspaper as the source. Can you quote a specific passage in the US copyright law that would prevent this? I would like to read it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwerty123uiop ( talk • contribs) 14:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I have contacted the newspaper (the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette) librarian directly and learned the following about this picture. The newspaper has in its possession the original of this photograph: it is in their photo archive, but they know they do not own it. Nor do they know who owns it. There are no markings on it that give a hint as to whether it ever was published before. Even though they published the image on May 2, 2006, they do not claim a copyright on the image; that explains why it was shown without attribution in the article. They have no paper trail for learning the provenance of the picture. For all we know, the article might have been the first-ever publication of this particular picture of the house, but again, they do not claim a copyright.
As for the date of the picture, it is a fact that it was demolished by the city in 1919 when it was a collapsing wreck. Westinghouse's heyday in that house was between about 1885 and 1900. This is the time period from which we think the picture must stem, since the pictured house is in fine shape. There is no date, unfortunately, affixed to the original. There are several other pictures of the same house in circulation, but as I mentioned, this is by far the best in quality. I recommend that Wikipedia "be bold" and leave it posted.
Finally, I would point out that you did not answer my question: Can you quote a specific passage in the US copyright law that would prevent this picture from being used in this situation? I would like to read it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwerty123uiop ( talk • contribs) 20:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Could you double-check the source source you added to File:Php coin 0.10 rev.png and other similar images? The PDF file seems to contain different photos of the coins, so our photos still seem to be unsourced and licensed. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 18:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar | |
Hi Nthep! It's been a while since we've interacted, but I was just perusing the logs, and see you have been making good use of your admin toolkit in one of our more neglected area, file work. Thanks for all you do, and for agreeing to run for adminship in the first place. Happy editing! Go Phightins ! 22:44, 29 November 2013 (UTC) |
You recently deleted an image after this discussion. It appears you have made an error. There was no clear consensus to support this deletion. You should replace the image immediately. Your closing comments show you have misunderstood the issues being discussed. If you feel it's necessary to further discuss the matter, then perhaps you should start a new discussion (as the last one had become deadlocked and stagnant). In the meantime, the image should remain with the article in question, where it has been for the last eight years. Thank you. - theWOLFchild 22:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
"It was a policy based decision on the WP:NFCC"- Other editors already cited NFCC, and if you had read the entire discussion, you would have seen that each NFCC argument was countered with a valid response, as the image does satisfy NFCC. If you had a new NFCC argument to make, you should have simply added it to the discussion. You should not have closed it, nor should you have deleted that image. There was no consensus for you to do so. Now I would urge you to reinstate that image (back into the Alba article as well), and reopen the discussion as well. (or start a new one). You had no cause to close and delete, and we shouldn't have to go thru deletion review because of this. - theWOLFchild 22:38, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
All deletions are in the end the decision of a single person, having first considered the points raised in the deletion discussion and the relevant policies that apply. This discussion related to the use of a non free image to illustrate part of the article on Jessica Alba. The Wikipedia:Non-free content policy is one of the most stringent policies on WP and for an image to be retained it has to meet all 10 of the criteria. I don't think that there are any issues remaining among the particpants in the discussion with nine of the criteria, the exception being NFCC#8. NFCC#8 says "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." From the comments made and the text of the article page, the point was made that it was not how she looked in the image that was objected to but that Playboy used the image without her consent and its use implied that she had done a nude pictorial shoot for the magazine. Nowhere, including in your own spirited contributions, was the criteria addressed in how seeing the image siginficantly aids the reader's understanding of this issue and that words alone could not convey this. As "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale". This absence makes the NFUR defective and failing to meet all the crtieria of the NFCC. Hence a policy based decision to delete.
I did not, contrary to what you apparantly believe, adjudicate on the issue but on the discussion (as per Wikipedia:Closing discussions#How to determine the outcome, and on the discussion presented on what is primarily a policy based discussion I didn't think that the NFUR attached to the image and the discussion of the image in the article on Jessica Alba was sufficient to meet the NFCC. There's no personal opinion on the issue in this, it's about reading the discussion and closing on the content of the discussion.
As for the signatures, I prefer to sort my own omissions like that out in my own time. Thank you for pointing it out. NtheP ( talk) 14:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yeadon railway station, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Yeadon and North Eastern Railway ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Welcome to the second issue of The Wikipedia Library's Books & Bytes newsletter! Read on for updates about what is going on at the intersection of Wikipedia and the library world.
Wikipedia Library highlights: New accounts, new surveys, new positions, new presentations...
Spotlight on people: Another Believer and Wiki Loves Libraries...
Books & Bytes in brief: From Dewey to Diversity conference...
Further reading: Digital library portals around the web...
The Interior ( talk · contribs), Ocaasi ( talk · contribs) 16:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I can't seem to get it to do anything. Tried in User:ТНОМАЅ МАСКЕТ/sandbox. You can respond here if you prefer. ТНОМАЅ МАСКЕТ ( talk) 22:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
( edit conflict):Hi, you know the wording you get from the template? - "Hello, I'm Nthep. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions because it did not appear constructive . . ." - well if you don't subst the template then when someone else edits the page, the username at the beginning changes to the name of the most recent person to edit the page. Subst'ing the template stops that happening. NtheP ( talk) 22:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I would like to request undeletion of these falling images that you deleted on May 3, 2013 as under the reasoning of F4. I would like to give you notice that under OTRS ticket number 2013120610014454, the copyright holder has released the image under the CC-BY-SA-3.0, and GFDL licensing. Thank you. -- Clarkcj12 ( talk) 20:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
So exactly what was the reason for its deletion and can i restore it again if i got the licensing right or etc.? Byzantinefire 17:31, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
The concern given was 'not only "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text", it has been'. Please can you explain your response: "does meet NFCC#8 which was listed concern"—it doesn't seem to make sense since "Could the subject..." is a quote from NFCC#1, not NFCC#8. Aquegg ( talk) 11:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks for the info. My source was Defence Area 36 - Royal Military Canal: Bilsington / Ruckinge, which says; "The infantry brigade defending 'T' and 'Z' Sectors during the critical invasion period of June-October 1940 was the 31st Independent Brigade Group. In October and November 1940, the infantry battalion defending the line of the Royal Military Canal in 'Z' Sector was the 1st Bn. Royal Ulster Rifles...". There's a footnote (5) which says; "There is no surviving War Diary for this brigade at The National Archives. It is possible it merged with the 131st Infantry Brigade which was replaced in this area by the 169th Infantry Brigade in February 1941. The 135th Infantry Brigade (of 45 Division) was also defending the Royal Military Canal in June 1940 - TNA: PRO WO 166/990 and TNA:PRO WO 166/4500." It all sounds a bit confused. My main aim was to establish whether it was correct to wikilink to 31st Brigade - it seems that the current link to an airborne brigade is not very helpful. Alansplodge ( talk) 01:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 00:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
The Yorkshire WikiProject Newsletter | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
why did you initiate the process that has led to the deletion of all the best therese of lisieux images? were you made aware of some problem or did you just decide it was important ? Sayerslle ( talk) 02:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
{{Non-free use rationale | Description = Thérèse of Lisieux pictured after joining the Carmelites in 18XX | Source = state where you got the file from | Article = Thérèse of Lisieux | Portion = Cropped only to show subject | Low resolution = Yes | Purpose = To illustrate the subject after she became a nun | Replaceability = No free images of the subject exist for this period as cameras were not widely available within convents | Other information = }}
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Victoria Wood may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 22:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Heart (radio network) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 20:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The Queensbury Lines may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 22:45, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
As long as it's properly referenced, and then explained in the talk page, then no issues. Giant Snowman 18:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
We may have been looking at this at the same time.
You might want to look at my note, or see: User_talk:Alanyoung2154#New_images-- S Philbrick (Talk) 23:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC) The usual sequence is that the person who owns the copyright sends in a permission statement, and around the same time, but often later, User:Alanyoung2154 uploads the images, often using a different name, and the OTRS agent matches the images, and confirms the permission. I've wondered whether we should ask for a better process, but now that I largely understand it, I'm not inclined to push.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 23:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Junior Félix, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Day ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 13:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ronald Clair Roat, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ludington ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
You added an OTRS tag and additionally {{ gfdl|cc3}}, but {{ gfdl}} doesn't have any "cc3" parameter. Please check the page again. I assume that "cc3" means version 3.0 of some Creative Commons licence, but it is unclear which one. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 10:51, 30 January 2014 (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 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
Dear Nthep,
Thank you for rescuing the intro. to the New Age page.
I am one of the people who has not only made substantive additions to this page over the las two years, bu who has sought to protect it from a small army of vandals, ideological combatants, and sock-puppeteers. (The subject matter inexorably brings them out, I guess.) I no longer have the time for this, and I sense that others have also fallen away.
Do you have the stature to get this page "protected" from those who are not properly registred on Wikipedia? If so, it is probably in Wikipedia's interest for you to do so. All best, - Babel41 ( talk) 01:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
The message that you had problems with was because you included ref tags without surrounding the with nowiki tags. Unterminated ref tags cause subsequent text to be hidden. I added nowiki tags, but by the time I wanted to save it you had deleted the original. - David Biddulph ( talk) 23:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Can you offer your opinion on this question I've posed? I could really use your thoughts on the matter. Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 15:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi: On 1 November you deleted several images uploaded by this user as lacking evidence of permission. They all relate to New R. S. J. Public School Senior Secondary and included File:Top view of New R. S. J. Public School Senior Secondary.jpg, which was also deleted at Commons by Dianaa as lacking evidence of permission, but which he has subsequently re-uploaded, and File:Library of NRSJPS.jpg, which so far as I can see no one else has objected to and is in the article right now. (I may however have missed it in the long list of his deleted contributions here, and I can't see his deleted contributions at Commons). He has also uploaded multiple times File:Taekwondo classes at NRSJPS.jpg, which I was the latest person to delete - it's a copyvio of this. My question is, do you still think we should scrub the library picture? Despite the user's continuing re-uploads of at least one copyvio image and of images with no evidence of permission, the rest of us seem to be extending good faith to that one. And also, I have reinstated File:Yoga classes at NRSJPS.jpg in the article because unlike the others it has metadata supporting the user's claim of having taken it himself, and so far as I can find, no one else has deleted it. (It was redlinked because he muffed the syntax when he added it to the page.) It certainly is not from the same set as the Taekwando image, but I wouldn't know how to search beyond that and forget who first identified that source - it may have been at Commons. Yngvadottir ( talk) 19:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Hallo. About the question of Vera Dick and Titanic, I report to you that Thenick777 is creating two other articles. I've copyedited Alice Cleaver and tagged it per notability. The article Léontine Pauline Aubert (that could be more notable) still now has no content (only the infobox) and no refs. The name is also wrong (but valid as redirect): the correct one is Léontine Pauline Aubart ( as said here). Well, I just to inform you to request an eventual help for further actions. Imho, the articles should not be deleted (even if not notable) but, as for Vera Dick, redirected. My suggestion is a redirect to the page Passengers of the RMS Titanic#First class 2, in which they are listed. Note: I don't revise notability about Alice Cleaver. Thanks for attention and regards. -- Dэя- Бøяg 02:15, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 05:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
You deleted the images again without discuss or even notifying the restoring admin in question? Did you review the previous discussion? The user has provided ORTS permission for another image. Both images are published by the exact same person. Image was tagged that OTRS permission is pending. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
The Yorkshire WikiProject Newsletter | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
The Kent County Council website is down at the moment. Will be on to it as soon as I can. Mjroots ( talk) 13:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Greetings. Just trying to get the hang of posting an ancient (~1890) picture on a wiki page I am upgrading. As a newbie to Wikipedia, I am finding the Wikipedia-specific syntax and procedures obscure and the documentation nearly impenetrable. The picture in question was used in a 2006 newspaper article (source path given with the picture, possibly with the wrong brackets/keywords/format). But certainly the newspaper is not the first to use this photograph. It has been floating around in various newsletters, pamphlets, articles, for about a century. The newspaper article cited did not separatly cite a copyright for this picture, so any sin that has been committed has been committed many times before. Thus, I think there should be no problem with blessing this picture to be shown in Wikipedia as PD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwerty123uiop ( talk • contribs) 20:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm... Thanks for the tips. Of course, proving a negative can be very difficult, if not impossible. Establishing the early publishing provenance of an obscure 100+ year old photograph may well be fruitless. The best-quality version of this photo I have found is the one I posted, taken from the pages of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article cited, dated 2006. Note that such a newspaper is a professional organization that must worry about copyright issues all the time, more so than the amateur operation that is Wikipedia. They published it without attribution. To me, that is enough of a scholarly foundation to include the picture, citing the newspaper as the source. Can you quote a specific passage in the US copyright law that would prevent this? I would like to read it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwerty123uiop ( talk • contribs) 14:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I have contacted the newspaper (the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette) librarian directly and learned the following about this picture. The newspaper has in its possession the original of this photograph: it is in their photo archive, but they know they do not own it. Nor do they know who owns it. There are no markings on it that give a hint as to whether it ever was published before. Even though they published the image on May 2, 2006, they do not claim a copyright on the image; that explains why it was shown without attribution in the article. They have no paper trail for learning the provenance of the picture. For all we know, the article might have been the first-ever publication of this particular picture of the house, but again, they do not claim a copyright.
As for the date of the picture, it is a fact that it was demolished by the city in 1919 when it was a collapsing wreck. Westinghouse's heyday in that house was between about 1885 and 1900. This is the time period from which we think the picture must stem, since the pictured house is in fine shape. There is no date, unfortunately, affixed to the original. There are several other pictures of the same house in circulation, but as I mentioned, this is by far the best in quality. I recommend that Wikipedia "be bold" and leave it posted.
Finally, I would point out that you did not answer my question: Can you quote a specific passage in the US copyright law that would prevent this picture from being used in this situation? I would like to read it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwerty123uiop ( talk • contribs) 20:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Could you double-check the source source you added to File:Php coin 0.10 rev.png and other similar images? The PDF file seems to contain different photos of the coins, so our photos still seem to be unsourced and licensed. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 18:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar | |
Hi Nthep! It's been a while since we've interacted, but I was just perusing the logs, and see you have been making good use of your admin toolkit in one of our more neglected area, file work. Thanks for all you do, and for agreeing to run for adminship in the first place. Happy editing! Go Phightins ! 22:44, 29 November 2013 (UTC) |
You recently deleted an image after this discussion. It appears you have made an error. There was no clear consensus to support this deletion. You should replace the image immediately. Your closing comments show you have misunderstood the issues being discussed. If you feel it's necessary to further discuss the matter, then perhaps you should start a new discussion (as the last one had become deadlocked and stagnant). In the meantime, the image should remain with the article in question, where it has been for the last eight years. Thank you. - theWOLFchild 22:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
"It was a policy based decision on the WP:NFCC"- Other editors already cited NFCC, and if you had read the entire discussion, you would have seen that each NFCC argument was countered with a valid response, as the image does satisfy NFCC. If you had a new NFCC argument to make, you should have simply added it to the discussion. You should not have closed it, nor should you have deleted that image. There was no consensus for you to do so. Now I would urge you to reinstate that image (back into the Alba article as well), and reopen the discussion as well. (or start a new one). You had no cause to close and delete, and we shouldn't have to go thru deletion review because of this. - theWOLFchild 22:38, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
All deletions are in the end the decision of a single person, having first considered the points raised in the deletion discussion and the relevant policies that apply. This discussion related to the use of a non free image to illustrate part of the article on Jessica Alba. The Wikipedia:Non-free content policy is one of the most stringent policies on WP and for an image to be retained it has to meet all 10 of the criteria. I don't think that there are any issues remaining among the particpants in the discussion with nine of the criteria, the exception being NFCC#8. NFCC#8 says "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." From the comments made and the text of the article page, the point was made that it was not how she looked in the image that was objected to but that Playboy used the image without her consent and its use implied that she had done a nude pictorial shoot for the magazine. Nowhere, including in your own spirited contributions, was the criteria addressed in how seeing the image siginficantly aids the reader's understanding of this issue and that words alone could not convey this. As "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale". This absence makes the NFUR defective and failing to meet all the crtieria of the NFCC. Hence a policy based decision to delete.
I did not, contrary to what you apparantly believe, adjudicate on the issue but on the discussion (as per Wikipedia:Closing discussions#How to determine the outcome, and on the discussion presented on what is primarily a policy based discussion I didn't think that the NFUR attached to the image and the discussion of the image in the article on Jessica Alba was sufficient to meet the NFCC. There's no personal opinion on the issue in this, it's about reading the discussion and closing on the content of the discussion.
As for the signatures, I prefer to sort my own omissions like that out in my own time. Thank you for pointing it out. NtheP ( talk) 14:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yeadon railway station, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Yeadon and North Eastern Railway ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Welcome to the second issue of The Wikipedia Library's Books & Bytes newsletter! Read on for updates about what is going on at the intersection of Wikipedia and the library world.
Wikipedia Library highlights: New accounts, new surveys, new positions, new presentations...
Spotlight on people: Another Believer and Wiki Loves Libraries...
Books & Bytes in brief: From Dewey to Diversity conference...
Further reading: Digital library portals around the web...
The Interior ( talk · contribs), Ocaasi ( talk · contribs) 16:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I can't seem to get it to do anything. Tried in User:ТНОМАЅ МАСКЕТ/sandbox. You can respond here if you prefer. ТНОМАЅ МАСКЕТ ( talk) 22:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
( edit conflict):Hi, you know the wording you get from the template? - "Hello, I'm Nthep. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions because it did not appear constructive . . ." - well if you don't subst the template then when someone else edits the page, the username at the beginning changes to the name of the most recent person to edit the page. Subst'ing the template stops that happening. NtheP ( talk) 22:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I would like to request undeletion of these falling images that you deleted on May 3, 2013 as under the reasoning of F4. I would like to give you notice that under OTRS ticket number 2013120610014454, the copyright holder has released the image under the CC-BY-SA-3.0, and GFDL licensing. Thank you. -- Clarkcj12 ( talk) 20:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
So exactly what was the reason for its deletion and can i restore it again if i got the licensing right or etc.? Byzantinefire 17:31, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
The concern given was 'not only "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text", it has been'. Please can you explain your response: "does meet NFCC#8 which was listed concern"—it doesn't seem to make sense since "Could the subject..." is a quote from NFCC#1, not NFCC#8. Aquegg ( talk) 11:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks for the info. My source was Defence Area 36 - Royal Military Canal: Bilsington / Ruckinge, which says; "The infantry brigade defending 'T' and 'Z' Sectors during the critical invasion period of June-October 1940 was the 31st Independent Brigade Group. In October and November 1940, the infantry battalion defending the line of the Royal Military Canal in 'Z' Sector was the 1st Bn. Royal Ulster Rifles...". There's a footnote (5) which says; "There is no surviving War Diary for this brigade at The National Archives. It is possible it merged with the 131st Infantry Brigade which was replaced in this area by the 169th Infantry Brigade in February 1941. The 135th Infantry Brigade (of 45 Division) was also defending the Royal Military Canal in June 1940 - TNA: PRO WO 166/990 and TNA:PRO WO 166/4500." It all sounds a bit confused. My main aim was to establish whether it was correct to wikilink to 31st Brigade - it seems that the current link to an airborne brigade is not very helpful. Alansplodge ( talk) 01:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 00:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
The Yorkshire WikiProject Newsletter | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
why did you initiate the process that has led to the deletion of all the best therese of lisieux images? were you made aware of some problem or did you just decide it was important ? Sayerslle ( talk) 02:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
{{Non-free use rationale | Description = Thérèse of Lisieux pictured after joining the Carmelites in 18XX | Source = state where you got the file from | Article = Thérèse of Lisieux | Portion = Cropped only to show subject | Low resolution = Yes | Purpose = To illustrate the subject after she became a nun | Replaceability = No free images of the subject exist for this period as cameras were not widely available within convents | Other information = }}
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Victoria Wood may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 22:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Heart (radio network) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 20:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The Queensbury Lines may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 22:45, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
As long as it's properly referenced, and then explained in the talk page, then no issues. Giant Snowman 18:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
We may have been looking at this at the same time.
You might want to look at my note, or see: User_talk:Alanyoung2154#New_images-- S Philbrick (Talk) 23:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC) The usual sequence is that the person who owns the copyright sends in a permission statement, and around the same time, but often later, User:Alanyoung2154 uploads the images, often using a different name, and the OTRS agent matches the images, and confirms the permission. I've wondered whether we should ask for a better process, but now that I largely understand it, I'm not inclined to push.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 23:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Junior Félix, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Day ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 13:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ronald Clair Roat, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ludington ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
You added an OTRS tag and additionally {{ gfdl|cc3}}, but {{ gfdl}} doesn't have any "cc3" parameter. Please check the page again. I assume that "cc3" means version 3.0 of some Creative Commons licence, but it is unclear which one. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 10:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)