![]() | 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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
This is regarding my file (Wódki polskie - Krupnik Staropolski, Absolwent, Śliwowica Podbeskidzka, Soplica Wiśniowa, Żołądkowa Gorzka, Żubrówka.jpg) that you deleted. I would like to point out that there was a discussion regarding this file and consensus was not reached. The claims on which it was tagged were invalid. Therefore, I request that this file be undeleted and brought back. I know that this is possible as I've read about it earlier. If you do not comply, I will take things further. I do not wish to be rude and I have nothing against you as a person, it's just that I've had some bad experiences with Wikipedia and would prefer to be straight to the point this time. I hope your decision was simply made in haste and you did not mean anything by it. Thanks for your time. -- Samotny Wędrowiec ( talk) 00:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi, we have an email from the photographer ok'ing use of this photo and it went to OTRS. can you restore in the meantime? I think it's just a process snafu. thanks. Edward Vielmetti ( talk) 04:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Any update? Edward Vielmetti ( talk) 02:19, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
A quick update as we are half way through round two of this year's competition. WikiCup newcomer
Godot13 (
submissions) (Pool E) leads, having produced a massive set of featured pictures for
Silver certificate (United States), an article also brought to featured list status. Former finalist
Adam Cuerden (
submissions) (Pool G) is in second, which he owes mostly to his work with historical images, including a number of images from
Urania's Mirror, an article also brought to good status. 2010 champion (Pool C) is third overall, thanks to contributions relating to naval history, including the newly featured
Japanese battleship Nagato.
Cliftonian (
submissions), who currently leads Pool A and is sixth overall, takes the title for the highest scoring individual article of the competition so far, with the top importance featured article
Ian Smith.
With 26 people having already scored over 100 points, it is likely that well over 100 points will be needed to secure a place in round 3. Recent years have required 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) and 100 (2010). Remember that only 64 will progress to round 3 at the end of April. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page; if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn ( talk • email), The ed17 ( talk • email) and Miyagawa ( talk • email) 22:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi there- this is just a quick note to apologise for a small but important mistake in the last WikiCup newsletter; it is not 64 users who will progress to the next round, but 32. J Milburn ( talk) 18:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
You closed that as no consensus at the same time that I removed the images per that discussion. Can you please change your close? Sven Manguard Wha? 00:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Atlanta Police Department, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Virginia Highlands ( 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) 08:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
UserGogo212121 Hello TLSuda Can I upload from this site http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/ Gogo212121 ( talk) 13:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the clear, concise RFC closure at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_151#RFC:_Month_abbreviations. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 01:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Why was File:MiramaxPoster.jpg deleted? The FFD had a consensus to keep, judging it as being in compliance with NFCC 8. ViperSnake151 Talk 03:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello TLSuda, I'm here onbehalf of WP:ORPHAN in which you are also a participant. So, we want your opinion to a WP:ORPHAN related matter. It is a proposal by Technical 13. Please have a look here. Your opinion (i.e support, oppose etc) are very much appreciated there. Thank you. By Jim Cartar through MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 03:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
..for deleting the unused versions of the Anime/Manga files I uploaded. Keep it up. Best. —KirtZ Mail 11:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry to bother you, but do you mind explaining your reasoning for this close? It seems to me that this image is no different from the ones on Academy Awards and so on.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 03:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Probably The Emmys is a better parallel, since then we avoid the whole Australian thing.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 03:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I was wondering how the pictures I added of File:Rob Smith and Senator Thune.jpg and File:Jack Fitzgerald Calls on Ways and Means.jpg violated the non-free content criterion number 1 rule. It doesn't seem to me like adding these pictures would violate that rule since there is no free equivalent to these pictures that could be found or created that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. If you could explain to me how these two images violated this rule I would greatly appreciate it. Also, if the pictures do in fact violate this policy, is there any way I could upload these images anyways, as they are essential to the Wikipedia entry on Americans Standing for the Simplification of the Estate Tax, which I have submitted and is currently under review. The image of Jack Fitzgerald is also necessary for disambiguation purposes since there is an existing Wikipedia article for a different Jack Fitzgerald, which is not relevant here. Please get back to me when you get a chance. Thanks so much. Best, HIST406-13jlsilver ( talk) 20:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
O alright I guess I did not fully understand the policy then, thanks so much for clearing this up for me I really appreciate it. Best, HIST406-13jlsilver ( talk) 20:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
You just deleted File:Kate Lambert.jpg and File:Kato post apocalyptic steampunk.jpg, stating, "No evidence of permission for more than 7 days." However, permission was sent by Kate Lambert herself on April 2nd to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. I know, because I asked Kate to CC me, and I also forwarded my CC to permissions-en@wikimedia.org on the same day, just to make sure it was received promptly.
Can we please rectify this immediately? Thank you in advance. -- Jonnybgoode44 ( talk) 23:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Just a heads-up (I now see you weren't notified earlier) – there was a request about File:Martin Carlos Alarcon.jpg posted at ANI, and I've restored it, seeing as the problem appeared to be the pure formality of having left out a routine non-free content tag. I assumed you wouldn't object. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Wondering if you can restore this file. I notified the copyright holder and they informed me that a permission email was sent. Not sure if there is anything additional needed to restore the file. If so, please let me know. Thanks. -- MartinEllroy ( talk) 00:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi I noticed you tagged the /info/en/?search=File:Allmonsters.jpg asking for a smaller file. I uploaded a smaller file just now. Does it suffice or should I use a smaller one? Giantdevilfish ( talk) 17:00, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I just would like to know how can i get this picture back " File:Maxime Chaya receives Guiness World Record.jpg" , and i sent a message to permissions-en@wikimedia.org but no reply.Thank you. Stendek008 ( talk) 17:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Hey I was wondering if you can tell me if this image is eligible for Commons as it is. I was previously notified by another user that it might be, but I'm not quite sure. —KirtZ Mail 15:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I've noticed a few images of Janet Jackson's "You" music video depicting tour footage on The Velvet Rope Tour article were deleted. There's many images of the tour available, however, none seem to be free or have a CC license available, leaving the only replaceable alternatives to be images from the music video. There were five images, each critically discussed within the article and meeting the guidelines of acceptable NFC under 'Video Screenshots'. In this particular case, could the images be reuploaded and used within the article? User5482 ( talk) 08:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Fdizile ( developer) 20:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I obtained the required permission/license from the owner and uploaded Carrie Newcomer In India Monsoon.jpg / [1] with the required permission. Then on April 3 I received notice that evidence of permission/license was also required. I contacted the owner and this was sent to the proper email address by the owner of the image on April 4th. (I have a copy of the email) I wrote on the notice, the image page and the image talk page that evidence of permission/license had been sent. Then you deleted the image on April 10th. I assume that the image deletion has been running on too short of a cycle not in sync in the lead time for processing permissions. Can you restore the image? I'm hoping that the permissions people don't toss the permission during the gap because there is no image to attach it to. Thanx. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 12:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Re your deletion of the above file ("Editor's summary: No evidence of permission for more than 7 days"): The required email from the image creator/owner was sent to permissions-en@wikimedia.org on 30 April 2010. Another copy was forwarded on 6 April 2014. Please rectify. Dreamweaver38 ( talk) 01:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
This is a completely non-serious close. What were the guidelines arguments and how did they stack up? What was the actual basis of your call? And what is wrong with trying to get the title of the article right? I'm asking that you undo your close and leave it to someone who can take the matter seriously since obviously you did not. Otherwise, I am certainly going request a review. Msnicki ( talk) 03:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Cannabis (drug). Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Msnicki ( talk) 04:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
I am awarding you a barnstar for taking the time to close the discussion at Talk:Cannabis (drug). You have a lot of dedication to take on such a close. 81.135.61.62 ( talk) 20:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC) |
You know how there's {{subst:orfurrev}}
, well I was wondering if there's a similar template to have unused versions of images put up for deletion faster than going to the Speedy Deletion's page.
—KirtZ
Mail
18:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi TLSuda,
Here is copy of email I just sent today to: permissions-en@wikimedia.org as you requested. Thanks, Dave Mercado
Extended content |
---|
Wiki, TLSuda requested the email from author (Mr. Allen Hoilman of Virginia Air & Space Center) giving permission for this video file File:Francisco David Mercado Interview.ogv . It was originally sent to wiki in early 2010. Thanks, Dave Mercado Begin forwarded message: Original Message----- From: Allen Hoilman [2] Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 1:44 PM To: Frank.Mercado@computer.org Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] RE: Request to post VASC copyrighted video on Wikipedia Frank, I've checked the interview and my license documentation. It appears that all the pre-existing footage is from the National Archives. So, you're clear to use it. I would like a Virginia Air & Space Center credit. Thanks for taking the trouble to check with me. Licensing agreements can be tricky. I'll look for the interview on Wikipedia. Sorry to hear that he has passed away. Allen |
Hi TLSula. You tagged this image that I recently removed the border from with {{ Non-free reduce}}. I'm guessing, possibly incorrectly, that you meant to use {{ Non-free reduced}}, which I think would cause the previous version to be removed? If that's the case, should I be similarly tagging non-free images that I've removed the border from myself? And thank you for your "Thanks" on another image I updated - it's nice to get some feedback. -- Otus scops ( talk) 21:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:WAFC True Oldies Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. TLSuda ( talk) 01:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Timothy
I was hoping you could help me with File:Microsoft WebMatrix screenshot.png. This file is damaged beyond repair as a result of bad algorithm being used for downsizing it. The solution is to temporarily restore one of its past revisions, downsize it properly and re-upload it, then delete the past revisions again. However, only an administrator could restore the revision. So, I'd be grateful if you either restore one of the appropriate revisions (1024×768) for 24 hours or upload it to a file sharing service and send me the download link; I will have downsized version uploaded ASAP.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (
talk)
03:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I have e-mailed three images Rust treat 1, 2, 3 .jpg to photosubmission@wikimedia.org with statement of release of copyright. I will watch my Talk page for the images or any message about them. JustAnotherUploader ( talk) 21:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Whenever converting images to PNG Image files with Transparent Background, you might learn to love Free Online Image Editor as much as I do. What's so great about that Free Online Image Editing service is that it does not alter the tinting of colors, fuzz up image details, nor does it have a size limit. Give it a try, next time you're trying to upload a JPEG Image (or any file with opaque background, for that matter) as instead a PNG Image file with Transparent Background. I swear, the results for Free Online Image Editor are rather professional for a Free Online Image Editing service! DizzyMosquitoRadio99 ( talk) 20:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I can understand the accountability issue, but with size, there isn't any trouble to be in. The file gets tagged, then resized and all is clear, nothing to worry about. When you upload a new version like today, you are attaching your name to it anyways, so now you are taking responsibility for the text that I put in the description. I have faith in your abilities, and worse case, if you mess up, it can ALWAYS be fixed. Cheers, TLSuda ( talk) 01:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
You know, if you'd put half as much effort into explaining your Cannabis (drug) decision as you did into this one, I'd have accepted anything. Msnicki ( talk) 02:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Timothy
Same problem with WebMatrix in this image. Same request.
Interestingly, the image description page says instead of dimension, image color depth was reduced, which means the downsizing was superfluous in the first place.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (
talk)
10:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi there -- looking at the history of the page, it appears that the bot was still in a test phase at the time of reduction -- the problem was resolved shortly thereafter (in response to the undesirable behavior as you've seen), and I simply neglected to re-run the bot on that specific page. Sorry about that! Theopolisme ( talk) 17:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
UserGogo212121 Hello TL Suda Can I upload photos from 2014 from this site http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/ -- Gogo212121 ( talk) 08:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I've undid your edit File:Green Arrow (The Batman character).jpg because you hadn't delete the orphaned file yet.-- NeoBatfreak ( talk) 22:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I moved File:Cranfield.JPG to Commons as File:Cranfield.jpg, and you have deleted the original on en: - I now have a problem because I did not move it properly and it's about to be deleted. The Move bot wasn't working when I did the move, and the back-up version seems to have produced a description lacking the licence code.
Is there any way to "undelete" the original at least to see what the code was, or to find the detail of the deleted file?
Hogweard ( talk) 18:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Three images from " Just a Little While" were removed but met the criteria of the article. The first was an image from its music video, which nearly every pop single page has. The "filming herself" caption was only there to describe the photo as its the action being performed in the video. There was also a small image from its alternate music video, which is a different body of work centered around the same song, hence its inclusion. The second image was alternate cover art, which is also acceptable. I'm not sure why another user said its not a "true alternate cover," it can be seen here on Billboard and is on other music sources. The same goes for the "Feedback" article where the alternate single cover was removed. Can these be added again? 18:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC) User5482 ( talk)
In "Just a Little While," the music video is discussed in the section pertaining to it in the article, explaining its creation and plot. Can a smaller image of the video be added to that section? For "Feedback," the alternate artwork is discussed on the page from MTV and Logo although it doesn't have its own section, which would seem unnecessary. Could it be added if one or two lines regarding it are placed in its critical reception section? Thank you again for assisting with this. User5482 ( talk) 04:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I helped the user get that image up and request the release, but it never occurred to me that the wording "Wikipedia" would imply that the image can only be used in Wikipedia, although I see how that is the case given your response to the LifeTouch rep (they forwarded it to me). Would it be acceptable if they sorta state in their response that they are amending the release to read "at the discretion of the requester" or simply "CC-by-SA"? I tried to ask in Commons but apparently they've never seen one of these! § FreeRangeFrog croak 17:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Does this fix the problem? Sorry to cause extra work.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 19:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, now I see it's been replaced in the article with an image uploaded to commons and set for deletion there. What do you recommend? Should I leave the non-free use rationale on the image I uploaded and fix the article to use that instead, or ????— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 20:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Ah, and now I see that you've nominated it for deletion on commons. What the uploader says about the license is true. It says at the bottom of the source page: © 2009-2014 by its author and licensed under a Creative Commons - Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license unless specified otherwise. Please advise.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 20:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi! I see that you deleted an image that I uploaded for Unipolar brush cell, and I wanted to know why. As far as I am aware, it does not violate the non-free content requirement #1 because there is no free alternative that could possibly replace the image. If the image violated the rules in some other way that I am unaware of, I'd like to know so I can avoid making the same mistake in the future. Thanks. - Iamozy ( talk) 22:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
No evidence of permission? I provided and linked directly to the evidence in multiple ways: http://i.imgur.com/7SLvyFu.png
Do better research before removing images MorrisS ( talk) 02:40, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
The NSA documents you deleted, as noted here: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review/Archive_48#Global_surveillance_disclosures_.282013.E2.80.93present.29 were PD-USGov. That was stated and seems obvious to me. Yet you deleted and claimed it was per consensus. Furthermore, the view was that one of the GCHQ files should have been kept as well. Please review the law behind PD-USGov and reconsider. -- Elvey ( talk) 01:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Emails have been sent per request. The link that I had meant to link for TOO was actually: Commons:Commons:TOO#United States where there is specific information about US copyright with respect to the threshold of originality. As for the UK links, those were only in response to your statements about de minimis and TOO. I still firmly believe that none of the images are below the threshold of originality in the US or the UK. I don't believe that any part of the slide is below, especially because of the background. Any fancy cropping to remove certain aspects will dwindle down the image to where it does not have the same power and they are purported to have. These slides, in my opinion, are not powerful documents like the Constitution. These images have so little text, and what is there is sentence fragments or bullet points, that they are completely useless without context. The context is not useless without the slides though. Cheers, TLSuda ( talk) 00:59, 7 May 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 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
This is regarding my file (Wódki polskie - Krupnik Staropolski, Absolwent, Śliwowica Podbeskidzka, Soplica Wiśniowa, Żołądkowa Gorzka, Żubrówka.jpg) that you deleted. I would like to point out that there was a discussion regarding this file and consensus was not reached. The claims on which it was tagged were invalid. Therefore, I request that this file be undeleted and brought back. I know that this is possible as I've read about it earlier. If you do not comply, I will take things further. I do not wish to be rude and I have nothing against you as a person, it's just that I've had some bad experiences with Wikipedia and would prefer to be straight to the point this time. I hope your decision was simply made in haste and you did not mean anything by it. Thanks for your time. -- Samotny Wędrowiec ( talk) 00:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi, we have an email from the photographer ok'ing use of this photo and it went to OTRS. can you restore in the meantime? I think it's just a process snafu. thanks. Edward Vielmetti ( talk) 04:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Any update? Edward Vielmetti ( talk) 02:19, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
A quick update as we are half way through round two of this year's competition. WikiCup newcomer
Godot13 (
submissions) (Pool E) leads, having produced a massive set of featured pictures for
Silver certificate (United States), an article also brought to featured list status. Former finalist
Adam Cuerden (
submissions) (Pool G) is in second, which he owes mostly to his work with historical images, including a number of images from
Urania's Mirror, an article also brought to good status. 2010 champion (Pool C) is third overall, thanks to contributions relating to naval history, including the newly featured
Japanese battleship Nagato.
Cliftonian (
submissions), who currently leads Pool A and is sixth overall, takes the title for the highest scoring individual article of the competition so far, with the top importance featured article
Ian Smith.
With 26 people having already scored over 100 points, it is likely that well over 100 points will be needed to secure a place in round 3. Recent years have required 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) and 100 (2010). Remember that only 64 will progress to round 3 at the end of April. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page; if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn ( talk • email), The ed17 ( talk • email) and Miyagawa ( talk • email) 22:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi there- this is just a quick note to apologise for a small but important mistake in the last WikiCup newsletter; it is not 64 users who will progress to the next round, but 32. J Milburn ( talk) 18:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
You closed that as no consensus at the same time that I removed the images per that discussion. Can you please change your close? Sven Manguard Wha? 00:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Atlanta Police Department, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Virginia Highlands ( 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) 08:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
UserGogo212121 Hello TLSuda Can I upload from this site http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/ Gogo212121 ( talk) 13:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the clear, concise RFC closure at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_151#RFC:_Month_abbreviations. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 01:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Why was File:MiramaxPoster.jpg deleted? The FFD had a consensus to keep, judging it as being in compliance with NFCC 8. ViperSnake151 Talk 03:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello TLSuda, I'm here onbehalf of WP:ORPHAN in which you are also a participant. So, we want your opinion to a WP:ORPHAN related matter. It is a proposal by Technical 13. Please have a look here. Your opinion (i.e support, oppose etc) are very much appreciated there. Thank you. By Jim Cartar through MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 03:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
..for deleting the unused versions of the Anime/Manga files I uploaded. Keep it up. Best. —KirtZ Mail 11:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry to bother you, but do you mind explaining your reasoning for this close? It seems to me that this image is no different from the ones on Academy Awards and so on.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 03:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Probably The Emmys is a better parallel, since then we avoid the whole Australian thing.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 03:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I was wondering how the pictures I added of File:Rob Smith and Senator Thune.jpg and File:Jack Fitzgerald Calls on Ways and Means.jpg violated the non-free content criterion number 1 rule. It doesn't seem to me like adding these pictures would violate that rule since there is no free equivalent to these pictures that could be found or created that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. If you could explain to me how these two images violated this rule I would greatly appreciate it. Also, if the pictures do in fact violate this policy, is there any way I could upload these images anyways, as they are essential to the Wikipedia entry on Americans Standing for the Simplification of the Estate Tax, which I have submitted and is currently under review. The image of Jack Fitzgerald is also necessary for disambiguation purposes since there is an existing Wikipedia article for a different Jack Fitzgerald, which is not relevant here. Please get back to me when you get a chance. Thanks so much. Best, HIST406-13jlsilver ( talk) 20:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
O alright I guess I did not fully understand the policy then, thanks so much for clearing this up for me I really appreciate it. Best, HIST406-13jlsilver ( talk) 20:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
You just deleted File:Kate Lambert.jpg and File:Kato post apocalyptic steampunk.jpg, stating, "No evidence of permission for more than 7 days." However, permission was sent by Kate Lambert herself on April 2nd to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. I know, because I asked Kate to CC me, and I also forwarded my CC to permissions-en@wikimedia.org on the same day, just to make sure it was received promptly.
Can we please rectify this immediately? Thank you in advance. -- Jonnybgoode44 ( talk) 23:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Just a heads-up (I now see you weren't notified earlier) – there was a request about File:Martin Carlos Alarcon.jpg posted at ANI, and I've restored it, seeing as the problem appeared to be the pure formality of having left out a routine non-free content tag. I assumed you wouldn't object. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Wondering if you can restore this file. I notified the copyright holder and they informed me that a permission email was sent. Not sure if there is anything additional needed to restore the file. If so, please let me know. Thanks. -- MartinEllroy ( talk) 00:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi I noticed you tagged the /info/en/?search=File:Allmonsters.jpg asking for a smaller file. I uploaded a smaller file just now. Does it suffice or should I use a smaller one? Giantdevilfish ( talk) 17:00, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I just would like to know how can i get this picture back " File:Maxime Chaya receives Guiness World Record.jpg" , and i sent a message to permissions-en@wikimedia.org but no reply.Thank you. Stendek008 ( talk) 17:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Hey I was wondering if you can tell me if this image is eligible for Commons as it is. I was previously notified by another user that it might be, but I'm not quite sure. —KirtZ Mail 15:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I've noticed a few images of Janet Jackson's "You" music video depicting tour footage on The Velvet Rope Tour article were deleted. There's many images of the tour available, however, none seem to be free or have a CC license available, leaving the only replaceable alternatives to be images from the music video. There were five images, each critically discussed within the article and meeting the guidelines of acceptable NFC under 'Video Screenshots'. In this particular case, could the images be reuploaded and used within the article? User5482 ( talk) 08:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Fdizile ( developer) 20:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I obtained the required permission/license from the owner and uploaded Carrie Newcomer In India Monsoon.jpg / [1] with the required permission. Then on April 3 I received notice that evidence of permission/license was also required. I contacted the owner and this was sent to the proper email address by the owner of the image on April 4th. (I have a copy of the email) I wrote on the notice, the image page and the image talk page that evidence of permission/license had been sent. Then you deleted the image on April 10th. I assume that the image deletion has been running on too short of a cycle not in sync in the lead time for processing permissions. Can you restore the image? I'm hoping that the permissions people don't toss the permission during the gap because there is no image to attach it to. Thanx. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 12:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Re your deletion of the above file ("Editor's summary: No evidence of permission for more than 7 days"): The required email from the image creator/owner was sent to permissions-en@wikimedia.org on 30 April 2010. Another copy was forwarded on 6 April 2014. Please rectify. Dreamweaver38 ( talk) 01:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
This is a completely non-serious close. What were the guidelines arguments and how did they stack up? What was the actual basis of your call? And what is wrong with trying to get the title of the article right? I'm asking that you undo your close and leave it to someone who can take the matter seriously since obviously you did not. Otherwise, I am certainly going request a review. Msnicki ( talk) 03:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Cannabis (drug). Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Msnicki ( talk) 04:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
I am awarding you a barnstar for taking the time to close the discussion at Talk:Cannabis (drug). You have a lot of dedication to take on such a close. 81.135.61.62 ( talk) 20:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC) |
You know how there's {{subst:orfurrev}}
, well I was wondering if there's a similar template to have unused versions of images put up for deletion faster than going to the Speedy Deletion's page.
—KirtZ
Mail
18:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi TLSuda,
Here is copy of email I just sent today to: permissions-en@wikimedia.org as you requested. Thanks, Dave Mercado
Extended content |
---|
Wiki, TLSuda requested the email from author (Mr. Allen Hoilman of Virginia Air & Space Center) giving permission for this video file File:Francisco David Mercado Interview.ogv . It was originally sent to wiki in early 2010. Thanks, Dave Mercado Begin forwarded message: Original Message----- From: Allen Hoilman [2] Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 1:44 PM To: Frank.Mercado@computer.org Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] RE: Request to post VASC copyrighted video on Wikipedia Frank, I've checked the interview and my license documentation. It appears that all the pre-existing footage is from the National Archives. So, you're clear to use it. I would like a Virginia Air & Space Center credit. Thanks for taking the trouble to check with me. Licensing agreements can be tricky. I'll look for the interview on Wikipedia. Sorry to hear that he has passed away. Allen |
Hi TLSula. You tagged this image that I recently removed the border from with {{ Non-free reduce}}. I'm guessing, possibly incorrectly, that you meant to use {{ Non-free reduced}}, which I think would cause the previous version to be removed? If that's the case, should I be similarly tagging non-free images that I've removed the border from myself? And thank you for your "Thanks" on another image I updated - it's nice to get some feedback. -- Otus scops ( talk) 21:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:WAFC True Oldies Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. TLSuda ( talk) 01:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Timothy
I was hoping you could help me with File:Microsoft WebMatrix screenshot.png. This file is damaged beyond repair as a result of bad algorithm being used for downsizing it. The solution is to temporarily restore one of its past revisions, downsize it properly and re-upload it, then delete the past revisions again. However, only an administrator could restore the revision. So, I'd be grateful if you either restore one of the appropriate revisions (1024×768) for 24 hours or upload it to a file sharing service and send me the download link; I will have downsized version uploaded ASAP.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (
talk)
03:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I have e-mailed three images Rust treat 1, 2, 3 .jpg to photosubmission@wikimedia.org with statement of release of copyright. I will watch my Talk page for the images or any message about them. JustAnotherUploader ( talk) 21:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Whenever converting images to PNG Image files with Transparent Background, you might learn to love Free Online Image Editor as much as I do. What's so great about that Free Online Image Editing service is that it does not alter the tinting of colors, fuzz up image details, nor does it have a size limit. Give it a try, next time you're trying to upload a JPEG Image (or any file with opaque background, for that matter) as instead a PNG Image file with Transparent Background. I swear, the results for Free Online Image Editor are rather professional for a Free Online Image Editing service! DizzyMosquitoRadio99 ( talk) 20:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I can understand the accountability issue, but with size, there isn't any trouble to be in. The file gets tagged, then resized and all is clear, nothing to worry about. When you upload a new version like today, you are attaching your name to it anyways, so now you are taking responsibility for the text that I put in the description. I have faith in your abilities, and worse case, if you mess up, it can ALWAYS be fixed. Cheers, TLSuda ( talk) 01:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
You know, if you'd put half as much effort into explaining your Cannabis (drug) decision as you did into this one, I'd have accepted anything. Msnicki ( talk) 02:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Timothy
Same problem with WebMatrix in this image. Same request.
Interestingly, the image description page says instead of dimension, image color depth was reduced, which means the downsizing was superfluous in the first place.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (
talk)
10:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi there -- looking at the history of the page, it appears that the bot was still in a test phase at the time of reduction -- the problem was resolved shortly thereafter (in response to the undesirable behavior as you've seen), and I simply neglected to re-run the bot on that specific page. Sorry about that! Theopolisme ( talk) 17:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
UserGogo212121 Hello TL Suda Can I upload photos from 2014 from this site http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/ -- Gogo212121 ( talk) 08:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I've undid your edit File:Green Arrow (The Batman character).jpg because you hadn't delete the orphaned file yet.-- NeoBatfreak ( talk) 22:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I moved File:Cranfield.JPG to Commons as File:Cranfield.jpg, and you have deleted the original on en: - I now have a problem because I did not move it properly and it's about to be deleted. The Move bot wasn't working when I did the move, and the back-up version seems to have produced a description lacking the licence code.
Is there any way to "undelete" the original at least to see what the code was, or to find the detail of the deleted file?
Hogweard ( talk) 18:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Three images from " Just a Little While" were removed but met the criteria of the article. The first was an image from its music video, which nearly every pop single page has. The "filming herself" caption was only there to describe the photo as its the action being performed in the video. There was also a small image from its alternate music video, which is a different body of work centered around the same song, hence its inclusion. The second image was alternate cover art, which is also acceptable. I'm not sure why another user said its not a "true alternate cover," it can be seen here on Billboard and is on other music sources. The same goes for the "Feedback" article where the alternate single cover was removed. Can these be added again? 18:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC) User5482 ( talk)
In "Just a Little While," the music video is discussed in the section pertaining to it in the article, explaining its creation and plot. Can a smaller image of the video be added to that section? For "Feedback," the alternate artwork is discussed on the page from MTV and Logo although it doesn't have its own section, which would seem unnecessary. Could it be added if one or two lines regarding it are placed in its critical reception section? Thank you again for assisting with this. User5482 ( talk) 04:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I helped the user get that image up and request the release, but it never occurred to me that the wording "Wikipedia" would imply that the image can only be used in Wikipedia, although I see how that is the case given your response to the LifeTouch rep (they forwarded it to me). Would it be acceptable if they sorta state in their response that they are amending the release to read "at the discretion of the requester" or simply "CC-by-SA"? I tried to ask in Commons but apparently they've never seen one of these! § FreeRangeFrog croak 17:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Does this fix the problem? Sorry to cause extra work.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 19:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, now I see it's been replaced in the article with an image uploaded to commons and set for deletion there. What do you recommend? Should I leave the non-free use rationale on the image I uploaded and fix the article to use that instead, or ????— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 20:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Ah, and now I see that you've nominated it for deletion on commons. What the uploader says about the license is true. It says at the bottom of the source page: © 2009-2014 by its author and licensed under a Creative Commons - Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license unless specified otherwise. Please advise.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 20:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi! I see that you deleted an image that I uploaded for Unipolar brush cell, and I wanted to know why. As far as I am aware, it does not violate the non-free content requirement #1 because there is no free alternative that could possibly replace the image. If the image violated the rules in some other way that I am unaware of, I'd like to know so I can avoid making the same mistake in the future. Thanks. - Iamozy ( talk) 22:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
No evidence of permission? I provided and linked directly to the evidence in multiple ways: http://i.imgur.com/7SLvyFu.png
Do better research before removing images MorrisS ( talk) 02:40, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
The NSA documents you deleted, as noted here: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review/Archive_48#Global_surveillance_disclosures_.282013.E2.80.93present.29 were PD-USGov. That was stated and seems obvious to me. Yet you deleted and claimed it was per consensus. Furthermore, the view was that one of the GCHQ files should have been kept as well. Please review the law behind PD-USGov and reconsider. -- Elvey ( talk) 01:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Emails have been sent per request. The link that I had meant to link for TOO was actually: Commons:Commons:TOO#United States where there is specific information about US copyright with respect to the threshold of originality. As for the UK links, those were only in response to your statements about de minimis and TOO. I still firmly believe that none of the images are below the threshold of originality in the US or the UK. I don't believe that any part of the slide is below, especially because of the background. Any fancy cropping to remove certain aspects will dwindle down the image to where it does not have the same power and they are purported to have. These slides, in my opinion, are not powerful documents like the Constitution. These images have so little text, and what is there is sentence fragments or bullet points, that they are completely useless without context. The context is not useless without the slides though. Cheers, TLSuda ( talk) 00:59, 7 May 2014 (UTC)