User talk:MER-C/archives/17

Welcome to my talk page!

Please place new messages at the bottom of this page, or click here to start a new discussion, which will automatically be at the bottom. I will respond to comments here, unless there's a better place for them. Please read the following helpful hints before posting:

• Wikipedia is a volunteer curated encyclopedia. That means it is not a social networking site, a place for self-promotion, a marketing medium or a free web host. You are expected to be familiar with the goals of this project before you post here.
• Think. Use common sense. Read this before posting; failure to do so may result in your posts being ignored or mocked.
• If you wish to discuss your link additions, I advise you to be read our conflict of interest and spam policies before posting. These pages contain information about the appropriateness of link additions.
• I prefer to be contacted here (as opposed to email) where possible. You're much more likely to get a prompt response.
• I do not consider unblock or undeletion requests sent via email. Please refer to Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks to appeal your block. You may request undeletion here.
• Off-wiki evidence of undisclosed paid editing must not be posted here. These, and complex cases of paid editing will not be acted upon. In both cases, please email paid-en-wp wikipedia dot org.

Start a new talk topic

Fair use

Template:Filmbiorationale and Template:Biorationale

• thanks - you can use Template:Filmbiorationale or just Template:Biorationale for deceased people born after 1923 -I created them to save time!!! But thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 15:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

PLease please use Template:Filmrationale for film images without a rationale. It will save everyone a lot of trouble. Thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 10:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It's your responsibility to come up with an original fair use rationale for each image that best describes the use of the image, not some boilerplate text like this. Also, you can avoid me spamming your talk page by going through your upload log and adding the rationales yourself before I get to them. So no. MER-C 11:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow you seem to be having a bit of a marathon today!!!!! Are you checking every image on wikipedia!! If so I congratulate you. Admittedly the last two images are of living people -so I can't really justify fair usage unfortantely as they are replaceable -I uploaded these a long time ago when I wasn't aware of the image policy ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 12:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Look I'm not going to be going through my images before you get to them. If you want to waste your own life checking every image uploaded by me and everyone else then be my guest -good luck to you - it is a task that needs doing -I admire you for undertaking such a large scale task such as this but you've got along road ahead of you if you can't tag the film images accordingly. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 12:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:ABCKATE645.jpg and Image:ABCBlue247.jpg

Regarding the two illustrations you have questioned, I have re-uploaded the images, this time adding the fair use template explanation rationale. (Perhaps clumsy, but this was the only way I could think of to make the changes necessary to address your point.)

In general, the images were both originally promotional material placed in newspapers by the American Broadcasting Company in the Albert Lea Evening Tribune, promoting broadcasts to be held on each of the nights in question. The first (1945) image was meant to illustrate a point made in the article, as to when and how ABC promoted its name change from "Blue Network" to the "American Broadcasting Company." The second (1947) image was meant to illustrate a point made in the article, that ABC was still using "Blue Network" in its promotional materials two years after the official name change. As such, both images are not easily replaceable for the points they make, and are in both cases highly unlikely candidates for use as derivative work templates (neither carries an official ABC logo, for example; indeed, the 1945 illustration carries no images whatsover).

Hopefully, this will clear the illustrations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric O. Costello (talk • contribs)

The fair use rationales did not appear on the image page. They cut off after "{{Non-free media". You'll have to edit the image page (not reupload the image) and add them. MER-C 03:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I admit that I am slightly flummoxed as to how to edit the image page in order to put in the proper coding, as it is not readily apparent how to do this on the image page. Eric O. Costello 22:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I should add: any suggestions as to how to edit it properly? Eric O. Costello 01:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:42nd_district_title_thumb.jpg

Hello, and thank you for your assistance. Please review Image:42nd_district_title_thumb.jpg to make sure that I provided sufficient explanation/rationale. Cheers, --wpktsfs 01:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Should be fine, except the image source should be more specific than a base url. As for the article it appears in, I had to trim it down quite a bit - the words copyvio, spam and schoolcruft come to mind. MER-C 03:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Please clean out this article as you did St. Francis de Sales High School (Toledo, Ohio), I would, but I am not as knowledgeable when it comes to schoolcruft, and I am afraid I would take down too much, or leave to much in. Thanks for your help, --wpktsfs 00:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. I'll probably put that in the essay as it's the worst I've seen. MER-C 08:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:2006FresnoStateMedia.jpg and Image:Cal 2004 post-season cover.jpg

I am interested in your decision to focus on the 2006 Fresno State Media guide cover for deletion. I used the UC Berkeley 2004 post-season media cover as a model and based my use of the Fresno State guide upon what I had assumed was a correct image fair use from that image. I understand in your deleting the Fresno State image so long as the UC Berkeley image to which I have now referred you is similarity and fairly treated in its deletion for being an infringement upon the rules and stipulations of Wikipedia you carefully Sheppard. As I am unsure as to the proper procedure for making the Fresno State media guide image up to code, having only recently been made aware that it was improper in the first place and being unsure as how to fix it to match your standards, I would only request that similar consideration be taken to delete like images that are also not up to Wikipedia's fair use standards. This equal treatment should (one would imagine) apply to other like images, such as the aforementioned image which I used as a model thinking that it was itself a correct usage of the fair use standards, being "a copyrighted image that has been released by a company or organization to promote their work or product in the media, such as advertising material or a promotional photo in a press kit." Since the copyright is listed right there, I am uncertain as to how to fix it to make you not delete it but you seem certain to do so in any event. Keep up the good work pointing out what is wrong with people's images. -- Intrepidsfsu 09:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I am going through Category:Publicity photographs with missing fair-use rationale alphabetically (have a look at my Image namespace contributions), which has thousands of members. I'm not even half way through A yet and I've been plugging away for several days.

As for making a fair use rationale, see WP:FURG. MER-C 10:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It should be fixed now. --Intrepidsfsu 10:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Adolph_rupp.jpg

My apologies on the image you marked as unquantified fair use. The image that was there was taken from a 1998 Media Kit, which was previously available on the web at www.ukathletics.com, however, it has since been removed. As I could not find another version of the media kit, I replaced the image with one that is from a media kit still available on the web. Additionally, I placed my rationale on the image page. Please let me know if this does not satisfy the requirements for you. Thank you for the warning. -- Steven Williamson (HiB2Bornot2B) - talk 18:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I tweaked it a bit, though it's the first adequate prose form rationale I've seen. MER-C 09:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:20050606-DII-foundation-model.jpg

MER-C, I am puzzled by your tagging the aforementioned image since it includes fair use rationale in both the file history and beneath the license tag. The image was made available by the Aga Khan Development Network as part of a with accompanying press release as part of a promotional press kit and is available for publication and use. If I am missing something in my rationale, please let me know, and I would be happy to ammend it. However, as it stands, I have removed your tag as I believe it was put there in error. Rgeards -- Aylahs ^(talk) 04:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

That's not a (sufficient) fair use rationale. See Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline for what a rationale should contain. MER-C 05:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Altair8800.jpg

I suggest you delete that image, as a reasonable fair use rationale can't really be written. Might be difficult to find a free replacement because of the rarity of the Altair though. Thanks — Wackymacs 09:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Some admin will delete it in a month's time if the {{no rationale}} remains on the image. MER-C 09:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Andrew francis full.jpg

I do not see this image as irreplaceable. If you wish to replace or delete it, be my quest. Shaneymike 13:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Warning users

I have warned 124.177.47.233 about their removal of content from Welding, just in case they get a bit confused about having their edit undone. Just thought it would be better to do it sooner rather than later, but in hindsight the phrase 'trigger-happy' springs to mind :-]. CarrotMan 11:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Archived active conversations and requests

Just a reminder that HagermanBot archived several Talk page entries that you had presumably not yet seen, including mine. When you get a moment, a reply would be appreciated.

Thanks!

Jouster  (whisper) 15:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Tag in what fashion? There are still footnotes that are elaborations on articles, the most glaring of which is "Various sources incorrectly cite Ridgefield, Connecticut as Fitzgerald's home from the 1940s into the 1960s." I would like to place a there but um... it's already a footnote.

As for the archiving, I was just wiping away some cruft that built up during my time off. MER-C 13:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I wanted to be able to more-clearly summarize the positions. I know, WP:!vote and all, but considering the intensity with which our anonymous provocateur claims to represent consensus due to the profusion of WP:SPA's, the ability to shoot that contention down with a minimum of fussiness seems important. Jouster  (whisper) 23:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Then I see no problem with your plans. Feel free to go ahead. MER-C 11:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I have made the change. Thank you for your help. Jouster  (whisper) 20:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi MER-C, you wrote on [1]

'This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to Mars, you will be blocked from editing. MER-C 09:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)'

This is just to let you know that Gregs_gunners vandalised [2] at 09:24, 1 July 2007. I have reverted this vandalism EmmDee 22:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

for defending my user page, much appreciated. KOS | talk 13:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. MER-C 03:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting that misplaced comment on my user page. "fixing" indeed, uh huh... -- Gogo Dodo 05:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk page image notices

It would be more helpful to post these on the talk pages of articles that use the images, rather than on the talk pages of the users who uploaded them. The article will obviously be watched by anyone who maintains an interest in the topic, while there is no reason to think an uploader necessarily remains interested, or even active on the project. Thanks, Postdlf 06:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

My script for tagging these images doesn't do that, and that policy requires that uploaders be notified. After all, shouldn't they know the most about why the image was uploaded? MER-C 10:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why the uploader has some special knowledge, or continuing interest, that would be greater than the using article's regular contributors. The goal should be to give effective public notice that there are procedural flaws with an image so that those flaws can be fixed, if they are fixable. Private talk page messages don't accomplish this. Please read my comments here on this issue for a more in-depth explanation. Postdlf 15:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I am currently not involved in editing of the WP. Please stop posting long messages on my talk page. Instead, post them on talk pages of the corresponding articles. Perhaps someone will choose to defend them and give "rationale" even though I was careful to explain it all on the discussion pages, but it seems you are not reading them... Mhym 10:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

See above. Posting rationales on talk pages is useless as per WP:NFCC #10. MER-C 11:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Snom

Just wondering how you assess Snom as not-notable? Is it merely that you have not heard of it? or is it that when I created the page, that I did not change the edit summary from the default? Karl2620 12:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

No. The article gave me no reason to think that the subject is notable. MER-C 12:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Very well. I have created the article 'on spec' and will be adding more to it as my time permits. I also hope that it's presence will cause others to add more. The company itself and their products are certainly notable.

Do you have any suggestions - apart from writing a full-blown article in the first instance - in how one can express this when creating a new article? Karl2620 12:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You can write one in your userspace and move it once it's done. Other things you can include are stock market symbols, revenue figures (>$10^7), number of employees (>10^4), links to news articles about the company and anything else that may be found at WP:CORP. Editors have to be aggressive on new page patrol so that crappy "articles" don't fall through the cracks. MER-C 12:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, fine. Meanwhile, I invite you to remove the nomination for speedy deletion. I suspect if I remove it, it will not be regarded as valid. If you decline, please advise the correct procedure for having it removed, or who adjudicates the presence of such tags? (The time I am spending here might have well been spent building up the article.) Karl2620 13:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The best way to defend against a speedy delete tag would be to do exactly what you wish to do - expand the article. The procedure for speedy deletes is outlined at WP:CSD. MER-C 13:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism?

I hope this revert by you was done in a state of absentmindedness, and that you will revert yourself. __meco 10:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It was an external link violation. I remember that 99.75% of blogs on .info domains were splogs from some research I did while working on (the article) sping so I was extra suspicious. MER-C 12:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be quite right. I wouldn't have spotted this one at a mere glance, but now I have been wised up, and will keep a better, more discriminating lookout from now on. __meco 16:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use (2)

Feel free to recommend the image for deletion if you feel it is not appropriately documented. Your posting on my journal was not helpful as to how to make the image acceptable, and I am not certain as to how to make the image meet the standards that are not (in my opinion) well articulated; the image comes from a promotional gallery, as stated on the page. The recommended Wikipedia pages to explain how to do this appropriately are incomprehensible.Transcendentalstate 17:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Oath of office

Regarding Image:Lyndon_B._Johnson_taking_the_oath_of_office,_November_1963.jpg versus Image:Lyndon B. Johnson oath of office November 1963.jpg ... did you check the usage on the commons before switching the names around? The one you replaced is already used widely across various projects. There is only supposed to be one copy of the photo on the commons, and you went and loaded a second. I'm confused. I've gone ahead and loaded your version under the other name (and changed the names on as many of the artilces as possible. --evrik ^(talk) 18:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lyndon B. Johnson taking the oath of office would be the reason. They expressly preferred the lighter image so I'll have to revert you. MER-C 04:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, didn't see you uploaded on top of it. Oh well. MER-C 05:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandal warning

Just to notify you of one of those occurances when two different people post a warning to a vandal at exactly the same time. It's just happened now. It's not a big issue at all, but I thought I'd inform you just incase you wondered what was going on on his talkpage. With regards, Lradrama 13:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use (3)

When I added the image, tags were considered appropriate Fair Use rationale. That was why the tags were created in the first place. I get annoyed when people, instead of improving Wikipedia directly, decide to nag other users about their past improvements. If deleting the image improves Wikipedia, delete the image. If adding a fair use rationale improves Wikipedia, add your own fair use rationale. Please don't nag me to make improvements that would like done. --Dystopos 15:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Amstrad CPC Advert.png

Hi. You nominated Image:Amstrad CPC Advert.png for speedy deletion under criteria I2: corrupt or empty image. I've turned this down, as the image is working fine, and isn't on Commons, so it isn't eligible for deletion under that criteria. Mike Peel 19:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Silly me, I just realised it's my ad blocker which made the image disappear. I'll just go off quietly and make a few featured pictures instead... MER-C 08:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:SpamOnWikipedia.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:SpamOnWikipedia.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 21:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

SPAM !

Why are you attempting me for spamming while you storer inproper information on pages abouth other subjects. Only because many people surch for thet names ?

Sinds when is a 250F Accross, à GSX_R250 ??? So, stop yelling to serieus people and start filling in the pages with REAL information !

For Youre information.....

The GSX-250F belongs here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzuki_Across

no haertfeelings ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MisterGSX-R (talk • contribs)

See WP:COI and WP:SPAM. MER-C 09:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who listen to video game music on WP:UCFD again

This category is again nominated for discussion at user categories for discussion. Since you contributed to the last discussion, you may wish to say something in the current one, which was started on 8 July 2007. This is a courtesy notice I'll be leaving for everyone who contributed in the last UCFD nomination and not in the current one. BigNate37_(T) 13:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Milecastle 39 on Hadrian's Wall.jpg

I'm a bit confused why you think this has an empty description page: It's transcluded from the Commons. I've updated it to the standard template, but it always had a description. Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The local description page is empty. See WP:CSD#i8. MER-C 08:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, right. Have you now. It was an FPC for a while so had that little template saying so, must've not got cleared once it was deleted. Adam Cuerden ^talk 11:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

DeadxWhispers's edit

While I understand adding links to LiveJournal communities may be against wiki-policy, as far as I can tell the link was to a "Cape Wrath" fan group, so I don't think it qualifies as vandalism. --DrBat 15:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it is. I call it spam, which is a form of subtle vandalism. I also wanted to leave a {{spam1}}, and my rollback (vandal) button makes it easier for me to do so. MER-C 08:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you delete your own images?

If you have uploaded images that are orphaned or have some other problem. Can you delete them yourself or do you have to wait for speedy deletion?

Thanks! Professor Davies 20:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Since MER-C hasn't been online for a bit, and I've got his page on my watchlist, I thought I'd drop in and answer the best I can. Images you or anyone else have uploaded can only be deleted by administrators. You can re-upload another image to the same name, effectively overwriting the image (regardless of who uploaded the original). In this case, the original is still visible in the history. A {{db-g7}} is your best bet to get it totally removed, as speedy deletion criteria G7 is author-requested deletion. BigNate37_(T) 00:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks....

....for your faster-than-light-revert of my userpage. Much appreciated. CIreland 09:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Anne Hummert

What would be a preferable fair use rationale? Pepso2 10:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline. MER-C 12:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...

for cleaning the muck off my user page. --Michael Johnson 11:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for helping out on my talkpage. Where the heck are the admins, anyway? There's a huge backlog at AIV. Gscshoyru 12:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello you bastard

You are a fucking bastard MER-C. Norman Rogers is the WIlly on Wheels and I am here to ruin your day again.