User talk:😂

Harold A. Rogers

Could I please see the article Harold A. Rogers you deleted. You wrote that this was a CSD for blatant advertising but that article had been in existence for quite a while and I read it previously and don't recall that it was written as such.

At any rate, Harold A. Rogers is an important figure in Canadian history, ranked among the Greatest Canadians in the recent CBC tv show, founder of the largest all-Canadian service organisation, recipient of the Order of Canada and the Order of the British Empire, and first recipient of Ontario's Lamp of Learning award. He is deserving of an encyclopedic entry and if not worded to your satisfaction, an appropriate tag, note on the talk page, or an edit would have been a better action. A speedy deletion for "advertising" a man who has been dead over 13 years seems odd. Perhaps the version you saw had been vandalised and you forgot to check the history?

I also wonder why you removed the wikilinks to the article.

Thanks, DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

All of the articles in Category:Kin Canada were either blatant advertising, or a nearly-direct copyvio from their website. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 12:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Prove it. I believe you seriously overstepped the bounds of CSD. These articles could have even passed AfD. DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I just restored this article--I don't see this as blatant advertising in the least. This is a matter for AfD, not speedy deletion. Calliopejen1 18:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I would also like Kin Canada, Kin Canada Bursaries, and Telemiracle restored. It would be a trivial matter for me to re-write them from a google cache but prefer that the author-credit histories were intact. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see here. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Johnson City Cardinals

Can I ask why you speedy deleted the Johnson City Cardinals article when an article exists for every other professional baseball team in North America (including the independents)? Smashville 19:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It was a short, unreferenced article with no assertion of notability. Perfectly legitimate speedy deletion. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 20:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I highly disagree. That may have been the most out of process CSD I've ever seen...I'll be taking it to DRV. Smashville 20:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Go for it :-) ^demon^{[omg plz]} 20:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It's up. Don't take it personally...well, I guess you know that. Smashville 20:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

IMO, the article asserts notability (rookie-league team under the St. Louis Cardinals, a MLB team). The level of notability can be debated at AfD, but that's not another matter. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I restored the article as a clear out-of-process deletion per WP:DP. ~ trialsanderrors 06:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Krewe of Muses

Demon, I used an image I'd gotten off a Google Image search. I uploaded it as kreweofmuses.jpg and asked for fair use consideration. I am not a member of this organization. A friend is however--and it was this friend who asked me to write the article. Nobody in the organization objected to its use; however, the original source was a weekly newspaper, so there probably is a copyright issue afterall. Should this friend send me an image? I'm not sure about how to get a release. Can you point me to this information?

WP:COPYREQ should have most of the information you'll need. I'm not really sure on specifics, I don't do much with *obtaining* permission. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Wilno

You closed this debate a few days ago. Could you comment on the revert war at Operation Wilno? See edit summaries in history and talk for arguments of both sides. I feel we need a third party to mediate, and you already have some background, so... thanks :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

deletion of Image:Degrassismith.jpg

Hi, ^demon. I saw that you deleted Image:Degrassismith.jpg at 10:14 a.m. on October 30, and said that I, the uploader, had been notified. Well if you look at my talk page and talk page history, you'll see that is not the case.

Anyways, I thought it met all ten Non-free content criteria, so I would like to know what could possibly be done to restore the image. Does it need a different fair use or licence tag?

Thanks and regards, -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 20:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Restored, sorry. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 00:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Contesting speedy deletion of Image:MayorJohnWMorgan.jpg

What was the problem with this image? I am the one who wrote the fair use rationale recently, but was not notified. This image copyright is owned by a Canadian municipality, which ultimately is owned by the Canadian Crown, and the fair use was valid. Please restore it, and let me know what the problem is so I can fix it. There should not be any problem with this image being fair use, as there are no free images of this Canadian politician available. - Crockspot 20:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

This image cannot be fixed with a better fair use rationale. Crown copyright images are considered nonfree, and as a matter of policy all photos of living people are considered to be replaceable. You can try requesting a free image from the mayor's office - see WP:COPYREQ. Calliopejen1 20:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I was using the "Canadian politician" template (can't tell you which one exactly, because the edit history is gone) which seemed to spell out exactly the situation this image was being used for. Is that template no longer stating a valid fair use rationale? If not, the template should be deleted as well. - Crockspot 20:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC) PS, it was just weeks ago that another admin tagged this image for deletion. I worked with them extensively, and satisfied them that there was a proper fair use rationale. I also had to track down the original uploader on another website, since he has not been active on Wikipedia for some time. Please point out the specific policy page where it is spelled out that this image has an improper fair use rationale. All I can find on deleting non-free images of living people are several essays, which do not hold any weight in policy. Also, since the uploader of the image is no longer active, and I was obviously actively editing the image page, it would have been nice to have been notified of the tagging of the image for deletion. - Crockspot 21:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:NONFREE, under "Unacceptable images", says, "Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image." {{Canada-politician-photo}} explicitly says it needs to be used alongside a non-free use rationale, because it is a non-free image tag. The template is kept because the image is not ENTIRELY nonfree--noncommercial reuse is permitted, and it is helpful to specify this for downstream users--but it is a non-free image nonetheless by Wikipedia standards because it cannot be modified/used for commercial purposes. Calliopejen1 22:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

As best as I remember, it met all ten criteria in WP:NONFREE. I may not have spelled it out on each of the ten points, but I can certainly do so. - Crockspot 00:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

One of the criteria is that it not be replaceable. Because he is a living person, this is a replaceable photo. Calliopejen1 01:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that it is not possible to have a fair use rationale on a photograph of a living person, period, right? Is this a firm and widely accepted interpretation of the policy, and do we expect to be able to enforce this policy wikipedia-wide? Why do we even bother tagging them for 48 hours? What could possibly happen in that 48 hours, short of the person no longer continuing to live, that would abort the deletion? Why have an unnecessary step in the process? - Crockspot 02:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC) PS. What makes the photograph of three living persons in the section above this one restorable? I'm sorry if I'm being a pain, but the fair use rules have always been somewhat confusing to me, and what you are telling me is only confusing me more. - Crockspot 02:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, essentially. This is a firmly and widely accepted interpretation-- it appears as a specific example on WP:NONFREE. I would eliminate the 48-hour period myself, and have actually proposed doing so--I guess maybe the theory is that within that period you can advance evidence that the person is a recluse, or that particular photo is necessary to show a career-defining moment, etc. The three people above are a borderline case, because there they are in character for a TV show, which appears on the page about the TV show. They wouldn't appear in public all together, and certainly not dressed as their characters. So I think that that one is not replaceable, to show what the TV show characters look like. Calliopejen1 02:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, eventually I'll get the hang of all these image intricacies. Image policy is about the most convoluted and complicated of any topic I've run across on Wikipedia. - Crockspot 14:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipediology

I'm retired; you woke me up from my nap. Since I am awake, I did leave a comment on the deletion debate; in short, my official position is, I have no official position. Please note that I am retired and that my talk page is a protected archive. I have been responding to queries when active Wikipedians bring them to my attention, but I won't be doing so in the future because I find even the briefest stint here tedious and painful. For future reference if you come acrosse a a pic that I uploaded fifty years ago under fair use tag, I have no idea where I got it from today. Happy editing! - JCarriker 22:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)