User talk:Fastily

Four improperly deleted free image files

Why did you summarily delete the following four image files files none of which had ever even been nominated for deletion, only questioned as "possibly un-free", and when you deleted them none of those discussions had even been closed?

16:53 . . Fastily (talk | contribs) deleted "File:South Philadelphia Sports Complex c1972.jpg" (Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 November 10#File:South Philadelphia Sports Complex c1972.jpg)

• This is derived from a ppc (Wyco #317), which I acquired in 1973 and was published w/o any copyright (©) notice. (I have uploaded an image of its reverse side on my server here which shows it has no copyright notice anywhere.) As it was published in the US prior to 1978 without a © notice it is thus in the public domain.

16:51 . . Fastily (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Centpacrr.jpg" (Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 November 10#File:Centpacrr.jpg)

• This is a photograph of me that was taken at my request by a colleague using my camera which was then returned to me. It is used only on my WP user page and the copyright belongs to me and me alone.

16:47 . . Fastily (talk | contribs) deleted "File:AHL Philadelphia Phamtons 2005 Calder Cup.jpg" (Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 November 7#File:AHL Philadelphia Phamtons 2005 Calder Cup.jpg)

• I personally took this photograph from the TV broadcast booth at the then Wachovia (now Wells Fargo) Center in Philadelphia in which I was working on the telecast of this Calder Cup championship game and am thus both the sole creator and copyright holder of this image. Although the editor who claims that it is "non-free" because less than 5% of the image includes a CCTV image on the scoreboard, so do many other long standing images hosted on Commons which are licensed as free such as those located here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and most tellingly here which is ironic because this last image of an NBA game at TD Garden in Boston was uploaded by the very same editor who is claiming the my image is "derivative" and thus "un-free" when the one he uploaded also includes a live CCTV image on the scoreboard. As the hosting standards for these files including scoreboard images with CCTV content on Commons are far more restrictive then the standards for similar image files on en:Wikipedia, then clearly the Phantoms' 2005 Calder Cup image easily qualifies under WP policy as being non-derivative and thus I, as its creator, am free to license it any way I choose to.

15:55 . . Fastily (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Flying Yankee at Portland Union Sataion.jpg" (Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 October 26#File:Flying Yankee at Portland Union Sataion.jpg)

• This is a digital "watercolor" illustration which I created myself which was not derived from any "non-free" photograph as had been claimed by another editor.

Three of these files were created by myself and the fourth was derived from a picture post card published in 1971 without copyright (proof provided) and is also thus free. I provided extensive documentation of this in each of these discussions on the day they were opened (see summaries after each above). Please therefore promptly restore them and explain why they were deleted in the first place. Centpacrr (talk) 22:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Regarding the two I nominated:

• Sports complex: Sorry to be a bit overly pessimistic, but is there a year on the post card?
• Personal picture: Does the US still allow the person(s) who request(s) a picture be taken of them to own the copyright on that image, or is the hired/voluntary photographer the holder of the copyright? From my experience, Wal-Mart seems to claim copyright on all images it takes when hired, but that was in Canada. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• RE Sports Complex: There is no date printed on the postcard, but (as I noted on the discussion page and above) I personally acquired it in 1973 so it was clearly published at least five years before 1978. Also I have worked at this sports complex in one capacity or another continuously since 1969 and can tell you from personal knowledge that it looked the way it appears in the image in 1973 but was different from this image by 1978.
• RE Personal Picture: This image was not taken "for hire" but was taken by a colleague in the TV booth at the sixth game of the 2010 Stanley Cup final in which we were both working. We each wanted pictures of ourselves and so we exchanged our personal cameras, snapped pictures of each other based on how each of us directed the other to do so, and then returned the cameras to each other. This, by the way, is doubtless how tens of thousands of other similar pictures that WP editors have posted of themselves (such as this one for example) on their own user pages or elsewhere on WP. The copyright to such images clearly belong to the subject of the image who owned the camera, directed the other person as to what to point it at (him or herself), and when to "push the button". All of the "creative" components (if any) of such an image also belong to the subject (in the case of the image under discussion would be myself) and not the other individual who did nothing more than the act of "pushing the button" when asked to do so. Obviously in this case neither of us could both take their picture and be in it at the same time, and neither of us has any claim of a copyright or ownership interest in the pictures we "took" of the other with the subject's camera. Instead the rights to the pictures of ourselves taken with our own cameras and under our direction and control rightly belong to the person in the picture. Centpacrr (talk) 00:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• I see that these PUF discussions have now all been marked as "closed," but only by a BOT (User:AnomieBOT) because you had already deleted the files albeit without providing any reason or, I gather, even visiting the discussion pages as you did not post anything there. It is also my understanding that PUF discussions are only for the purpose of determining whether on not an image file should be licensed as "non-free" as opposed to "free", but they are not discussions as to their eligibility for use under WP:NFCC which is a completely different issue. (Per Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files: "Unlike Wikipedia:Files for deletion the primary purpose of this page is to ascertain the source and/or copyright status of a file. Therefore it is not specifically a vote to keep or delete but a forum for the exploration of the copyright status/source of a file and contributions should not be added solely in those terms.") For that reason alone they should be restored without delay as none of them was ever actually "nominated for deletion" in the first place, only questioned as to whether any were "possibly un-free". Centpacrr (talk) 01:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• Please advise on what basis you deleted these files when none of them had ever been nominated for deletion. Centpacrr (talk) 22:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• Please respond to the question I have posed to you here: "On what basis did you delete these files when none of them had ever been nominated for deletion?" Centpacrr (talk) 19:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm waiting for input from SchuminWeb before I take action, if at all. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

With respect, I am afraid that you have completely missed the point of my question. The views of any other editor have nothing at all to do with this. The issue here is that you deleted image files that had never been nominated for deletion and that is a violation of WP policy. The images in question had only had their status as being "free" (as opposed to "un-free") questioned over sourcing, the sources (see summaries above) were then provided in detail, and none of those PUF discussions had even been closed with any sort of finding as their not being free as originally licensed when you deleted the images leading me to believe that you likely never read them.

I repeat that the WP policy on "Possible Un-Free" image files states:"Unlike Wikipedia:Files for deletion the primary purpose of this page is to ascertain the source and/or copyright status of a file. Therefore it is not specifically a vote to keep or delete but a forum for the exploration of the copyright status/source of a file and contributions should not be added solely in those terms." Therefore there was no basis whatsoever to delete them unless and until they had at a minimum been subjected to the FFD process.

Three of these four images are exclusively my own work and thus I own the copyright to them outright. The fourth is derived from an image that is in the Public Domain as it was published prior to 1978 (in 1973) without any claim of copyright and visual proof of that has been provided. So again I ask you as the individual who deleted them to tell me on what basis that you unilaterally deleted them when none of them had ever even been nominated for deletion? The views of SchuminWeb or any other editor have no bearing in that at all as neither he or anyone else ever opened an FFD on any of these images. The only individual who can possibly speak to the basis of their improper deletion is you and you alone. Please do so. Centpacrr (talk) 00:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding my nominations, say what you want about whether you consider them to be your own work, but in both cases, they are derivative works. In the "Calder Cup" photo, taking a photo of a screen displaying someone else's work is a derivative work of the first, plain and simple. Regarding some of the other photos you mentioned, most of them are de minimis on the screen's presence, but some may require additional attention. Regarding the "Flying Yankee" image, it was obviously the case that your "original digital illustration" was in fact derived from the now-deleted File:MEC Flying Yankee.jpg image. You can photoshop the heck out of it (which you did), and claim that it is your original work (which you also did), but it doesn't make it any less of a copyright violation, and considering how hard you have fought over a false claim of ownership on both images, you have damaged your credibility. Ever heard of The Boy Who Cried Wolf?

Additionally, WP:PUF is at its heart a deletion discussion, because unless the concerns are rectified, the process ends in a deletion because when there is sufficient doubt about the copyright status of an image, we can't use it, and there is no reason to retain images that we can't use. The most common results of PUF discussions are "keep", where all concerns have been satisfactorily addressed, "converted to non-free", where we can't say for sure that it's free but all ten criteria of WP:NFCC are met (thus we can use it that way), and "delete", where all concerns have not been satisfactorily addressed and it also fails one or more criteria of WP:NFCC.

And lastly, a little civility goes a long way. You have been amazingly unkind to anyone who dares question the copyright status of your files, and that needs to change. After all, "You catch more flies with honey than vinegar," as they say. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• I will address each of these issues point by point and then ask you to answer my original question:

• "Nominations": Again none of these four summarily deleted image files had ever been "nominated for deletion" (WP:FFD) by User:SchuminWeb or any other editor but instead they were only listed under WP:PUF which states that "Unlike Wikipedia:Files for deletion the primary purpose of this page is to ascertain the source and/or copyright status of a file. Therefore it is not specifically a vote to keep or delete but a forum for the exploration of the copyright status/source of a file and contributions should not be added solely in those terms." That being the case, there was no basis whatsoever to even consider any such image files for possible deletion unless and until they had at a minimum been subjected to the FFD process in order to seek the consensus of the community as to how they should be treated. Summarily deleting image files without following that well established and completely separate process in clearly contrary to long standing WP practice, policy, and guidelines.

• "Calder Cup image": As for the "Calder Cup" file, User:SchuminWeb's very own action just three days ago (November 25) of uploading the file "NBA Game.jpg" of TD Garden in Boston during an NBA game defeats his claim of such images being "derivative" works as that photograph also includes a clearly visible live CCTV image on the scoreboard as do dozens of other long standing image files hosted on Commons which are all licensed as free. (See for example the images located here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.) The "free" licensing status of these and many other similar files has never been questioned by User:SchuminWeb or any other editor over the years that they have been in place and widely used throughout WP. Claiming that some are de minimis derivatives as compared to others is unsupported hair splitting. What policy or guideline establishes an acceptable threshold of what constitutes de minimis in such cases? 10%? 15%? 25%? The live CCTV portion about which User:SchuminWeb complains in my photograph, by the way, actually constitutes less than 5% of the the total image so it can hardly be claimed to be the "subject" (or even a significant element) of the illustration. Is adjudicating such minutia really what is contemplated by the letter and spirit of WP's guidelines and policies? So "...taking a photo of a screen displaying someone else's work is a derivative work of the first, plain and simple" really isn't all that "plain and simple" after all. User:SchuminWeb really can't have it both ways.

• "Flying Yankee illustration": Regarding my Flying Yankee at Portland Union Station illustration, I made my case extensively in the PUF discussion which was never resolved and was only closed by a "Bot" (User:AnomieBOT) after the fact only because the file had been arbitrarily deleted despite never having been nominated for deletion. User:SchuminWeb, the editor who opened the PUF discussion of this file, is also the only editor who posted anything there in support of his claim that this illustration is a "derivative" work and should be licensed as un-free. He and I disagree as WP editors as to which it is, but again the consensus of the community was never arrived at as to its licensing before it was summarily deleted without ever going through the FFD process let alone even completing the PUF process.

• "Civility": Again for reasons unknown to me it seems that whenever any editor disagrees with User:SchuminWeb he interprets it as being a "personal attack" or being "amazingly unkind" which I categorically reject. As I have told him many times before in various forums none of my comments have ever been about this editor as a person but are instead about interpretation of WP policy as well as his actions and oft demonstrated pattern of refusing to accept (especially unacceptable for an admin) the consensus of the community when that does not precisely comport with his own exact interpretations of the project's guidelines, policies, and/or his personal editorial views. (See here for a third party summary of this which he promptly deleted with the telling edit summary of "Don't speak down to me.".) Over the past couple of months this editor has also made multiple unsupported accusations against me and others at one time or another of "vandalism", "plagiarism", "disruptive editing", "making personal attacks", and now being "amazingly unkind" simply because we have had the temerity to have have disagreed with his extraordinarily narrow interpretations of WP policy and guidelines and his cavalier and arbitrary approach to myself and those other editors.

As that other editor recently observed (as seen in this now deleted earlier form of his talk page) about this editor's adamantine approach to other Wikipedians who may disagree with him about anything: " ...your dogged refusal to listen to experienced editors with a long history in that article - and your inability to address other people's arguments in the matter - combined with your unilateral decision to act using admin powers in such a way that other editors could not fix your mistake...and all this despite strong prior consensus was (as I said) an egregious abuse of admin power..." as well as "Admins are the servants of editors - not their masters - and they are held to a higher standard of accountability." In October another Admin commented in calling for the withdrawal of another FFD nomination made by this editor that it was a "Bad faith nomination. In the time he took to nominate this he could have written the rationale himself. It's well established--by the debate he linked to even--that this falls under fair use. Bureaucracy isn't a stick with which to beat editors. In the meantime I'll write up some rationales, and they had better be sufficient."

Typical examples of how User:SchuminWeb ends his postings can be found in the PUF discussion of the "Calder Cup" image discussed above in which he wrote: "Nothing doing. I am not withdrawing this nomination, since I know I'm right, and as I have stated my arguments on this matter, I don't see the need to waste my time arguing with you about it. You're going to throw two or three paragraphs below this saying that I'm wrong, wrong, wrong, and what an "utterly" (your favorite word, apparently) horrible person that I am for being so wrong as you see it, but I'm not arguing with you about this one anymore. I have made my case, and I can now rest it. Good day to you."; and the PUF discussion of the Jimmy Hendrix mugshot in which he wrote: "You oversimplify the copyright situation for works of various governmental entities, and in your oversimplification you have painted with too broad of a brush and made mistakes. I feel no need to engage you on this further, because I am convinced that you don't understand, and won't listen to me if I try to explain it to you because you just plain do not like me, and so why bother."

• My original question: Now that everybody has had their say, please answer my original question which is: "Why did you summarily delete the following four image files files none of which had ever even been nominated for deletion, only questioned as "possibly un-free", and when you deleted them none of those discussions had even been closed?" Centpacrr (talk) 08:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Very well, let's keep this short. A few things you should know:

1. WP:PUF is a deletion discussion. Files listed here are deleted if their copyright status is unclear and/or cannot be confirmed.
2. File deletion discussions are automatically closed by bot when the result of the debate was determined to be delete by an admin; all I have to do is delete the file and the bot closes the discussion for me.
3. You need to start listening to what others have to say, instead of tenaciously asserting your own beliefs. Swallow that pride and accept the facts. Your interpretations of copyright and derivative works are egregiously wrong. Take the time to read up on your policy knowledge before attempting to debate about it.
4. I will not be undeleting anything. Despite having given you multiple opportunities, you have repeatedly failed to demonstrate that your uploads are indeed freely licensed and not derivative works of some sort.
5. Don't attack other users. It doesn't help your case in any way whatsoever, and is only going to result in removal of your editing privileges.

-FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Point by point:

1. I affirmatively addressed the issues of copyright status and provided verification for each of these files (see above) but you deleted them anyway without ever providing any reason for disputing the information I provided so I have no way of knowing what more information you might think is necessary to convince you.
2. The "Bot" may close the discussion, but it does not provide any information about why the admin who deleted the file did so thereby again leaving me in the dark.
3. Most of the discussions in which I have expressed my opinions on free/non-free copyright matters have been closed (some even by you) with my position being supported (sometimes unanimously) by the community and the files kept. See for instance: Leena.png, ATSF El Capitan combined x3.png, Robertson Aircraft Corporation Logo.jpg, Pioneer Zephyr Dawn to Dusk Club.jpg (Sept 10, 2010), Pioneer Zephyr Dawn to Dusk Club.jpg (Oct 15, 2011), UAL Route Map 1940.jpg, Denver Public Library images, Jimihendrix1969mug.jpg and Pioneer Zephyr Dawn to Dusk Club.jpg (Oct 10, 2011).
4. Again I addressed the issues of both copyright status and provided verification (see above) and you deleted them anyway without ever providing any reason for disputing the information I provided.
5. I would not have addressed the issue of "civility" here at all had User:SchuminWeb not first raised it in his comment above. Please also note that the comments I quoted above regarding this subject were not written by me but are the opinions expressed by other editors about User:SchuminWeb's actions as an Admin. Centpacrr (talk) 02:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Moneyinc.jpg

Explain how this violated non-free criteria. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Fastily/E#F7 -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Explain how this violated non-free criteria. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

A quick look through your talk page seems to indicate that I shouldn't expect a reasonable answer to this question, based on your "Shoot first and then criticize the victim" mentality. It's sad to see that sort of thinking is so prevalent on Wikipedia, especially among administrators. I can't quite bring myself to thank you for the useless link or refusal to answer a reasonable question, so I suppose our communication is over. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Question re licensing of pictures of myself

Please educate me re the proper licensing of a picture taken for me of myself, at my request, under my direction, with my own camera, and which has always been in my sole custody and control. Would not the copyright of such an image be mine and mine alone to release and license as a free file? If not, what would make such an image different from thousands of other similar images on WP such as File:Ben Schumin at Iwo Jima Memorial.jpg? According to its summary, that image was made under exactly those circumstances and is licensed as a "free" image file on Commons. You have now twice deleted my userpage image of myself also made exactly the same way as that one and all the others without telling me why it is unacceptable thus leaving me at a loss to tell how you find it is different from all the others. Please therefore advise me what is the proper license for this image so that I can return it to my userpage. Many thanks. Centpacrr (talk) 23:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Certainly, but before I do that, have you read WP:C? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and I don't see anything there that would indicate that I would be anything other than the exclusive copyright owner of any image created under such circumstances. Centpacrr (talk) 06:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copyright_FAQ#What_is_copyright.3F. From the first sentence - "you get [a copyright] automatically every time you produce creative work.". In other words, the party who pushed the button on the camera owns the copyright to the work, not the owner of the camera. As for File:Centpacrr.jpg, please do not re-upload it. I do not feel you have been completely honest with us about the origins and purpose of this photo. You neither took the photo yourself (you therefore have no legal right to publish this file under a free license), nor did you explain the occurrence of a watermark on one of the deleted versions. Don't bother trying to come up with an excuse for that; given your track record, there is no way for me to know whether you're lying or telling the truth. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

With respect, sir, this does not answer the question I am asking you which is how is the image of myself which you claim is not free any different in character than File:Ben Schumin at Iwo Jima Memorial.jpg which is licensed as free? Acording to its summary, this image was made under exactly the same type of circumstances as mine and yet resides on Commons licensed as a "free" image as do several hundred other similar "self" images posted in the "Wikipedia:Facebook Directory" located here? Although none of these pictures were taken by the people who appear in them, virtually all of them identify each of those people as both the creators and copyright holders of the images of themselves.

If my image is truly non-free as you claim, then all of these must be non-free as well. If, however, they are free images then so is mine. Please then explain to me on what basis you insist that mine should be singled out of all of these to be treated differently and please be specific.

As for the small logo that appeared on the image, I added that myself for a non-web use before later uploading it to WP for use on my user page. When it was pointed out to me that it was still there I removed it. This image does not now appear, nor has it ever appeared, on the web, in print, or anywhere else other than my WP userpage. I presume by "Don't bother trying to come up with an excuse for that; given your track record, there is no way for me to know whether you're lying or telling the truth." you are basing this unexplained "attack" on me on whatever User:SchuminWeb said to you about me in the email he sent you about this issue to which I obviously can't respond because it was done off site and thus I have no idea what claims he made in it. Centpacrr (talk) 10:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems like a fair question to ask. Schumin clearly indicates that someone else took the picture. Since I can't see Centpacrr's picture, I must also ask, what's different about it? Meanwhile, there's one sure way to get around this, I think: set your camera on timer, and take the picture yourself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

This picture was taken of me in the NHL International TV broadcast booth at the Wells Fargo (then Wachovia) Center in Philadelphia in which I was working the telecast of Game 6 of the 2010 Stanley Cup final between the Philadelphia Flyers and Chicago Blackhawks. A few minutes prior to the start of the telecast our stage manager (a friend and co-worker of mine for more then 30 years) asked me to snap a picture of him with his camera and I asked him to do the same for me with my camera. This we both did and then returned the cameras to each other. The whole process took about thirty seconds which was all the time we had for this after which we both went back to work preparing for the worldwide telecast (our feed went to 160 countries) of the game which was to begin a few minutes later. Centpacrr (talk) 13:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I think I remember that one. I wonder if the specific issue, as compared with Schumin's, is that it doesn't look "touristy" enough? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I found a couple of your wikipedia pics by google-imaging your user ID. I don't see what the issue is. [Not directly "saveable" because their source images are deleted, but somehow google images still had them.] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The "issue" here, Bugs, is that there actually is no legitimate issue here. As your Google search demonstrates, there actually is no difference as to what the appropriate copyright status should be between my image and any of the others. The repeated deletions of my userpage image of myself thus appear to be merely arbitrary and made without any basis in WP policy but simply because the admin who deleted them had the "power" to do so. I presume that this fact is also the reason that my question asked here multiple times (see above and below) as to "what the difference is" between mine and all the others continues to be met with silence. Centpacrr (talk) 11:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• I ask you again to please answer the question that I actually asked which was: How specifically is the image of myself which you claim must be deleted as "non-free" is any different than the image File:Ben Schumin at Iwo Jima Memorial.jpg made under exactly the same type of circumstances and licensed as "free" as well as the several hundred other similarly licensed "self" images posted in the "Wikipedia:Facebook Directory"? Although none of these pictures were taken by the people who appear in them, virtually all of them identify each of those people as both the creators and/or copyright holders of the images of themselves. Please therefore explain to me on what basis you insist that mine should be singled out of all of these to be treated differently as being a "non-free" image. Centpacrr (talk) 00:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Reductions

I have other deadlines and thus will never have time to reduce the many images you have tagged. Is it possible you could reduce these? If so, thanks. Pepso2 (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Please don't feel a need to do these manually. There is a bot which will perform this task automatically within the week. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Sheila Walsh-Future Eyes 500.jpg was tagged. I read the relevant sectionin the policy but it's not particularly helpful. Template:Infobox Album indicates that 300 pixels is ideal. Is that the size to which it will be reduced or will it be a different size? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The 300 you reduced it to is perfectly fine. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 03:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Moonmullins111255.jpg should not be reduced. The Sunday comics page has 11 panels and the entire point of the gag rests on a tiny object in panel seven. Unless this object is visible, the humor is meaningless. The rules of reduction should be changed to accomodate this and similar artwork, originally published in a very large size in Sunday newspapers. Pepso2 (talk) 09:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Craigecarchivesmoors.jpg should not be reduced. The image is there to demonstrate subtle distinctions of digital re-coloring of 1950s comic book pages. As I noted in the rationale, this was uploaded at the smallest size possible to still make those subtle tones evident. Pepso2 (talk) 15:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Thepassingshow7718.jpg should not be reduced. Even at the largest size right now it is difficult to read some of the tiny lettering. Pepso2 (talk) 15:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Query about Size Reduction Bot

At least three of the eight image files just tagged by User:FBot for size reduction seem to have been tagged slightly inappropriately (though understandably so). (And in all 8 copesi the article copy is much smaller than the file copy). File:2001Satellite.jpg‎ is a high-res reproduction of a very very low-res original. To further reduce would downgrade the image unacceptably. The files File:MoneyPennyMontage.JPG and File:BondChase.JPG are both montages of which the individual elements are already at fairly low resolution, even if as a collectivity they seem to be at higher resolution. With all of these three, I would petition removal of the tag. The other 5 I would be glad to upload smaller resolution copies.--WickerGuy (talk) 06:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

See section above. Someone else asked the exact same question. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

My question is how do I contest the resolution of the three I mentioned?? I don't see that addressed elsewhere here? (Glad to know the others will be auto-reduced.)--WickerGuy (talk) 06:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, before you try something like that, I think it's fair to warn you that you'll be fighting a total uphill battle, as long-standing consensus is against you: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Fbot 9, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DASHBot 9, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/NeuRobot 2, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ImageResizeBot. Also, see WP:NFCC#3, Wikipedia:NFC#Image_resolution. In case tl;dr, non-free files are reduced in resolution, especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement (i.e. copyright violators will continue to violate copyright, but Wikipedia is not going to assist them in doing so). Furthermore, non-free files are permissible on the Wikimedia Foundation's servers on the premises of Fair use, that is, inferior versions of copyrighted works may be used solely to educate, nothing more. I have reviewed the images myself and I see nothing that necessitates such high resolution. In the end, the size reduction will only be about ~80% of the original (reduction of 50 pixels on both length and width). Of course, if your heart is still firmly set on contesting this tag and 'saving' 50 pixels, I'll list the files at FFD for you, but you can expect someone to reduce the images, speedy the old versions, and speedy close the discussion. I'm only taking the time to explain this to you because you seem like a decent editor and because your time would be better spent on other things. Your call. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I've had quite a few tagged as well, and I have one question. While I'm certainly not looking for any sort of medals for the images I've uploaded, I'm proud that I uploaded them and I would like to preserve the credit of me as the original uploader. The bot will preserve this after it reduces the images, right? Cheers :> Doc talk 07:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

You should put "uploaded by Doc9871" in the file description page. There is a way to revdel the thumbnail without revdeling the authorship information or the timestamp, but it's rarely done because as I understand it, it requires a great deal more effort. What this means is that your work will be preserved in the Show History tab readout, but not on the file description page itself. Sorry, but as I am not an admin, I can't control how this is done. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that won't be necessary Doc, you'll still be credited as page creator when you go click the history tab. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Well. I may as well join in here as start a new section. I have just had a bot place a request for me to modify 53 files on my user page. I totally support the need to stay with in the law. When these 53 shots were first put up, I erroneously had them tied into a list page (We are talking industrial archeology here), and they and the elaborate text descriptions were deleted- I read the conditions of Fair use and image size very carefully, I have written the the accompanying articles so e- verything complies- it was water tight. Take for example File:Mars_Mill,_Castleton_Rochdale_0016.png‎ (549 × 390 pixels, file size: 163 KB, MIME type: image/png). The guidelines now say that:

As a general rule of thumb, images where one dimension exceeds 1,000 pixels, or where the image size approaches 1.0 megapixels or more, will likely require a closer review to assure that the image needs that level of resolution. This is not a discouragement to use such images, but editors should assure that rationales fully explain the need for such level of detail.

The rationale says the image was taken from a scan- so it is obvious that thre would be a danger of moiré patterns. I am perfectly happy with the image being edited by User:ANOther and being re-saved at a lowerres- but I create text, write articles, comply with WP legislation etc within the limited time I have available. I take it as a compliment that someone has seen fit to c&P all the text of the 53 articles using these images and publish them on paper as a book. I don't however see why I should have by agenda dictated by a bot, that has not correctly interpreted policy. I would be happy if the image had, as in policy, 'received' a closer review- and as a result an administrator had corrected any error- but it hasn,t- I would be exceedingly grateful if an administrator would set up a bot to

• remove ally these erroneous tags
• add a tag saying

As a general rule of thumb, images where one dimension exceeds 1,000 pixels, or where the image size approaches 1.0 megapixels or more, will likely require a closer review to assure that the image needs that level of resolution. This is not a discouragement to use such images, but editors should assure that rationales fully explain the need for such level of detail. Would an administrator look at this image

• automatically reduce the resolution OR
• enter in discussion on the talk page as to a better way forward OR
• actively attempt to get a OTRS statement from the copyright holder
• tag it has been reviewed

I get more than vaguely irritated when rules drawn up for the POP music industry are applied where they are not relevant With 10000 edits under my belt, I really can understand why experienced editors leave WP — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClemRutter (talk • contribs) 12:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

RV Fbot on File:Inspector Calls Edna.png

I've reverted this edit, but expanded the FUR to match more closely the conditions at WP:NFC#Image resolution. Is that OK? --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I went ahead and reduced the file a bit; your new rationale should be good now, given the current size of the file. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The picture still does the job in the article. Thanks for the reply. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Fbot issue, maybe minor

Fbot seems to be ignoring {{Bots|deny=Fbot}}. It just tagged File:Versions of the Doctor.jpg where the template has been placed.

- J Greb (talk) 11:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Hm, it will now. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Versions of the Doctor.jpg

Even after J Greb removed the non-free reduced template, you went ahead and reduced this image. This is an incorrect application of #3b. It should be noted this is not "one" NFC but eleven different ones, placed in a single user-created montage as one of the few acceptable examples as such (since 11 different actors have played the role, this has been discussed several times). So in judging minimum size, we look not to the overall size of the montage, but to the individual parts, which each are about 166x200 pixels (no more than 40,000 pixels); there is no problem there, as long as we understand that there are 11 non-free images there. Treating the montage as the complete image is inappropriate in this case. #3b is not a hard limit, as several past discussions on NFC have stated (if we treated as a hard-fast limit, people will upload images to that maximum size when they don't need to be.

This is why I'm asking about the Fbot 9 task in light of WT:NFC not being notified. It itself is not a bad task, but as it is presently designed, in-congruent with how we deal with overly large images in the past, relying more on human judgement than any fixed math count. --MASEM (t) 18:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

To add, reduction breaks the image map used on Doctor (Doctor Who), and you reduced it even to under the displayed dimension of 275px, and way under the proposed limit 140k, to a mere 42k pixels. — Edokter (talk) — 19:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Fbot + image resolution

Not sure whether anybody has notified you, but discussion has been opened at Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Requests_for_approval#Fbot_9 concerning whether Fbot's current tasking and implementation is really such a good idea. Your thoughts would be useful.

There was also quite a recent discussion on image resolution at WT:NFC, that you might like to add to. Jheald (talk) 19:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, instantly removing old versions of resized images is generally considered a bad idea, because it deprives the community of a chance to see and assess what's been done. Usually it's more normal to leave a gap of say 14 days or perhaps longer to make sure everyone goes along with the change, before locking it down like this. Jheald (talk) 19:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

It's seven days, as built into the {{furd}} template. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

My concern was primarily that Fastily had been removing old revisions at the same time that he'd been doing replacements, and that this probably isn't the best way to do things.

But even seven days is quite itchy trigger fingered. In the past Masem has talked about quite happily leaving months before removing such images -- in the overall scheme of things they make very little difference to our legal fair-use position; but reduction isn't the most obvious of changes, and can take quite a while to get noticed (even with a note on the original uploader's talk page), and removing the revision essentially makes the change final: it becomes very unlikely for a casual passer-by will easily revert (or that it may occur to do so). We can take the time to get it right; there's no particular pressing need to be hasty. Jheald (talk) 12:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Deleted talk page

Hello. Noticed you deleted a rather active talk page, talk:NXIVM, with a G6 rationale. Was this possibly a mistake? JFHJr (㊟) 19:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it was. Restored. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Thankya! JFHJr (㊟) 19:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Logo was deleted because it was orphaned, but now I have a live Wikipedia article for it.

Hi, I'd like to repost this logo: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:KaizenAthleticLogo.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1

It's a logo to accompany this new article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaizen_Athletic

Please advise. Thanks!! Expewikiwriter (talk) 20:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to upload a new logo, if that's what you're asking for. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

G6 deletion

• Talk:Expo Park/USC (Los Angeles Metro station) (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

Why did you delete that page? tedder (talk) 21:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Oops? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Based on your talk history, it's happened before. Guessing you have a cat tedder (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

That's also excuse number 27 in the "I am not a sock" litany: "My cat/dog/parrot/whatever not only made those edits, it has learned my password and it edits maliciously while I'm at work/out driving/at recess/whatever." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Close request

Hi Fastily. There is currently a topic ban proposal at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Stephfo.2C_disruptive_editing_after_unblock that is a bit stale. It has been archived once, after which I moved it back to AN/I, but is not getting much attention. You're one of a few admins I know by name who isn't involved in the discussion, so would you be interested in closing it or perhaps pointing me to a better venue to find someone to close it? Thanks a lot. N^oformation ^Talk 21:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I'll see what I can do. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to say thanks for taking your time to close that. N^oformation ^Talk 07:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Another G6 Deletion

Hmm, you deleted Talk:Butlin's/Butlin's articles" which was transcluded in Talk:Butlins another oops? Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure? :o -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Cheers, as the discussion at the bottom of the Talkpage discusses the article (and other articles that are related) go through phases of being "Butlin's" and phases of being "Butlins" unfortunately those moving it never remember to move all the associated subpages - it's been stable for a while now so hopefully won't happen again. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Emtee (move to sandbox please)

Do NOT JUST DELETE, the talk will be SLOWLY then. Obrigado rapido, apressado, veloz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jornalbrasilia (talk • contribs) 23:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Your deletion of article "The Moth Eaten Howdah of the Tusker" is ridiculous. Categorizing it as advertisement is just an insult to said deceased author who is winner of highest award for literacy in country. That particular article is for providing information on said novel which published long time back,so it cannot be termed as advertisement anyway. Thank You. -- bhaskar ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 03:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Fastily/E#G11 -FASTILY ^(TALK) 10:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The re-salting of Sierra McCormick

Fastily, before you deleted and salted the Sierra McCormick article again, did you ask the unsalting Admin why he unsalted? Did you read the request on his talkpage? Things may have changed since the AfD, and for "up and coming" actors, relying on a decision made 5 months ago - conducted before the TV show that she's in was broadcast (on one of the biggest kids TV channels and shown worldwide) - doesn't really make much sense. Do I have to take this to DRV? (side issue - have you ever thought that with our gender bias and lack of younger editors, deleting articles that they are most interested in, might not be in the WMF's best interests?) The-Pope (talk) 15:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I had a look at the logs and didn't find an instance where the page was unsalted. At any rate, please do consider listing it at WP:DRV if the original AfD no longer applies so the page isn't deleted again. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Undeletion request

Would you mind restoring User:Hurricanefan25/ACE2011, which you deleted on the 28th? Thanks. HurricaneFan25 15:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. NW (Talk) 21:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

User talk:27.110.129.206

I warned them on the three revert thing but they technically already broke it as you can see here as they reverted 3 times and then went and ran their mouth when they're the one's posting false stuff. Swifty*^talk_contribs 17:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

User warned. If they continue vandalizing, let me know and I'll block them. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Evan Mancuso

Thanks for your intervention in this matter. Unfortunately I'm not sure they're going to "get it" and move on. Honestly I wouldn't see the user page as a big deal if they ever contributed elsewhere on wikipedia. But all they've done is try to create this article, and after that was speedy deleted multiple times they moved on to self-promotion via the user page. 128.114.59.200 (talk) 21:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

User warned. If they continue spamming, let me know so I can block them. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

164,025 figure

Hi there, I was looking for a response to my question over at User talk:Fbot. I was wondering how you came to the decision to mark all non-free images greater than 164,025 pixels square as needing to be resized. As far as I can tell, there is no Wikipedia policy on the pixel size other than 1 mega pixel (1,000,000 pixels square), but even that is only a guideline and editors are anyways still supposed to look at each image on a case by case basis. I do see that User:Sven Manguard got a similar number from User:DASHBot, but that Bot only resizes images that have already been marked for resize by a human editor. It sure seems to me that you and Sven just invented a new policy based on an arbitrary mathematical figure, and for the last two days have been using your bot to enforce it across thousands of image pages. I see there's discussion on this above, but just where does this number comes from?-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 21:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Since you're asking me this, I take it you didn't bother to read Fbot's FAQ, which, incidentally, is linked to the bot's talk page in a big red banner. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I did see how it relates to DASHBot, but how does that relate to Fbot? Why use that number, and not one that Wikipedia has on their policy page, such as 1MP? Again, the thing for me is that DASHBot is only dealing with images that human users checked as needing to be resized.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 23:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale is for single use

I thought that Fair Use means you can use something for a single purpose, and my submission of File:Soanya Ahmad (from Channer Conversations).jpg was just such a photo. Why did you and your colleagues label this as unquestionable infringement, when I made every effort to justify my use of the screenshot. It is an option in the list of rationales, in your own guidelines, and I followed it exactly, giving the reason that to illustrate the interview I needed an image capture from the video used as a reference in the article. I had all this information in the Discussion page, which you also deleted just now. Why, why, why? I feel I have been mistreated here, and wish to protest this unwarranted action of speedy deletion. Have you nothing better to do than to annoy other editors here? --Skol fir (talk) 21:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed it is. My mistake,  Restored -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I am no longer annoyed. :-) Sorry for the outburst above, but I did think I had a good case here. I have added more talk to the Discussion page, in case anyone else gets ideas. --Skol fir (talk) 21:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Is this wikipedia article for YOHO Artist Studios ok now? You said it was too promotional last time. Thank you.

It could still use some improvement. Some links you may find helpful: WP:YFA, WP:GNG, WP:ADS, WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:MOS, WP:RFF -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

File:NDENIS FOTO -1.jpg

I don't know if you're aware of this, but a photo you deleted pursuant to a PUF dicussion was inadvertently re-uploaded. It is now the subject of another PUF discussion. See [1]. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks for letting me know. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Copyrights, etc.

I find the photo rules here mystifying, which is why nowadays I only upload photos that I've taken and don't bother with fair use anymore. In regard to the Centpacrr complaint, I'm lost. Can you point me to where you explained why the Schumin picture is allowed but the Centpacrr picture is not? I'm not trying to rile you, I just don't understand. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I never did, actually. I have an issue solely with Centpacrr's behavior and uploads, not SchuminWeb's. I evaluate files based on their own merit, and not in comparison to others. Nonetheless, if there is a concern with SchuminWeb's photos, this should be brought up with him, not me; I do not speak for him. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)