User talk:Finnusertop

User page Talk Guestbook Contributions

  

• Orders, decorations, and medals
• 
• 
• 
• 

• 
• 
• 
• 

• 
• 
• 
• 

• 
• 
• 
• 

• 

Want to show your appreciation for something I've done?

Your GA nomination of On the Art of the Cinema

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article On the Art of the Cinema you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Viriditas -- Viriditas (talk) 07:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Viriditas. Feel free to ask for additional information if you need it; I know it's an obscure topic. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witness

Hey are you a witness? Just curious Rileyschneider (talk) 02:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC) Oh nice! Well good for you

No, I am not, Rileyschneider. I edit articles that align with topics I am interested in. Looking at my contributions, you will see that recently that has included many articles related to religion, including Jehovah's Witnesses (specifically, New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Let's Trim column changed back to "Genre" after being marked as "Intended Genre"

Marking Let's Trim's designation as "Education" instead of "Comedy" as "Intended Genre" is not culturally insensitive. Let's Trim is television. Who cares what country it's from? If What Not To Wear wound up on PBS and someone inferred its genre were Education, shouldn't we say its genre is also intended?110.55.2.76 (talk) 07:55, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Let me be clear about this: I am not treating television differently based on its nationality. I don't have access to Template:Infobox_television, but "genre" should be "intended genre", no matter where the TV program is coming from.110.55.2.76 (talk) 08:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Your edit has been since reverted again by another editor. I think "genre" is taken to be sufficient per community consensus. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Every time I made that edit, it was almost entirely without the comment of those that reverted it. I marked it as "Intended Genre" the first time, without finding at that time any comment why it should be "Genre" instead. You claimed my edit was culturally insensitive and that I was treating television differently depending on where it's from. As you can see above, I replied. Not getting an answer for about 20 hours, I changed it under the premise that I had just won the debate. The other editor, Emijrp, changed it back. I'd commented on his page, and without getting a reply for about 16 hours, I'd again made my edit under the premise that I'd won the debate. Wikimedia is open source, Creative Commons licensed material. Therefore, if there is a controversy, you can't just pull rank, you are supposed to debate. In a controversy, you can't just call someone culturally insensitive and after they've denied it, you'd just ignore them. What is so important to you about the lack of debate? Have I tripped on some sort of taboo topic?110.55.1.207 (talk) 08:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

It's good to discuss this, I agree and have started a discussion on the article talk page: Talk:List of North Korean television series#"Genre" or "Intended genre". Please note that the absence of a timely response doesn't mean that one has "won" a debate on Wikipedia. Community consensus is built over time and there are no timelines. On the same note, it was okay of you to implement the edits when you received no such reply, but further reverts were probably expected because these editors disagreed with you to begin with. After a few reverts back and forth it's good to discuss further, and that's where we stand now.

By the way, Template:Infobox television only supports a "Genre" parameter and the phraseology is hard coded. But the article we are discussing doesn't use that infobox. Instead, we are talking about a wikitable. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

City of Stonnignton logo

thanks for your help with city of stonnignton logo! Trierdenise (talk) 06:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

You are welcome! – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Zimmber logo.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Zimmber logo.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

how the logo of world scout scout movement could be a non-free image?

i am a member of WOSM ,i have earned this patch/badge And this logo is used mostly in every services of scouting.it's a movement and organization not a commercial institution :1 Promise-Animator,Scout & Participant in Olympiads (talk) 11:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

The copyright to the logo is owned by the WOSM. Only they have the right to decide where it is published. You may have a right to wear or display the badge as a member, but this does not mean that they have licensed the logo for your (or, ours, as in Wikipedia) use. Putting it on your userpage here is publishing without permission, and not allowed.

Wikipedia makes only limited exceptions (and never in userspace) based on the fair-use doctrine of copyright law in conformity with our non-free content policy. You can see that the image description page specifies that exception (File:World Organization of the Scout Movement flag.svg): This file may only be used on the article World Organization of the Scout Movement.

Both commercial and non-commercial works have the same copyright and organizations often retain these rights for a reason. If you are not happy about it, contact WOSM and ask them to license out this logo under a free license. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:47, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks :),I didn't know about these Promise-Animator,Scout & Participant in Olympiads (talk) 11:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Lawrencedepe userbox

Hi Finnusertop. I saw that commented out some non-free images from the userpage/userboxes of User:Lawrencedepe. For some reason it seems that the File:FC Barcelona (crest).svg is still showing up in one of the userboxes. I tried to remove it per WP:UP#Non-free images and NFCC#9, but can't find it anywhere in User:Lawrencedepe/userbox so I'm not sure why it's still visible and showing up in the file's "File usage". I thought about removing the userbox entirely, but that seemed a bit drastic at the moment. Any ideas as to what is going on here? Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:41, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I see it too. Refreshing the pages with purge got rid of it in the userbox: , , but I can still see it in File usage. Purging the file page didn't help: . I don't know why it still shows up in File usage. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. Perhaps its just a glitch that will take a little time to work itself out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Finnish translation assistance

Hello Finnusertop. I saw your name in Category:Translators_fi-en and your user page says that you like to translate Finnish to English. I have a question for you. I am trying to find the earliest we can find that this painting (which may be misnamed on Wikipedia?) was publicly displayed... I found a book snippet here. Text snippet follows:

Akseli Gallen-Kallela Aallottaria (Vellamon neidot) 1909 Kaari Raivio, Helsinki Neljä suomalaista taiteilijaa osallistui vuoden 1909 Panisin syyssalonkiin: Antti Faven (kolme muotokuvaa). Akseli Gallen-Kallela (Aallottaria, Hiihtäjät,

From what I can see and what Google Translate tells me, it looks like the painting was publicly displayed the same year it was painted (1909). Is that what the snippet says? many thanks!   Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:19, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

@Lingzhi: that is correct. I'm going to go ahead and translate the snippet for you:

Akseli Gallen-Kallela's Aallottaria (Vellamon neidot) 1909 Kaari Raivio, Helsinki. Four Finnish artists participated in the Autumn Salon of Paris in 1909: Antti Faven (three portraits), Akseli Gallen-Kallela (Aallottaria, Hiihtäjät [...]

The first part of the snippet appears to be an image caption, or similar; Kaari Raivio (b. 1936) is the granddaughter of Gallen-Kallela so she had probably supplied the image. "Autumn Salon of Paris" I believe refers to Salon (Paris). But concerning your question specifically, it says the painting was publicly displayed in 1909 in Paris. And yes, the file is misnamed on Commons; its name is Aallottaria (the official English translation being Oceanides, according to the National Library catalogue). I'm happy to help if you need more translations or Finnish sources. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey that's perfect, thanks!... and BTW, User:Sgvrfjs is working on a series of articles about the works of Sibelius (just look at Sgvrfjs's user page!)... I'll pass your name along to Sgvrfjs, who may need help in the future.Thanks again!  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow-up on Moran, Finnusertop! I'm am kinda sorta mostly more or less busy at the moment, but may have time... possibly later today, possibly tomorrow... to email Chicago & ask about provenance... thanks again!  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:03, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Non-free image

Thanks for pointing out the image i had used in in my sandbox work for the East Riding FA County Cup was not free to use. I had copied it from the East Riding FA page in good faith. You may wish to take action their too. I shall check more closely in future.Rimmer1993 (talk) 14:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Rimmer1993 and thank you for understanding. While non-free images are never allowed on user pages, they are sometimes allowed in articles. You can check the image description page at File:East Riding County Logo FA.png for a list of articles this image is okay for. Currently it's just East Riding County Football Association, for the reasons given on that image description page. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Other suspected POV case

Could you please review my this and this edit as well. I believe these edits I undid are all by that one and the same user. For the Finland article case I opened a discussion on talk page, since I find some of the content marginally acceptable but it has the same undue weight problem as the Police of Finland edits, but the Capital punishment in Finland edits I find just absurdly POV. --hydrox (talk) 21:08, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@Hydrox: I think your reverts in those cases were justified. The "Military" section of Finland would have been slanted heavily toward recent and even on-going events whose significance it's too early to tell yet. If the motion to call up reserves without delay for refresher training ([kertausharjoitus] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)) eventually passes, it should probably be mentioned. Right now it's just speculation.

The edits to Capital punishment in Finland were, as you put it, little more than absurd. Though the fact that more than just one MP (Hakkarainen) have called for reinstalling capital punishment is probably something that could be discussed in the article - in a NPOV way of course. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Yes, the MP and other True Finns calling for the re-establishment of capital punishment are of course significant in the short term, but I highly doubt any one will give them any serious weight in not-that-distant future, especially since those comments were met with total disapproval by all other parliamentary parties. --hydrox (talk) 21:31, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Sandbox

Hi, I noticed you edited my sandbox? Please refrain from editing it as it is my little space on Wikipedia to play around with things Thanks so much! 14:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnimeMagic2112 (talk • contribs)

Hello, AnimeMagic2112. Quoting WP:UNOT#Non-free images (which I linked from my edit summary):

"Do not include non-free images (copyrighted images lacking a free content license) on your user page or on any subpage thereof (this is official image use policy and the usual wide user page latitude does not apply). Non-free images found on a user page (including user talk pages) will be removed (preferably by replacing it with a link to the image) without warning[.]"

– Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:11, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah Hi, your obviously not an admin so stay off my userpage please tyvfm 17:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnimeMagic2112 (talk • contribs)

No, AnimeMagic2112, I am not an admin, but this is not a task that requires any admin privileges. Please read the Non-free images and Ownership and editing of user pages sections of the userpage policy. You don't "own" your userpage and others (including non-admins) can edit your userpage if it contains policy violations. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I do own my fucking userpage; I contribute a ton of shit to this Wiki and a ton of others and never have I had some asshole fuck with my page who cares what I post on my page it's mine stay off

knock knock

Hey Finnusertop,

May I call you Finn? Please do call me Ling, BTW. Hey I noticed that you made several posts recently that seem knowledgeable about image licensing issues. Do you have experience editing in that area, or were you researching on the fly? Either way, the FAC process and User:Nikkimaria could sure use another editor involved in image reviews. Does that sound interesting? later   Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 17:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ling (yes you can call me Finn). I do have some experience in file licensing issues; mainly at WP:FFD and WP:FFU, but also on Commons. I regard applying non-free content criteria my specialty, but deal with freely licensed files (on Commons) as well. Oftentimes, the real skill is to tell which files are free and which are non-free in the first place (as in that FoP case regarding Madetoja). I'm aware that ensuring that images are licensed correctly (and licenses are respected) is an important part of the Featured article criteria. So yeah, I'd be interested in participating in this aspect of Featured article reviews. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I strongly encourage you to "Just Do It". :-) Your help would surely be appreciated. And I am trying to learn these things as well, so I may ask questions.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Song Hye-rim portrait.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Song Hye-rim portrait.jpg. 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. --B-bot (talk) 18:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Non free image

Hello, the image you removed from my user page was owned and created by me. If it was removed it's probably because I didn't understand how to set a license for the image or whatever the notice on my uploaded file told me to do. Is it ok if I reupload it? I know one thing for sure it is my original work. It has not been stolen or used without permission. Xenohs (talk) 05:30, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Xenohs. In principle, yes, you can upload it again and use the correct license tag this time. But I have a concern that User:Xenohs/DDoS Attack is not in line with the user page policy in any case. User pages are not for promoting (your) album or for storing articles that are unlikely to be ever eligible for main space. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:03, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Alright, then I guess I'll find a way to handle things in my user page. Thanks for the heads-up. Xenohs (talk) 18:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Non free image 2

Finnusertop You removed an image from Natzweiler-Struthof. It is that grim photo of a person killed at that same concentration camp for the skeleton project, and then brought to the university in Strasbourg, where it was discovered when that area was liberated. I picked the image up from Wikipedia, and did not see, still do not see that it is non free. You seem to know more about this. I do not know how to write a non free image justification, which is why I wondered if you could do that? I have tried to write one for past photo needs, but somehow I do not grasp what is wanted on that form. The reason to use it is the same reason as for its use in the article titled Jewish skeleton collection. The Natzweiler-Struthof article was recently expanded to include a fuller description of its history, as well as its present use as a museum and memorial. If you insist I do it, could you give me some hints of how to prepare the form required and how to post it where it needs to be posted? I think the photo adds much to the article, especially as the article discusses the recent (21st century) discovery of the names of all the victims in that project, previously a list of numbers, now published in book form and on line. Thanks! --Prairieplant (talk) 21:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Prairieplant and thank you for taking your time to consider the issue. We first have to consider, can such a rationale be written in the first place (ie. are all 10 non-free content criteria met). Usually, and in this case as well, it's WP:NFCC#8 that's problematic.

This can mean one of two things (WP:NFC#Meeting the contextual significance criterion): The image has to be so intrinsically about the article topic that it is used to identify it (ie. a cover of a book is used to identify the topic of the article about that book, or a picture of a painting is used to identify it in the article about that painting). This is not the case here since the topic is Natzweiler-Struthof, not Menachem Taffel, and we already have another image to identify the camp. The second case is that the image itself has to be critically discussed. This means that the appearance of the image has to be referenced in such a way that without displaying the image the reader would be at loss about what is being discussed. This article makes the following claim: "For many years only a single victim, Menachem Taffel (prisoner no. 107969), a Polish born Jew who had been living in Berlin, was positively identified through the efforts of Serge and Beate Klarsfeld." I don't think this claim needs an image for the reader to understand what is being said. I'm afraid the image is equally irrelevant (as illustration) to the claim that more names have been since discovered.

My opinion is that a rationale can not be written. You can have a go at it (copy the existing non-free rationale at File:Menachem taffel.jpg and paste it after it and change the details of relevant fields like "article" and "purpose"), but it might be challenged. You could also ask at WP:FFD, though it's usually where (non-free) images are nominated to be removed, not added.

One more thing: you could dig deeper into the history of this photograph and find out who owns the copyright and if they no longer do (making it public domain). But it appears to me that this is not a very easy thing to do; see Wikipedia:Public domain#German World War II images. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Finnusertop How you surprise me. I copied that photo because it was what got me to understand what was happening in that gruesome skeleton project, how the people were selected, then brought to Natzweiler to be gassed by the head of the camp personally, or in one case, shot, and then their dead bodies moved to the university for studies that were never completed. In short, the photo made the real story clear to me, so it brought the context. Not because of that man's name, but because it was a corpse preserved and not cremated, to leave no trace as the Nazis thought they were doing, rather incorrectly. How differently human minds work, it is always amazing. By they way, thanks for explaining how you see this in such clear terms. The text initially in the Natzweiler article confused me, perhaps because it was so gruesome a project, and because all the movement of the prisoners was unclear -- why is the topic of this collection in this article? When I went over to the Jewish skeleton collection article and saw the photo, it began falling into place. Natzweiler had the small scale gas chamber for such a project, not the big rooms called showers, that did not dispense water but fatal gases. The Nazis chose the people from Auschwitz, took them to Natzweiler and killed them one by one. It changes the notion of that camp, the reason for the small scale gas chamber, and adds a dimension of cruelty beyond the rest of the people, the most of them killed by work and insufficient food. One other group was singled out when Natzweiler was shutting down before liberation, the resistance fighters who were executed by gunshot. So, does this mean the article needs another revision? As you might imagine, it is a tough subject for research and revision -- not for lack of sources but for how difficult the topic is, and to keep the mind focussed on clear presentation of what really happened, as opposed to what happened. The museum's web site is loaded with information, as are current articles written for 70-years-ago ceremonies. I tried just now, re-read that section, and realized I need my mind to be ready to organize that text again. Another editor was working at the same time I did. He had met people who had all that in their own life story, his motivation to be sure the story in Wikipedia was correct and clear. Recent analysis shows something like half the people in that camp or its sub camps (all labor camps) died (22 K out of 51K). On first reading, it was not clear why Nataweiler was a concentration camp with death as its purpose, when it lacked those large gas chambers and the mostly Jewish prisoners. I think the article makes it clear now why it was not simply a transit camp, but truly the only concentration camp on French soil during the German occupation and the war. Oh you have startled me! In a few days, I will try that section again, describing the photo more clearly. I can do that whether it is in the article or not, as it is elsewhere on Wikipedia already linked to that section of the N-S article. For me, the picture was worth a thousand words, so I have to put some more of those words down. I will follow the steps you describe to try a justification after I give the text a few changes. Then see if you still think it is not at all linked to the context, the essence of the article, the essence of the place and the events that took place there. The commandant Kramer's photo is in that section for his role in the skeleton project. He was tried and hanged before 1945 ended, in part for his role in killing those people one by one. Now to get my mind on more peaceful topics for a bit! --Prairieplant (talk) 01:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed message and thoughts, Prairieplant. It is a fascinating yet gruesome story. I remember seeing a documentary film about it once. I can't remember which one; apparently there's at least a French and a Norwegian one. I'll make sure I revisit the article if I ever stumble upon that again. With regards to the image: yes, it's possible to introduce better writing to the text of the article so as to make the image more contextually significant. In this case, it may or may not work; I wouldn't know. But a word of warning: editorial choices regarding the text shouldn't of course be led solely by the desire to incorporate an image. This article isn't about Menachem Taffel nor even about the skeleton collection, which has its own article. Keeping the right balance here is key. Good and due writing about the article topic is most important. Nevertheless, your message gives some pointers regarding what the image could illustrate in this context. Perhaps the method of preservation of bodies would be something like that. Or maybe identification regarding the serial number tattooed on the victim's arm. In any case, I wish you all the best with this and any other topics! – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

California

You removed a bunch of images from California-related articles that appear to be public domain. This is a heads up that I'm reverting these, and discussion should take place if there's any further issue. --Golbez (talk) 14:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Golbez. These were all marked as non-free files; see each file's description page. If you think some of them are PD, please provide the correct PD tag and evidence on file description pages. We are talking about recent photographs (and sometimes paintings) of deceased persons. It's a special case of acceptable fair-use when it's concluded that PD alternatives do not exist (WP:NFCC#1 per WP:NFCI#10). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

At least one I looked at was also reasonably marked as PD, so either the PD designator is wrong, or the non-free designator is wrong. Either way, I think removal was premature without also making sure the tags are correct. --Golbez (talk) 19:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@Golbez: the image description pages still contain either conflicting license tags (File:CulbertOlson.jpg, File:FriendRichardson.jpg, File:GoodwinKnight.jpg) or in the case of File:Frederick F. Houser.gif are marked non-free altogether. If you want to keep using these in the articles that are not covered by the non-free use rationales, please mark them with a free license and provide evidence of that license. One thing to consider is that even if California has PD for government workers, the persons who painted / took the pictures are necessarily not government employees; specifically: "Works produced under a commission from the U.S. [state] government by a contractor are most likely copyrighted. [...] This also applies to works authored by independent contractors or freelance writers or artists, even when their works are commissioned by some U.S. [state government]." (Wikipedia:Public domain#U.S. government works) If no evidence is provided, we have no option but to keep it safe an go for limited fair use. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

something is weird about commons.wiki

whenever I use my picture(https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Promise.jpg) with code in my userpage I don't see my picture.Wiki displays me a mature content,I am 14 this hurt me,gives me mental depression.Please solve this issue — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prompri (talk • contribs) 07:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

now,requested to move the file,waiting for the approvalI.I guess wiki isn't safe place for me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prompri (talk • contribs) 07:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC) finallyy removed that file to File:A boy scout in math olympiad.jpg, Prompri (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad this was resolved. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

[Thank you for your welcome]

Thank you for your welcomeLuke de paul (talk) 08:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

All 4 logo

hello I would like to put the Channel Four Television Corporation logo in my Template:United Kingdom Radiotelevision Broadcasting, but it says that it is not a free image, what does this mean? There is a way so that I can put it on my article, but if it's impossible to put that image in my article, then could you show me a new one to put there, please I'm a beginner, I need help. SignedLuke de paul (talk) 08:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

It means that the use of this image is restricted to those cases that meet all 10 non-free content criteria, Luke de paul. One of the criteria, WP:NFCC#9, says that non-free images can only be used in articles, given that they meet the remaining nine criteria, of course. NFCC#9 dictates that non-free images cannot be used outside of articles, and this includes templates. You'll have to look for another image if you want to use one. Be sure to check the image's description page to see its license. But it's my opinion that navboxes like that don't usually need images at all. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Could you show me another image then, pleaseLuke de paul (talk) 10:25, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Any free image, Luke de paul. See eg. c:Category:Channel 4. For example, File:Channel 4 logo 2015.svg is something you could use, though admittedly it's the logo of the main channel of Channel Four Television Corporation rather than the corporation itself. But what I said above stands: the navbox does not necessarily need any image at all. In any case, make your edits to Template:Channel Four Television Corporation, not the duplicate Template:Channel Four Television that should be deleted. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, it's me again, now this time i've put on a free image, if you keep removing my edits....User:Luke de paul|Luke de paul]] (talk)

Thanks. The image File:Channel 4 logo 2015.svg is okay. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Luke de paul, please don't create duplicates of the template Template:Channel Four Television Corporation, as you did in Template:Channel Four Television and Template:Channel Four. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

All right, i'll not do it anymore, but there is a way so that the All 4 logo image can become a free image?Luke de paul (talk) 17:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Luke de paul, either contact the copyright holder (which is the Channel Four Television Corporation, or the artist they hired to design the logo) and ask them to license it under a free license (here's how), or you can wait for the logo to enter into public domain (70 years after the designer has died, or if we don't know the designer, 95 years after the logo was first published). Usually, there is nothing we can do about images being non-free and we just have to respect their copyright and our non-free use policy.

In case you are wondering why File:Channel 4 logo 2015.svg is free, it's because it's too simple. The Channel Four Television Corporation logo on the other hand is well above the threshold of originality (both in UK and in the United States). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Scott Walker image

You say that you believe my image is not in respect with the first criteria of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. I'm confused, what do you mean by this? Are you telling me that you have found a free equivalent. If so, provide it to me. Thanks. Oneclicklogin (talk) 05:02, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Oneclicklogin. I'm saying that a free equivalent can be made. Scott Walker is alive and is a public person making public appearances, so a free photograph of him can be taken. The standard of WP:NFCC#1 is that one can be made, not that one has been made already. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi. While that is true, Walker is quite the recluse and modern media appearances are close to none with no concerts being held. I'm still inexperienced, but are you saying that because he is alive and that there is a very, very small chance that free content could be created by a Wikipedian then, according to Wikipedia guidelines, we are not allowed to use non-free content in place until that free media is created? Thanks. Oneclicklogin (talk) 05:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Correct. The only exceptions we make for living people (by consensus derived from precedents) is living people who are incarcerated, fugitive or recluse. And by recluse we mean they live in the woods somewhere and won't leave their property. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for filling me in. How can I go about deleting the image? Oneclicklogin (talk) 06:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I tagged it for deletion upon notifying you. Expect it to be deleted by an admin in a few days. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Removal of Michael Smith image on Nobel prize page

I was just wondering if you could explain your rational a little more clearly. I'm not really familiar with the rules around fair use. I was under the impression that if an image was considered fair use on the biography page it was also fair use anywhere linking to the page. Is this not the case or are there special circumstances where it is allowed only? Thanks Elec junto (talk) 06:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Elec junto (sorry for messing up the link in the edit summary; WP:NFCC#10c). Uses are considered fair use vis-a-vis a fair use rationale, and you must write "a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item" for each article. By the way, I think in this case on cannot be written because it fails WP:NFCC#8 because of WP:NFLISTS. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. That makes sense. I'll be sure to refer to those policies in the future Elec junto (talk) 05:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	:D Poseyrdhnkbhgvfhbk (talk) 02:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

help

i wanna make an article but i need pictures that i dont have i need 1 of a snowman 1 of a double rain bow 1 of a cheesecake and 1 of a sapphire necklace--Poseyrdhnkbhgvfhbk (talk) 02:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

This person is trolling. They wrote some weird stuff on my humor subpage and have made zero useful edits. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 02:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

COI Report

Hi Finnusertop, thank you for your contributions to the article on the COI Report, both on the article page and the talk page. I saw you initially rated it as C-class. I wonder if we could review that assessment. The summary for what a C-class article is:

The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains much irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup..

I had been working with the aim of making the article worthy of a GA - Good article rating. To get there, I think first the article must meet the B-Rating requirements:

1. The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations.
2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies.
3. The article has a defined structure.
4. The article is reasonably well-written
5. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate.
6. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way.

I think these are met:

1. There are about 80 references, with 200+ in-line citations.
2. I believe the topic is thoroughly covered; not only is the report itself summarized with two levels of detail, but also the article provides the context of events preceding and following the publication of the report.
3. It is divided into many subsection in a logical fashion
4. I believe it is well written
5. There are several images to illustrate topics (to the extent that images are available)
6. The language used is meant to be clear and understandable to non-experts in NK issues

Then, from B-class to GA, the article should be Well written; Verifiable with no original research; Broad in its coverage; Neutral; Stable; and Illustrated, if possible, by images. I would tend to think that those criteria are also met.

I wonder if upon a second review, you would agree with this assessment. Thank you for your help. (talk) user:Al83tito 3:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Al83tito and thanks for dropping by. I did not rate the article; I added the project templates and left the rating parameters empty. The C rating was given by Piotrus in this edit. With regards to a GA rating, you're on the right track. It's a good idea to try to reach a B-class rating first. The problem with low-level ratings (from stub to B) is that there is no formal review process and you usually don't get to know what criteria wasn't met. In this case, it's a good idea to directly ask the person who gave the rating (which is exactly what you did here - though the actual reviewer was Piotrus). I've notified Piotrus of this discussion; maybe he can tell you which B-class criteria needs some more work. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@Al83tito: I wouldn't much care about differences between C and B; until GA they are all pretty much opinions of one editor. I did not give it a B because "Summary of report findings" section is missing inline citations. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Piotrus:, thank you for your reply. You are right in that I had not included inline citation in the summary. That was because I thought that when a summary is written about a publication that is the subject of the article, Wikipedia policies allowed for two things: to use the publication itself as the source to prepare a summary (making it one of the exceptions of when a primary source can be used), and, that that since it is evident that the source for the summary of the publication, is the publication itself, that no in-line citations are necessary. For example, I looked at the summary of To Kill a Mockingbird, which is FA-Class article, and I could confirm how there are no in-line citations for that section. That is also the case for Moby-Dick (Class-B). However, as it is often the case in Wikipedia, sometimes there are different approaches to the same issue... And some articles I believe do include inline citations in summaries. How necessary do you think it is in this case? Thank you. (talk) user:Al83tito 3:38, 05 March 2016 (UTC)

Removal of movie poster from The Champions documentary draft

You removed the movie poster from my draft of Draft:The Champions (documentary) draft. Can you please tell me why it's not allowed under fair use? There are plenty of movie posters that have been used on film pages, check out Cartel Land, The Cove (film), blackfish (film), etc.--Jonddunn (talk) 14:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jonddunn: Posters are allowed as fair use in film articles, but they are never allowed in drafts (WP:NFCC#9). Please add the image only after your draft has been moved to the article namespace. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Dab

Removing a link because you personally can't identify the disambiguating term is a little odd, no? You can always either ask, leave it alone, or tag it. But thanks for, er, indirectly pointing it out. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: my bad this time; I checked Paraboloid for what "hyperbolic" means in that context but that article provided no link to the relevant concept. The disambiguation page Hyperbolic (disambiguation) however gives "Hyperbolic paraboloid" (a redirect to Paraboloid). I should have disambiguated this as Hyperbolic paraboloid. (Not all ambiguous links are possible to be resolved. This sort of was.) – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks for the investigation and the reply. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for your assistance in getting the Cirrus Logic logo updated.

Regards, @maczter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.131.2.3 (talk) 16:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

You are welcome, @maczter. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Re move of Denali Federal Credit Union

Finnusertop, when you move an article title during an open Requested move discussion, please close the RM per WP:RMCI. Leaving the RM open causes some confusion for regular closers. Thanks --Mike Cline (talk) 09:51, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

My bad, Mike Cline. I performed it as an uncontroversial move to match the name given in the lead; I hadn't checked the talk page (I should have). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes

Yes I want Wikichef to be in my userpage. Bianca Levine (talk) 13:06, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

@Bianca Levine: Is this what you wanted? It's your user page and you can add all kinds of information about your Wikipedia participation there. Here are some tips: User page design center. For more boxes like the Wikichef one, see Userboxes. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Images

But what if the images were made by me? Do I choose free work instead of non free work?

--Pachisu124 (talk) 23:36, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

@Pachisu124: If an image is made entirely by you – from star to finish, and is not a derivative work of an existing copyrighted work – you can license it under a free license and upload it to Wikimedia Commons. Using a non free work by you is rather theoretical and impracticable so I will not answer that. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:42, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of On the Art of the Cinema

The article On the Art of the Cinema you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:On the Art of the Cinema for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MPJ-DK -- MPJ-DK (talk) 11:21, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Marie Banu

That was an edit conflict. These occasionally happen at AFC, although usually it is that one reviewer declines the article while another is declining it. Maybe the other reviewer didn't notice that the article is an autobiography, or has the view that reviewers, being neutral, may accept autobiographies. I don't plan to nominate the article for deletion. If you do, I will decide how to !vote. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:29, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Following discussion, I did nominate the article for deletion. It appears that it isn't an autobiography, or at least that the editor using her name says that they are not her, so I have reported the username as a misleading username. I don't think that WP:AN is the right forum for discussing whether an article should have been in article space, although it is a valid forum for discussing sockpuppetry. The place to discuss whether an article should be in article space is, in my opinion, AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I agree, and it was not me who took this to AN. This article seems to have many problems. I'll take a look at the AfD later and determine if I think they are surmountable or not. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Eric Cable TP

Yes I am aware. But please see the previous removal, correctly interpreting WP:POLEMIC.