User talk:MECU
|
NOTICE: |
| If I marked an image of yours and you do not oppose the deletion, you do not need to notify me. If I marked the image as replaceable fair use, you need to follow the directions on the tag to dispute it. Providing your dispute here will not help you; though notifying me that you are disputing the tag will be appreciated. |
| This is the talk page for talking to, with or about me - MECU |
|
|
 Archives |
|---|
Image deletion
Nice you deleted a photo which was a logo from a government agency. Last I checked using those was fine. Please do your research next time or explain why you destroyed part of Wikipedia. PatHaugen 02:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I noticed that you nominated Image:Dores-Inj-diag1.png for deletion in early Feb, citing OR, LQ. I'm wondering if the image can be placed in an article so as not be be orphaned. Your thoughts? =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, here's why I am pursuing the matter. The image in question was uploaded by User:Dore chakravarty, an 85-yr old wikipedian. He has contributed immensely to the project by way of articles, rare pre-independent India photographs, and engineering diagrams. At his advanced age, I would not like to push forward the intracacies of the deletion process and why technically his image was deleted. The image was a diagram of an injector, and you had notified Dore of the deletion (User talk:Dore chakravarty#Image:Dores-Inj-diag1.png listed for deletion on Feb 3. Dore, in good faith uploaded the image from memory (I have full faith that his work is credible). I don't know the reason why the image was orphaned, many of my images too get orphaned all the time, so I don't think it should be the raison d'être for deletion. The second reason nominated for deletion was that the image was of poor quality, undisputedly so. Instead of immediate deleting, the image should be referred to the Wikipedia:Graphic Lab for vector conversion. Let me know your thoughts, I can always undelete the image if necessary for your reference. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 21st, 2007.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 21 | 21 May 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Image:Bono_honolulu.jpg
Hi Mecu, regarding Image:Bono_honolulu.jpg, what terms did the copyright holder license the image under? --Iamunknown 19:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you, then the image is a non-free image. --Iamunknown 19:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- The current use of {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}} certainly makes the requirement of notification appear to be in the terms of the license. The copyright holder did not explicitly mention that he or she allows commercial reuse and derivative works (correct me if I am wrong); such licenses are regularly considered non-free both on Wikipedia and on Commons. --Iamunknown 19:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Mecu, you wrote at User talk:Iamunknown:
- "Those are free terms. Attribution is okay with free and the "requested" to be contacted it merely a request, not a requirement of the license." — [2]
I have clarified the license description accordingly. I don't consider such "requests" really acceptable. I see this as a thinly veiled attempt to sneak in "Wikipedia-only" content. Who guarantees us that Ms. Vanbeveren, who explicitly asked to be contacted before a potential re-use, doesn't tell a re-user "No, you may not use the image"? It's not free IMO. Lupo 06:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Requiring contact via E-mail is nothing of the sorts to asking for contact for permission to reuse. I took/read it as "if you're using it, let me know please" and not "if you're going to use it, ask me first." MECU≈talk 12:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Deletion of Ivailo Djourov
Thanks for the note on my talk page. I hate discussions that pingpong between talk pages, so I've responded on my talk page; let's continue the discussion there. -- Hoary 02:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Added Image (Image:LaraCroftTombRaiderEvoWAnniv.jpg)
Hi, Mecu. I might as well just tell you, I'm a wikipedia noob, so if I'm not following any standard protocols you'll know why. I just wanted to let you know that I've uploaded an updated version of the Lara Croft progression of screenshots that you originally uploaded (Image:LaraCroftTombRaiderEvo.jpg). I've also updated the wikis on Lara Croft and the Tomb Raider series to link to the new screenshots. I'm just posting to inform you about this, and to verify that I have attributed the work to you correctly. Do let me know? Thanks!
Shewasjustagrl 11:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
){kind=link}
Removing the 8th holy rebbe of chabad!
How dare you remove the holy tzadik, rebbe of all chabad chassidim and all Jews, appointed king of the Jews, Rabbi Goan Shaul Shimon Deutsch from the rebbes of chabad. I sentence you at once to put him back into his rightful place and do teshuvah! May God heal your sinful soul. 124.168.8.196 10:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image (Image:Detroit Tigers.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Detroit Tigers.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
){kind=link}
Duplicate category deletion
I inadverdently created an (almost) duplicate category. Would you please delete the following: Category:South Alabama Jaguars basketball coaches}}. There is already a similar functioning category: Category:South Alabama Jaguars men's basketball coaches. Thanks, Вasil | talk 14:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image (Image:LaraCroftTombRaiderEvo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:LaraCroftTombRaiderEvo.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 orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 17:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
){kind=link}
Signpost updated for May 28th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 22 | 28 May 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I've been around Wikipedia quite a while and I've seen violations of WP:BITE, and I don't think my comments were anything approaching it. It was a reasonable warning using nice language and referring the person to various Wikipedia policies without insulting the person. I stated my opinion that the information he supplied was of questionable importance, which is a perfectly reasonable thing to say. The language I used is almost exactly like the language you'll find in any of the preset warning templates. Please consider removing your warning from my talk page. Thanks, JHMM13 18:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- One more thing: Your comment here questioning my experience handling "edit wars" is more of a bite than the note I left on the user's page. You claim that a more experienced user would have left a note on the user's talk page, and that is exactly what I did using nice language with links to practically everywhere. This user did not respond and he reverted the page without comments or discussion. Please do not make snide comments about my experience handling edit wars in the future. Thanks, JHMM13 19:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the message, but I wonder which message you were reading. I wrote please three times on his talk page. I also linked him to WP:SPAM saying almost exactly what you proposed I should have said. The user in question was reverting the page and was one revert away from violating 3RR. Was there perhaps a better time to warn him of this? You are right that I should have issued him a welcome message, but I do not agree at all that my message was mean-spirited or impolite. My choice to either be super polite to new users or not as per my user page is precisely that and I do not have to abide by it at all times, nor do I appreciate you bringing it up in the discussion. The user clearly knew of the history page and that his edits hadn't been permanently deleted, so informing him of such seems a bit ridiculous to me, which is one of the main principles of WP:BITE when dealing with new user edit wars. You claim that there was "little communication" but I was the only person in this to make contact with the user who, incidentally, did not reply anywhere. You are making some claims about my conduct that are good-natured, yes, but they are absolutely wrong. I did not have anything to do with RFPP, either in putting the page there or in promoting it. That was another user with whom I believe you have made zero contact whatsoever. Don't get me wrong, I leave notes on other people's talk pages at times if I see a violation of WP:BITE, but I do so without inventing offenses and by not violating WP:BITE in the process. That said, if you had left a message on my talk page that assumed good faith, I would have written you back thanking you for helping moderate the discussion as I have done many other times when requesting the help of another user or when it comes unrequested. In the future I'll try to open more lines of discussion and not immediately revert things based on WP:MOS. I am a victim of my own lack of time to deal with it, I suppose. Thanks, JHMM13 19:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, I look forward to any discussion we have in the future. From the level of cool you show, it almost seems like you're shooting for adminship. If you ever run, do let me know and I will certainly give you my support. After all, I'd be happier supporting someone who has run into a problem like this and learned from it than someone with a "clean" record who only hits snafus after they've become an admin. Adios, JHMM13 22:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the message, but I wonder which message you were reading. I wrote please three times on his talk page. I also linked him to WP:SPAM saying almost exactly what you proposed I should have said. The user in question was reverting the page and was one revert away from violating 3RR. Was there perhaps a better time to warn him of this? You are right that I should have issued him a welcome message, but I do not agree at all that my message was mean-spirited or impolite. My choice to either be super polite to new users or not as per my user page is precisely that and I do not have to abide by it at all times, nor do I appreciate you bringing it up in the discussion. The user clearly knew of the history page and that his edits hadn't been permanently deleted, so informing him of such seems a bit ridiculous to me, which is one of the main principles of WP:BITE when dealing with new user edit wars. You claim that there was "little communication" but I was the only person in this to make contact with the user who, incidentally, did not reply anywhere. You are making some claims about my conduct that are good-natured, yes, but they are absolutely wrong. I did not have anything to do with RFPP, either in putting the page there or in promoting it. That was another user with whom I believe you have made zero contact whatsoever. Don't get me wrong, I leave notes on other people's talk pages at times if I see a violation of WP:BITE, but I do so without inventing offenses and by not violating WP:BITE in the process. That said, if you had left a message on my talk page that assumed good faith, I would have written you back thanking you for helping moderate the discussion as I have done many other times when requesting the help of another user or when it comes unrequested. In the future I'll try to open more lines of discussion and not immediately revert things based on WP:MOS. I am a victim of my own lack of time to deal with it, I suppose. Thanks, JHMM13 19:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Unprotection
Done, and your suggestion is good. Sorry I wasn't around when you asked, and only now I was reviewing my messages and email. I know the protection was about to expire, and hence this is more of a symbolic gesture than anything; but still, unprotected she is, and let me know if I can help in any way to solve the dispute. Cheers, Phaedriel - 13:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image (Image:Playboy0699.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Playboy0699.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 orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 23:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
){kind=link}
Can you take a look at Image:Resica Falls 1980 camp patch.png? It claims to have permission to use the image in OTRS. But if that permission came from the guy who scanned the image, it's irrelevant - the copyright is owned by the Boy Scout council. If it does turn out to be non-free, can you copy it to en and tag it with {{scoutlogo}}? Thanks. --BigDT 12:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Just posted some comments over at the commons. --evrik (talk) 19:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Colorado Folsom Field 135 Commencement.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Colorado Folsom Field 135 Commencement.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Colorado Buffaloes 1920s.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Colorado Buffaloes 1920s.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Colorado Buffaloes 1906 Basketball.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Colorado Buffaloes 1906 Basketball.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
