User talk:Peripitus

Archives

May '06–June '06 • July '06 • August–October '06 • December '06 to June '08 • July–December '08 • 2009

Request

Hi, i uploaded three images in wikimedia commons which are the exact duplicate of images i previously uploaded in wikipedia. As such, i would appreciate it if you would take the time to delete the wikipedia images. Thanks. The images are as follows:

Thank you very much. If you don't mind, i have one last request! A week ago, i uploaded two images of the Indian-American novelist, Richard Crasta on Wikimedia commons. On my request, he sent evidence of his permission, but an OTRS ticket has not been issued so far. Therefore, i would appreciate it if you would do as required. The images are as follows:

Richard Crasta 1
Richard Crasta 2 Thanks again. Joyson Konkani 06:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This one too. I uploaded a copy of it in commons a month ago. I forgot to mention this last time. Sorry!

St. Aloysius College, Mangalore Joyson Konkani 09:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Horowitz in Moscow.png

Can the tag on the file's page be removed, as it has not been deleted. Etincelles ♬♬^(talk) 16:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for File:KPCKim.jpg

An editor has asked for a deletion review of File:KPCKim.jpg. Because you were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. The DRV is located here: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 December 9 Dreadstar ☥ 03:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Hrbek Image

You are absolutely correct, I misread the policy. The image has been removed from the article. Thank you for your help. Rapier1 (talk) 06:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Images

Hi Peripitus, The images added have been used by various websites and they are commonly spread over the internet and people are using it. If you search google you will find how frequent these images are being used and i have added the common ones and not the rare which leads to copyright violation as if that would be the case then no one would have used it except the copyrighted holder.... Kindly check my point of view before doing so, as i feel by adding it we are giving a realistic touch ( a face to the article of a living person who might be not so known by all of us.).I feel adding image is just giving more value additions to the articles--Suraj845 (talk) 08:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 November 29#File:Metalslugairbrush.JPG

I was just wondering of you could provide a deletion rationale as there seemed to be substantial grey area on this one. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks i will keep in mind and will add only free content in here...--Suraj845 (talk) 06:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Image

A week ago, i uploaded an image on a Konkani cultural event, Konkani_Nirantari, on Wikimedia commons. On my request, Daijiworld Media Pvt Mangalore has sent evidence of his permission, but an OTRS ticket has not been issued so far. Therefore, i would appreciate it if you would do as required.--Sanfy (talk) 13:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eagle Scout medal 1911.png

Your retag of File:Eagle Scout medal 1911.png is interesting in light of questions I posed yesterday at Wikipedia talk:Public domain#Congressional charter. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of ANATROLLER ARI-100 from Robot page

Please inform me of any changes made to my post before making them. I have the sole ownership over this picture along with Robotics Design Inc., and ave listed it under the creative commons 3.0. Please do not delete this file again. Any comments you may have may be directed to me at helloman911777@hotmail.com or on my discussion page, with the knoledge that once the dispute is resolved, all text from my discussion page will be removed. Canadiansteve (talk) 18:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peripitus I am the copywrite holder. You may contact our company president Mr. Charles Khairallah, at +1(514) 223-2540 and confirm this if you like. The image is under any licence i release it under. As long as it says Robotics Design, or has a logo, I have full authorization from the inventor of the technology and obviously the company to use these images in any way i see fit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiansteve (talk • contribs) 17:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have marked an associated image for deletion for the second time, see Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2009_December_20#File:ANATROLLER_ARI-100_Duct_cleaning_and_Inspection_robot.jpg. I note you previously correctly informed this editor about the correct process for releasing such an image.—Ash (talk) 10:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Danny F II images

I've now sorted the licences for the images used in the article. Mjroots (talk) 12:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been through the other images too. Will add a note to myself on my talk page so I don't forget in future. I think one file I uploaded (File:K&ESR closure poster.JPG) may be Crown Copyright, and therefore copyright expired as it is over 50 years since original creation. Mjroots (talk) 13:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've amended the Non-free use rationale template to show that it must be used in conjunction with the other template. Mjroots (talk) 13:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kings and Queens

Why did you nominate those images for speedy deletion? I have special permission to use those images, as well as several other images from Discogs.com that are currently in use. Please remove those deletion tags. They are not in any copyright violation, for the administrators from that website gave me permission to post them on Wikipedia. --J miester25 (talk) 11:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abike Dabiri

I am sincerely requesting that you leave the article "Abike Dabiri" untouched till i get through with it. Please stop the power-play as i currently cannot source the requested 'References' but will do that soon.Olusegun (talk) 17:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Willis

And hey, how did you find the link? Sneeky bugger! Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 08:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good work :) Merry Christmas and New Year! Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 08:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the photograph of Ms Niku Kheradmand

Dear Peripitus, thank you for your very pragmatic approach to the issue. Thank you also for your message. With kind regards, --BF 13:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Concerning Misc27x.jpg

Dear Peripitus, I seem to be losing this argument. The photo of Allan Sandage has been removed, and I still don't quite agree with your arguments. To remind you, this was a photo of Allan that was on a Christmas card, from around 1965 that was sent to me. When I was in charge of a science library, I was informed that if the images were taken before a certain date, around 1965 or so and not otherwise copyrighted and a new copyright filed, the image would be in the public domain. Because of this, I was able to provide photographs of scientists and science experiments that were cataloged in our library if they were old enough. Thus I am still not sure why the photo was deleted. Because of the deletion, there is now no photo of Allan Sandage as a young man (when he made his great discoveries). However, I am so tired of this fight that I give up and will not post any more photos for Sandage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Puzhok (talk • contribs) 04:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC) Puzhok 02:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for File:Hiram Bithorn.JPG

I has asked for a deletion review of File:Hiram Bithorn.JPG. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Damiens.rf 10:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File Deletion Cause

Hi Peripitus. I wanted to know why on earth you deleted the photo of Delhi Public School, Sushant Lok on the page Gurgaon. Do you live in Gurgaon or what? Please give me a good reason for this as I am really upset. It is one of the best schools in Gurgaon. For your information, the image was NOT copyrighted as I had taken it myself !! Thank You.Mr.A 17:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Jon Johanson

G'day; just a quick note to say nice work on (re-)creating the article. YSSYguy (talk) 11:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My Pic

thanksД narchistPig (talk) 20:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re: The-Police Outlandos-d'Amour-yellow.jpg and The Police Outlandos d'Amour original front cvr.jpg

hi- while i think yr point, that "The small differences can easily be described with text alone, without significantly impairing reader's understanding", is valid for the yellow variation on the cover, this doesn't hold true for Outlandos d'Amour original front cvr.jpg. the graphic design of this cover is different enough to convey a notably less modern, pop-punky feel. this cover is also holds historical interest for being relatively rare. Fp cassini (talk) 00:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 _{File:The-Police Outlandos-d'Amour-yellow.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Fp cassini (notify | contribs).}

   * Non-free image that is very similar to another one in the same article. The small differences can easily be described with text alone, without significantly impairing reader's understanding. As replaceable with a free alternative this image fails WP:NFCC#1 and is excessive us of non-free content (fails WP:NFCC#3a) Peripitus (Talk) 22:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

   Note that this also applies to File:The Police Outlandos d'Amour original front cvr.jpg in the same article - Peripitus (Talk) 22:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Zelluloid

I read what you wrote for the reason why its warranted for deletion but it doesn't make any sense. If im not allowed to post that cover then how else am I supposed to show the viewer the limited edition cover. Look at Kraftwerk's page, it shows limited/alternate edition album covers and there not being deleted or is it another reason what you wrote I can't understand what you said,lol. Please elaborate. Thanks :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KenshinXSlayer (talk • contribs) 06:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I listed the Limited Edition album cover because that cover features additional songs not on the original album cover and people would know what it looks like although it is very rare to find. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KenshinXSlayer (talk • contribs) 21:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Whenicomearoundausingle.jpg

Thoughts on your closure here?

It's not one of the sort you would normally nominate yourself. Jheald (talk) 12:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. To clarify, as far as I am aware, since February last year you have nominated few if any alternate covers unless they looked very substantially similar to ones already in use -- basically in line with the proposal suggested at WT:ALBUMS, which received buy-in at WT:NFC, that Essentially, an alternate cover that is significantly different from the original and is widely distributed and/or replaces the original passes the criteria for identification. The album cover that has just been deleted was not very substantially similar to the other one shown, it was indeed significantly different, and widely distributed.

As for whether "the debate's conclusion was clear", you're well aware that these discussions are not votes. The submissions from Angus McLellan, Bility, and Rettetest showed no understanding of the policy framework of why we generally show album covers at all -- what the purpose is, and why it is considered to pass NFCC#8 -- and so, per the guidance to Xfd closers, should have been ignored. Jheald (talk) 08:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it seems clear...

About this closing, what exactly makes you think "it seems clear that this was created b a US soldier/employee"? Couldn't it have been done by some war-photo-journalist, for instance? --Damiens.rf 19:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion would be appreciated

Noting that you did the GA review, I was hoping you would comment on the issue being rased about the phrase "cliff notes" here. Your opinion is respected either way; I just want to see if this review is an anomaly (which I think it is). If you share the reviewer's sentiments, then changes can be made. Thanks! upstate NYer 23:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

reply from JoshCrutchley

No it doesnt make it clear that they be deleted. It says on the website if you read it, that wikiapedia user name JoshCrutchley as fullrights to use this image on wikiapedia. Please read! I am username JoshCrutchley. He states that this is ok!

I dont know what else to do or how to keep them on here. I have full rights as it states and im showing you that under the image agreement with a link. If im doing this wrong and the owner permission still isnt enough can you put this images under the right section with a tag. Im giving up on this artical that keeps being changed every so many days