User talk:B

Too quick to revert

My apologies on my 'knee-jerk' reaction to your recent edits. For some reason I did not see the edit summary, maybe it didn't load correctly. I am sorry if this caused any offence or trouble in your editing. Please keep up the good work.

  Bfpage |leave a message  13:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Local image file question

Thanks for answering my question on that Franz Ziereis discussion. I still have a further question. I had actually mistakenly thought that you had created a local Wikipedia page for the Commons file because of the Wikipedia logo in the top left and the URL being wikipedia.org, then clicking the Commons link from there showed a different page: the Commons logo in the top left and the URL being commons.wikimedia.org. But then I saw there wasn't actually a local Wikipedia page (if I click Add Local Description I could create one). So what are we looking at with that first page, then? Should I use that type of link when I show a commons file in my Wikipedia articles? Thanks. Prhartcom (talk) 17:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

A file on Commons - I can reference it just as though it was on Wikipedia

You can link to the image directly as though it were on Wikipedia. For example, File:VT Hokies Marching Virginians.jpg is an image I uploaded to Commons a long time ago.

• If I want to use this image in an article (like I did to the right, you can link to it just as though it were on Wikipedia, e.g. [[File:VT Hokies Marching Virginians.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Caption here]]
• If you want to discuss an image on a talk page, you put a : in front of the link, so I give you a link to File:VT Hokies Marching Virginians.jpg inline, it will take you to the (non-existent) description page on Wikipedia where, because no Wikipedia page exists, it shows you the Commons description.
• If you add ":commons" to the link in text (not when you are using the image in an article - Commons:File:VT Hokies Marching Virginians.jpg - then the link will take you straight to Commons. Normally, the only time you would want to do this is if you are discussing an image where someone has uploaded one file to Wikipedia and then someone uploaded another file to Commons with the same name. (If we need to make the Commons file available, then we would either delete or rename our file.) There is no way to display the blocked Commons image, so you would never do this in an article. --B (talk) 18:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

This will work with all Wikimedia wikis (WikiNews, Wikipedia in other languages, etc) - if an image is on Commons, you can include it in an article as though it were uploaded to the local wiki. I hope this helps. --B (talk) 18:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

You're a Hokie? Just kidding. So one would think I would be satisfied with such a complete and helpful answer, but here I am still droning on, asking you to clarify. But this is kind of interesting, check this out, and you will see what I meant in my question above: Go back to the file delete discussion page: Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 February 25#File:P8050293.jpg and there are two links I'd like you to click on. The first is when you say, "I have uploaded it to File:Portrait of SS Standartenfuehrer Franz Ziereis.jpg." The second is when you provide the file image to the right of that statement. Click on both. Notice how, for the first link, the Wikipedia logo is in the top left and the URL is wikipedia.org, and for the second, it isn't? Cool, huh? I had only clicked on the first, saw the Wikipedia logo and the URL, and assumed you had created a local file instead of linking to Commons, so I had asked my original question. I wonder what is happening with that first link, showing us the Wikipedia logo and URL as if it is a local page? Prhartcom (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

When you click on the image, the behavior there is based on a (relatively) new add-in. I think that most people see the popup of the image and then a button at the bottom that says "More details" and takes you to Commons. I guess whoever wrote the add-in just decided to do it that way instead of taking you to the local page. If, instead of left-clicking on the picture, you right-click on it and choose "Open link in new window", then it will actually take you to the same https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Portrait_of_SS_Standartenfuehrer_Franz_Ziereis.jpg page on Wikipedia. --B (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Email problems with yahoo

My reply to you was erased. There is a known problem with emails: for almost a year now, emails have been bouncing if the sender's email address is @yahoo.com, see phab:T66795, Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 129#Is "Email this user" on the blink? and the threads linked back from there. This often comes up at VPT, and some people are under the misapprehension that the recipient's email address is the problem - it's not, it's that of the sender. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Apparently, the lesson here to be gleaned from deleting the VPT thread is that the correct solution to the problem is to stick fingers in our ears and hum really loud. --B (talk) 13:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I have sent Wikipedia mail to B, User:Redrose64 and User:EoRdE6. If you don't receive the mail then you can ask for a copy at the address on my website linked on my user page. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Received. --B (talk) 14:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Re: replaceability

Re: "it's been established numerous times"—would you mind pointing me to where this is documented? czar ⨹ 18:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

For one thing, WP:FREER explicitly says it. Here's one example of a previous discussion [1]. Here's another [2] where it was completely agreed that if we did not have a "free" license for the photo, we would delete it. --B (talk) 18:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Intercollegiate Studies Institute Student's Guide Multi-volume set.jpg

The article Intercollegiate Studies Institute was undeleted, so now there is a template with no reference. Can you revert the deletion of the image, thus making it reappear automatically in the article? --Jonund (talk) 09:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Done. --B (talk) 10:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Anybody-can-dance.jpg

Can you roll back the latest edit to this file? This will restore the source and the fair use rationale. The source is on the spam blacklist, so I can't do this myself. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Done. Do you not have rollbacker? Do you want it? --B (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I have rollback rights on Commons, but not here. Twinkle's rollback function allows me to enter a rationale, and there is less risk that I accidentally click on a link which results in a reversion. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Please delete this images or mark for speedy deletion whatever as they are copyrighted, Non-Free.

Please delete this images or mark for speedy deletion whatever as they are copyrighted, Non-Free.

File:Nokia Beta Labs screenshot.png

File:Nokia Beta Labs logo.png

49.200.95.101 15:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.200.95.105 (talk)

Both are tagged for deletion and will be deleted (either by me or by another admin) when the waiting period is up, provided that the images continue to be orphans. No further action is required. --B (talk) 21:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Dorothy Pittman Hughes/Steinem

Please cite the policy or rule that inclusion and mention of the Dorothy Pittman Hughes/Steinem photograph is violating. I'm not clear on your rationale for deletion or how it pertains to Wikipedia policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VeronicaRoss (talk • contribs)

@VeronicaRoss: Please see WP:NFCC#8. Non-free content is only permitted "if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." --B (talk) 20:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Some info, please

Could you please explain to me how I can post a photo of Acadian author France Daigle (recipient of the 2012 Canadian Governor General award for best novel of the year in French language literature) that would be appropriate on Wikipedia? I'm still a novice at this, and I don't have much Web development knowledge. The Copyright issues seem quite complicated to me, yet there are photos everywhere on Wikipedia on a myriad topics, and especially normally on a page of the person in question. I posted a photo of her, which was deleted after seven days. Could you or someone find me a photo of her to post which is not problematic on Wikipedia? I thought the photo was fine, but I guess not. Nitpicker74 (talk)

@Nitpicker74:, Most likely, there is NOT an existing image that you can use as is. The vast majority of images on the internet are NOT acceptable to use on Wikipedia and there is no tag that you can put on the image that will make them so. The reason for this policy is that Wikipedia believes in promoting free content, that is, content that is not encumbered by the need to obtain copyright clearances. So in the case of living people, we do not use images under a claim of fair use because we would rather encourage donation of a public domain or Creative Commons one. Please see foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy, which explicitly forbids Wikimedia-owned wikis from using portraits of living individuals under a claim of fair use. Please see also this statement from Jimbo Wales, which explains his reasoning for what was not yet policy in 2006 but is now. (If you are in personal contact with a photographer and would like to ask him or her to publish an image under acceptable terms, please see WP:COPYREQ for details and WP:CONSENT for the consent form we would need from the copyright holder.) --B (talk) 12:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks for the information, and for replying so quickly.--Nitpicker74 (talk)

Country Attire deletion

I am currently working on my first page which I would like to set up for Country Attire but I can see that this was previously deleted by you due to notability. I was wondering what the concerns were in relation to this before I proceed? --Fashionista888 (talk) 16:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• @Fashionista888: I have moved it as a draft to User:Fashionista888/Country Attire. It was deleted as an expired prod, meaning that it can be restored on request. You can work on the article in your user space and, when you are ready, follow the draft instructions to ask for another user to review it. Please see WP:CORP for the guideline on inclusion of articles about company and WP:COI, if relevant, for information about writing about your employer. --B (talk) 17:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Your user page

B, your user page has no content other than a redirect to this talk page. Please explain why you'd do this. Editless941 (Talk · contribs) 22:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

@Editless941: Because I do not want a user page. Wikipedia is here to build an encyclopedia, not to build Facebook pages. --B (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Message from User:Gpop87

Hello B and Sander,

I have full permission from my friend to use this photo, and he does not hold a copyright. He took photos of me, developed them, and gave them to me to keep and use. He is not a professional photographer and is not looking for any credit and/or compensation for the photo. I find your website incredibly difficult to use, and I very highly doubt he would know how to get in touch with you as he is quite old (PS, maybe make wikipedia more user friendly). I don't understand why you are being such photo nazis, he is not going to sue you or me, he is an average person taking a photo for a friend as a memory.

Gorgi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gpop87 (talk • contribs)

• @Gpop87: Every photograph (or any other creative work) made is copyrighted - even if you do not actually register the copyright with the copyright office. Because one of Wikipedia's goals is to create what we call free content, that is, content that is not encumbered by copyright restrictions, we require copyright releases. There is a form at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries that your friend could fill out and submit. If he does not use a computer, you could print it out for him so that he could sign it. The completed form needs to be submitted to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. --B (talk) 02:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

let me know when to begin replying

Please let me know when you have run out your exercise with the images I have uploaded. Obviously you are devoting a great deal of time in this effort even though presumption seems to be driving most of your judgments and your personal comments. When you have finished, I will begin to respond to each as time allows. Not having the luxury of free time that you seem to have, it will take time, but I will go through my records for each and reply. Please note the correct classifications for those classified incorrectly so that changes may be made. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 01:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

• @83d40m: The correct place to reply is at the relevant deletion discussion, mostly Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 March 30. You have uploaded a good number of images that are very clearly copied from the internet. Merely the act of retouching an image does not make it your own. You should not call it your "own work" unless you, personally, held the camera in your hand, aimed it at the subject matter, and clicked the button. --B (talk) 02:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Advised by other editors to ask if you could restore an article as a draft

We found out recently that an editor who created an article about our company was someone who should not have been editing Wikipedia in the first place because they were "Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban". We were unaware of this and was advised by several editors to ask if you could restore our article as a draft as this was not our fault but rather the banned editor. The article was for AirportShuttles.com - please let me know if you have any questions at all. Thanks for your time in advanced.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Airportshuttlescom (talk • contribs)

@Airportshuttlescom: No, the article will not be restored. Banned means banned. This individual is banned from Wikipedia and anything he creates will be deleted on sight. I would suggest that you refrain from engaging the services of people who claim that they can publish articles on Wikipedia for you. This sort of behavior is all-but-prohibited and is, at the very least, highly highly disliked. Please see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for Wikipedia's guideline on editing articles about yourself, your employer, etc. --B (talk) 19:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the (un)professionalism in your response as we were unaware of how to get basic information about our company on Wikipedia. Again it is just basic information about our company, nothing more exciting or earth shattering than that. You could have been more professional and just mentioned to me in your response that the editor was banned and instructed me on ways we are supposed to get our basic company information on Wikipedia. I will contact Wikipedia directly as I disagree with your decision especially the response you supplied me about my concerns. By the way the other editors who I brought this issue to in your Wikipedia chat were much more professional and understanding of how getting listed in Wikipedia could be misunderstood.

@Airportshuttlescom: I am sorry that you feel that way. Wikipedia takes a very dim view of both paid editing and banned users violating their ban. You asked for the restoration of an article that hits both of those and I replied to your request. Were we to grant such requests, then bans would be meaningless, as banned paid editor could simply have his customer request restoration of the article after it was deleted. If you choose to pursue an article, you are welcome to do so. I would invite you to consider three things if you do. (1) Wikipedia is not free advertising. Any article about your company must be well-sourced and neutral. (2) Please consider the guideline linked above which concerns writing about your own employer. (3) Please be aware that not every business-related topic is appropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia. Please see WP:CORP for our guideline of which topics are appropriate for inclusion. (I have no opinion on whether or not an article about your company would be appropriate - I am simply sharing the relevant guideline with you.) If you would like help with creating an article, it is help available through the articles for creation process. --B (talk) 20:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Great. That is all we were asking as 2 editors said to ask you if you would restore it. If not then simple tell us how we are supposed to do it as we are unaware of how to do this is all. I appreciate you correcting this with me and I will look at the link you sent to see how to do this. Thanks :)

Gypsy Philharmonic

That's fine. You have made enough improvements. I didn't want to delete it, but at the time it was simply not compliant. Deb (talk) 07:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

La Question (album)

Bonjour, J’avais cru bien faire en remplaçant l’image du compact disque de 1995 par l’image de la couverture originelle de 1972 (que j’avais mise en « Fair Use »). C’est certain, j’aurais du en aviser AndrewOne. Veuillez m’en excuser. Je voulais coller au plus près de l’origine de l’album puisque j’en avais modifié l’infobox et l’article. Ce n’était qu’une tentative d’incursion dans wikipedia en anglais de ma part alors que d’habitude je travaille plutôt dans Wiki en français. Apparemment cela n’est pas couronné de succès. Tant pis pour moi. Cordialement, Lézard (talk) 12:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@Lézard: I apologize, but I do not speak French. I have read your message using Google Translate and will include my reply, also using Google Translate. I do not have an opinion as to which image is better. When a "fair use" (fr:fair use) image is not currently used in any article, it will be tagged for deletion. If the image is still not used after seven days, it will be deleted. If there is a reason that one image or the other is better, you can discuss that with AndrewOne (talk · contribs) or on the article talk page. --B (talk) 12:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

French translation: Je me excuse, mais je ne parle pas français. Je ai lu votre message en utilisant Google Translate et comprendra ma réponse, en utilisant également Google Translate. Je ne ai pas une opinion à laquelle l'image est meilleure. Quand un "usage loyal" (fr:fair use) image ne est pas actuellement utilisée dans un article, il sera marqué pour la suppression. Si l'image ne est toujours pas utilisé au bout de sept jours, il sera supprimé. Se il ya une raison pour laquelle une image ou l'autre est mieux, vous pouvez discuter avec AndrewOne ou sur la page de l'article de conversation. --B (talk) 12:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

B-bot

Just to let you know, your bot has quite a high badness score on Huggle and is popping up every three revisions or so, and will probably continue to do so until you get a bot flag, so keep that in mind when testing good luck with the bot! EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 03:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

@EoRdE6: What is it that the bot is doing that Huggle doesn't like? It is editing its own userspace. Is there something that it can do to exclude itself? --B (talk) 03:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I was hoping you would know how to get white-listed actually (maybe the huggle instructions/talkpage knows... What it's doing wrong is anyone's guess but Huggle doesn't like it... EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 03:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

It looks like they store their whitelist off site at [3] - Firefox crashes when I try to load this. I don't see a way on Wikipedia to add it. --B (talk) 03:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Blalock Image

Hey B, thanks for your advice. I was just having a bit of trouble understanding how images work on Wikipedia, given that I am using wikipedia for a school project. So the Balock image can remain on the page? Thanks again for your advice. Rschwa99 (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

@Rschwa99: Yes, the photo of him can remain there under a claim of fair use. If you are at Johns Hopkins and have access to old yearbooks, it may be worth seeing if that photo was published either in (a) a 1922 yearbook or (b) in any yearbook prior to 1978 that did not contain a copyright notice. If it was, then photo is no longer copyrighted at all. On of Wikipedia's missions is to promote free content, that is, content that is not restricted by copyright issues and so certainly the preference would be to have a photo that we know to be in the public domain. Many other Wikipedias (most notably the German Wikipedia and Spanish Wikipedia) do not permit fair use images at all. If the copyright has expired on the image, then it could be reused in a German or Spanish version of the article. But if it is copyrighted, then they would be unable to have a photo. --B (talk) 12:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton - Move Discussion

Hi,

This is a notification to let you know that there is a requested move discussion ongoing at Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/April_2015_move_request#Requested_move. You are receiving this notification because you have previously participated in some capacity in naming discussions related to the article in question.

Thanks. And have a nice day. NickCT (talk) 18:30, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Note on Doors22 matter

Nice to hear from an admin! About your comment, it is not a content dispute. it is a behavior issue - long-term POV pushing. I know the evidence is long, but if you read the first bit, that should be clear. I know it is long but i wanted to be fair and show that the evidence was not cherry-picked (way too easy to do that, for a claim of long-term POV-pushing) Jytdog (talk) 01:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

David F. Hickey

This may or may not be a dupe of what I tried to send otherwise. As I tried to explain, I may have left out necessary specs or appealed to the wrong release, but the photo you deleted is clearly stated as for free use on the following page http://catholic.bz/v1/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=99&Itemid=86 Please enable so that I can reinsert this image and tell me what I must do to respond to the issue you find here. I'm certain this photo is meant to be in the public domain and can get further permissions if you tell me what more you require. Gratefully jzsj 05:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzsj (talk • contribs)

• @Jzsj: I deleted the photo because it is also on Commons and there is no need to have the same debate two different places. The concern I have - and please see my question for you at Commons:User_talk:Jzsj - is whether or not we can accept this statement of license at face value. Since all of the images are on Commons, can we hold this discussion there? --B (talk) 10:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Did you check the permission given on the web page http://catholic.bz/v1/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=99&Itemid=86  ? I hate to keep bothering the Bishop on this unless absolutely necessary and they thought that the note and symbol placed on the web page would be quite sufficient. But if you can't accept that as sufficient then please get back to me and I'll send him the form to fill out. Thanks. jzsj 11:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzsj (talk • contribs)
    • @Jzsj: Again, I left you a detailed note at Commons:User_talk:Jzsj. The point that needs to be clarified is that this is NOT a statement of permission. A statement of permission needs to have three components:
      1. Identifying what image we're talking about
      2. A clear statement of copyright ownership
      3. A clear statement of license

      We're good on point #1, but points #2 and #3 are not there. When I read "This work ... by unknown ... is free of known copyright restrictions", what does that mean? Does that mean (a) the diocese owns the copyright to all of these photos and we release them into the public domain, (b) we did a thorough copyright search and have determined that the copyright has expired on all of these photos, or (c) we found these pictures somewhere and have no idea if they are copyrighted, but we don't know about any copyright restrictions?

      For each of these images (or maybe for all of them collectively), we need some information about the provenance. Where is the image from? Did an official photographer who is an employee of the diocese take the photo? We just need some explanation. --B (talk) 12:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok I'll send this to the Bishop's representative who maintains the Diocesan website where the pictures appear. Please allow a week or so for a response. Thanks, jzsj 12:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzsj (talk • contribs)

BMNH

Hi B~

Thanks for your help with appropriate tagging for the pics in this article and for having the insight to argue against article deletion, etc. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 06:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

@DRosenbach: The permission submitted for the images is not sufficient. If you have not already done so, please contact the copyright holder and ask him to use the form at WP:CONSENT. --B (talk) 11:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

About an article written to defame

Hello User B, I'm writing in respect to this article "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shunaid_Qureshi" It was purely written to defame the subject. Court cases and issues of arrest were discussed in the article.The reference sources quoted are not real. The subject or person written about is in deep sorrow. An enemy is using wikipedia to defame and get back at him. When has wikipedia become a ground for defaming others? I though the rule is focused on neutrality. I've tried to nominate the article for speedy deletion but another user removed the tag. I want you to read through the article and judge whether it's right to allow it be on wikipedia. Thanks a lot Rose Rosemaryujoh (talk) 15:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

@Rosemaryujoh: I am not quite sure which references you are saying are not real. There is one dead link claimed as a reference, but the rest look legitimate. The article does not appear to be subject to speedy deletion criterion G10 as an attach piece. If you would like to nominate it for deletion, please see WP:AFD for instructions on how to do so. --B (talk) 16:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Here are the lines that appears to defame

Thanks dear, but check this lines in the article... They are defamatory! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shunaid_Qureshi

Allegation in Al-Abbas Sugar Mills Limited

A suit has been filed in Sindh High Court against chief executive officer, Shunaid Qureshi, for his alleged involvement in the activities including diversion of money belonging to his company. Sindh High Court issued notices to Al-Abbas Sugar Mills Limited, its Chief Executive Officer and others on lawsuit regarding misappropriation of company bonus and alleged illegal transfers of funds.[4][5] Brawling in JSCL Meeting

In January 2014, charges were filed against Qureshi regarding an alleged violent assault at a shareholder meeting of Al-Abbas Sugar Mills.[6][7][8] Naya Nazimabad Controversy Main article: Naya Nazimabad

Shunaid Qureshi, developer of Naya Nazimabad, CEO Al Abbas Sugar Mills and former Chairman Pakistan Sugar Mills Association (PASMA) was arrested in January 2014.[9][10]

Thanks Rose Rosemaryujoh (talk) 18:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

==

The man "Shunaid Quresh" is being defamed. Someone create the page to bring shame to him.. I guess, the article is not neutral in this case. Do we use wikipedia to defame someone else?