Hello ! I'm in need of reviewers for my FAC for Formula, Vol. 1. I usually don't feel comfortable going to other user talk pages to request reviewers, but FAC already failed once because no one commented and it was deleted and re-created. Erick (talk) 23:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Woah Erick, I am just seeing this! How could I miss it, though. I will try to do a review soon if it's still open. Sorry! — ΛΧΣ21Call me Hahc2103:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I notice it's been over a year since your RFA closed unsuccessfully. I think you've improved in every respect as a contributor, and you'd be a responsible, trustworthy administrator. Do you want to submit yourself for consideration again? If so, would you like me to nominate you? AGK[•]20:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't recommend it Hahc, I wouldn't recommend it to anyone actually. Its your feelings and your decision but you have to ask yourself if you really really need it and is it going to make your Wiki experience better or worse. Everyone knows the RFA process is an utter joke and doesn't have anything to do with who is the most qualified candidate. 108.45.104.158 (talk) 22:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@AGK: Thanks. After careful consideration of this, I think I will submit myself to it for a last time. It's been almost a year since I ever ran for anything, and I think that the landscape has changed sufficiently to say that the results may vary with regards to my previous requests. TLDR: Yes, I'll give it a shot, with you as nom.
@108.45.104.158: I know that RfA is a harsh environment, Kumioko, but at this point, I won't feel bad or discouraged if I don't become an administrator. As I told you the other day, the most important thing on Wikipedia is our content, and that is something I can do either way :) — ΛΧΣ21Call me Hahc2123:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are an amazing editor, if you are nominated you got my support! But decide what is best for you, it is a harsh process, but make sure you read a lot of those miniguides, advice pages and etc. Look over your contributions and interaction towards the community. ///EuroCarGT23:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well good luck then. I hope it works out cause the project needs more people with access to the tools. Sorry I can't stop by and support, IP's can't vote. 108.45.104.158 (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@EuroCarGT: Thanks! This would not be the first time I run, though, so it won't be the first time I do no succeed if I don't :P
Hahc21: Super! I'll draft a nomination in a week or two, hopefully by the beginning of next month, and we'll get this going :-). AGK[•]18:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'll try to find time to refute any bogus Opposes, so you won't be accused of "badgering Opposes" when simply replying to accusations. It would be easier if you accepted the nom on a Sunday evening, so more people would have time to !vote during the week (many of us party all weekend!). -Wikid77 (talk) 01:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend a soft pedal approach to refuting Oppose votes. Any vehement refutation, no matter who it is from, is going to count against Hahc21. Speaking from experience here... Binksternet (talk) 01:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel you are ready then I can only suggest you use will remember to use the tools carefully. Patience and the ability to keep your cool are the two things I look for in a good editor. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 08:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
AGK would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact AGK to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hahc21 3. If you accept the nomination, you must state and sign your acceptance. You may also choose to make a statement and/or answer the optional questions to supplement the information your nominator has given. Once you are satisfied with the page, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.
And so ends the most competitive first round we have ever seen, with 38 points required to qualify for round 2. Last year, 19 points secured a place; before that, 11 (2012) or 8 (2011) were enough. This is both a blessing and a curse. While it shows the vigourous good health of the competition, it also means that we have already lost many worthy competitors. Our top three scorers were:
Godot13 (submissions), a WikiCup newcomer whose high-quality scans of rare banknotes represent an unusual, interesting and valuable contribution to Wikipedia. Most of Godot's points this round have come from a large set of pictures used in Treasury Note (1890–91).
Adam Cuerden (submissions), a WikiCup veteran and a finalist last year, Adam is also a featured picture specialist, focusing on the restoration of historical images. This month's promotions have included a carefully restored set of artist William Russell Flint's work.
Hahc21 (submissions), who helped take Thirty Flights of Loving through good article candidates and featured article candidates, claiming the first first featured article of the competition.
Cwmhiraeth (submissions), who takes the title of the contributor awarded the highest bonus point multiplier (resulting in the highest scoring article) of the competition so far. Her high-importance salamander, now a good article, scored 108 points.
After such a competitive first round, expect the second round to also be fiercely fought. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2, but please do not update your submission page until March (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 00:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably sick of hearing silly complaints about your username by now, but I had an idea that might help placate some of the concerns people seem to be having. Why don't you take up User:AXE21 as a doppelganger account and redirect it to your user page? That way if anybody ever gets confused and searches for you in the wrong place, they'll still find you. ~Adjwilley (talk)18:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Hahc! I just wanted to know why my FLC was not promoted in your latest round of promotions. It already has 3 support votes and there appears to be no unresolved comments holding it up. However, if there's something missing or anything that still needs to be addressed, please tell me and I'll be more than happy to fix it. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Bloom6132: Explanation: Last one I checked was List of Chocobo media and then, since I already had picked 6 to promote, stopped there (I check from bottom to top). However, your list looks ready so if another delegate doesn't beat me to it, I will close it today. Thanks for the ping. → Call meHahc2117:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know this is late but I wanted to take a moment to thank you for your participation at my RfA. I was very inspired by the many that supported me and it’s that feeling of friendship and camaraderie that keeps me coming back to the project. Regardless of your final vote on my RfA, I thank you for your continued sense of fairness and compassion in all areas of WP I look forward to the opportunity to work together in the days to come. Best wishes, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An Arbitration Clarification request motion passed. You contributed to the discussion (or are on the committee or a clerk)
The motion reads as follows:
By way of clarification, the formal warning issued by Kevin Gorman was out of process and therefore has no effect. The provisions of WP:BLPBAN will be reviewed by the Arbitration Committee and where necessary updated.
Please restore this article and take it to an articles for deletion discussion if you think the subject is not notable. The article covers a very notable restaurateur and several of his businesses including two that inhabit historic buildings including a National Historic Landmark. Notability is determined by substantial coverage in reliable independent sources and there is plenty of coverage. You also failed to notify me of the speedy deletion nom. Thank you. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Candleabracadabra: I did not notify you because I did not nominate it for speedy deletion. I just came across the article and it only had two lines of text that did not assert notability at all. I don't think there is anything worthy there to rescue, and you can feel free to re-create it if you found sources that show how Mr. Fernandez meets WP:GNG. Cheers. → Call meHahc2100:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, please restore it so it can be reviewed by editors at Deletion Review. If it only had two sentences that's because someone deleted what was there. It was longer than that and included photos when I last worked on it. I'm sorry that you can't extend me the courtesy of restoring it and taking it to a proper deletion discussion. Rather than create articles on the individual restaurants I decided to combine them into an article on the restaurateur. Plenty of coverage here and here and here and here and hereCandleabracadabra (talk) 00:34, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Candleabracadabra: Yes, it had several images on it too and four references, of which only one was online. Since I don't think it would be good to restore it in the mainspace (it still meets A7 in my opinion), I will restore it as a subpage in your userspace given that you want to work on it. However, I'd recommend to try and find more information about Fernandez alone; after all, the article is about him. Are you okay with that? → Call meHahc2100:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. I plan on adding a couple of cites and restoring it to mainspace. Hopefully before the redirects are deleted. I don't think there is anything wrong with having a combined article and there is plenty of coverage of him individually as well as the well established Bernini Restaurant (in the Bank of Ybor City building) and Carne Chophouse in a National Historic Landmark. It's never pleasant to come across an article I've worked on deleted speedilty without any notification or discussion with me. Take care. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI, when you restored it, you also inadvertently restored entirely unrelated revisions from different Jason Fernandez's (including material that had been deleted as copyvio). I've fixed it, but something to watch for in future. Best of luck with your new tools, –xenotalk13:31, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is the talk and article subjunction deletion, since the unknown somebody acuse it? Has you read the commentary and talk page? Please be kind, How are you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ADHZ07111989 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@ADHZ07111989: Yes, the talk page of a deleted article is also deleted uncontroversially. I read the comments you left in there but the article still, in my eyes, met the speedy deletion criteria that was pointed out. Feel free to start your article again using the Draft namespace and then, after you believe that it's finished, ask for an experienced user to review it before it is moved to the main namespace. Also, welcome to Wikipedia! → Call meHahc2101:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Flotilla (video game) 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 Newyorkadam -- Newyorkadam(talk)06:31, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Flotilla (video game), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page XNA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of Typhoon Maemi and Thirty Flights of Loving to FA status recently. If you would like to see these (or any other FA) appear as "Today's featured article" soon, please nominate them at the requests page; if you'd like to see an FA on a particular date in the next year or so, please add it to the "pending" list. In the absence of a request, the articles may end up being picked at any time (although with 1,326 articles in Category:Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page at present, there's no telling how long – or short! – the wait might be). If you'd got any TFA-related questions or problems, please let me know. BencherliteTalk10:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Bencherlite: Hey! Sorry for not answering before. I forgot about this message among all the recent events. However, I do would like to see Thirty Flights of Loving on the Main Page anytime soon, so I would be glad if you schedule it (I don't mind about the date and I could not think of one that might be special) to appear as you please! Cheers. → Call meHahc2114:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to be the first one to congratulate you on your successful RFA! You're going to be a great administrator and I am very proud of you! Remember that you will most likely be watched by your opposers, so make sure you prove them wrong! — Status (talk · contribs) 02:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations. I hope you find the new tools useful. Some of the concerns raise in your RFA were valid, and I hope you work on alleviating them. (Other concerns were ludicrous and I hope you had a good laugh at them, like I did.) See you around. AGK[•]10:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations! Although your RFA turned out to be as much of a nail-biter as mine was :-), I know the 'crats won't be sorry; you're a good addition to the Wielders of the Mop. Have fun and all the best, Miniapolis13:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mine was a similar nail-biter, but it all works out in the end. I had stayed neutral previously, but now I'm very confident you are ready to do good things. Use the new tools in good health, friend. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER15:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I haven't touched the article since January 2012, so I was going to say no, but looking back on it it's not a bad little article. I also just started playing Infinity Blade 3, so you caught me at a good time. I think I'm going to go for it; feel free to help out! --PresN18:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@PresN: Nice! I have not played any of them but I've read a lot about it. The article is in good shape so I think it won't take much to bump it up to FA. I will start work on it after I finish Flotilla (video game). :) → Call meHahc2118:22, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I created an article about a band that is very notable and has multiple articles online reviewing and talking about it. They are called Voices of Extreme. Please help me understand why you have deleted it as I do believe and have evidence that this band is very notable. (Gdonadio04 (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Hey, the Voices of Extreme article was deleted because consensus determined that it was not notable to have an article. However, you can feel free to start a draft of the article using the Draft namespace and then ask an experienced editor to evaluate and determine if it's ready to be moved to mainspace. → Call meHahc2118:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In recognition for your hard work over the years! I'm glad to see that you've finally managed to become an admin and I know you're going to do well and good work with the help of those extra tools :) Keep up the great work! Best wishes. -TheGeneralUser(talk)18:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Codename Lisa: Nothing to be worried about. Edit wars are always a bit lame-ish under my perspective but they are sometimes inevitable too. My recommendation is to keep discussing on the talk page until consensus is clear, and then ask an uninvolved party to implement the consensus by editing the template enacting the appropriate changes. I will stay in touch for anything you, Command or Jimthing might need. Cheers! → Call meHahc2121:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. Good dilemma. I'd say go with DRN. RfC is for important changes that need as much input as possible. This is not something I think needs that much participation. Also, this is sort of a dispute between the three of you, and RfC is not to solve disputes but to ask the opinion of uninvolved users about proposed changes, not disputed changes. → Call meHahc2121:44, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Gaijin42: Sigh. Why can't people just behave? Please point out to him about No legal threats and if he persists with the threats, then I would have no other option than to indefinitely block him until he withdraws them. → Call meHahc2123:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but in this case the consensus was determined by the majority of the participants. Let me break it down. You and Sidelight12 were the only ones who suggested a merge. Three more users went ahead only with the suggestion of redirecting the article to List of earthquakes in California. Sidelight12 went ahead with redirect or merge. However, redirecting, unlike deleting, keeps the page history available to anyone. This means that redirecting the target right away won't stop any user (administrator or not) from being able to perform the merge by checking a previous revision of the page. I would see a possible case to close the AfD as merge had more users believed that it was a plausible outcome, and then I would have expressed such a desire in my close. However, for what I can see, consensus was clear that the article had to be redirected right away, since redirects are cheap, regardless of if the content was merged or not. → Call meHahc2123:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well if the page is to be merged, where would this be discussed on if and how it should be done? The AfD is closed now right? --Prcc27 (talk) 23:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC) The talk? --Prcc27 (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since the AfD was closed as redirect, and effectively a merge was recommended, any user can feel free to go ahead and merge the content as they see fit into List of earthquakes in California. I am sure that such an action won't be contested. However, if you feel that a discussion about how and what to merge is needed, my bet is that Talk:List of earthquakes in California is the right place. I will be more than happy to help with the merge if you need so. Cheers. → Call meHahc2123:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sportspeople who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astrong1 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You need realiable sources backing up that claim. Feel free to work the article in your userspace. I will be willing to past a copy of it there if you agree not to move it to mainspace until it's finished and reviewed by an experienced editor. → Call meHahc2105:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He re-created it in the mainspace anyway, and also went on a childish rampage blanking other articles with edits like this. I have blocked him for a week for that and for repeatedly removing speedy tags, and (since you offered) userfied his new article to User:Astrong1/Alan Strong. If you don't mind, I would rather leave you to wrestle with the notability standard for indoor footballers and decide what to do about the article. Welcome to the moppers' club, by the way! JohnCD (talk) 10:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@JohnCD: Thanks! bedtime called and I could not follow his recent events. It was very unwise to go and re-create the article after what I told him, but well. I will keep an eye on it and make sure the article is not moved to mainspace before it's ready. Thanks for the welcome :) → Call meHahc2114:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, I'm not sure. The consensus was to delete, and you can feel free to recreate it as a redirect, but restoring the entire history as if it hadn't been deleted goes against the consensus reached in the AfD. If you wish, I could put what was in the article before it was deleted in a subpage of your userpace, but restoring the entire history... → Call meHahc2100:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything to suggest that what is in the history is in any way problematic, just not yet notable. I think it would cause more problems to create a subpage, paste the former content, and then have the redirect, as that would be erasing the history. To me it's to preserve the history, and aid future editors, who can build on the work already done. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is not that what is in the history is problematic. The issue is that consensus asked for the deletion of the article. And AfD is binding. You say that it is "not yet notable," but we don't know when it will become notable, if it ever becomes notable at all. What you are asking me is to go against consensus, and I don't think I can do that. I apologize if my response is not satisfactory to you. → Call meHahc2101:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Opened at 14:32, 13 March 2014, closed at 02:06, 20 March 2014. I calculate about 6 days 12 hours. Am I wrong? I thought all AFD's were supposed to last at least 7 days. I was going to comment again but you had already closed it. --HansBarack (talk) 01:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, true. I saw 20:06 instead of 02:06. Anyways, I doubt that an additional 12 hours would have changed the outcome, and re-opening it now is definitely not a worthy thing. → Call meHahc2101:56, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In general, the closer of a discussion is not taking an opinion on the merits, they are just evaluating the consensus. There were 6 keep votes, 11 delete votes. As there was a previous AFD that also resulted in a delete, that adds weight to that decision. The references to Bushisms is WP:OTHERSTUFF . However, if you wish to contest Hahc's analysis of consensus, WT:DRV is thataway. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Several of the keep votes had no proper weight. The first and the second keep referred to Bushism without offering policies or sources to establish notability. The third keep vote did the same. The fourth keep vote claimed "it has sources!" but that's not an argument of much weight. The fifth keep claimed that work was in progress, which is no guarantee that after it's over the topic will be notable. And the last one claimed that it met notability without explaining how. In opposition, most delete votes did assert why the article did not meet notability, and why it should be deleted. So, at the end, consensus moved to delete. I didn't see the article myself, and still haven't taken a look, so I don't have any opinion about its possible notability. → Call meHahc2115:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm even more confused now. Your descriptions are not what I read in AFD at all. 1st Keep: Made a Notability argument and only mentioned Bushism in passing as an ultimate goal for the article. 2nd keep made no argument. 3rd keep said the same thing as 1st keep mostly. 4th keep mentioned the reliable sources that backed up the article. 5th keep did a google search for notability which is not very strong. 6th Keep summarized the other keeps and questioned the delete votes. 1st delete vote said the article wasn't long enough to be kept. 2nd delete said it should be deleted because it was deleted years ago (repeated nominations) and isn't backed up by reliable sources, which was shown to be incorrect. He also made an argument to person. 3rd delete repeated that it was deleted years ago (repeated nominations) . 4th delete mentioned that it was deleted years ago (repeated nominations) and that it wasn't properly sourced, which again was shown incorrect. 5th delete didn't make a rational argument. 6th delete said the same thing as 4. 7th delete said it again. 8th delete didn't say anything relevant and expressed a personal opinion. 10th delete made another incorrect statement about notability. 9th and 11th delete referred to 2nd delete, which was just incorrect facts and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. The question comes down to whether the topic is notable because of its media coverage. If you had read the article and seen the additional third-party sources I referred to in the AFD you should have easily seen that the consensus was to keep. People can come to AFD and say anything they want but it doesn't make it productive. Most of the delete vote arguments fell into the arguments to avoid at AFD category. HansBarack (talk) 21:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I know where all this is going to. My reading of the AfD close is that it was to be deleted. If you disagree, it's okay, but I am not going to re-open the AfD nor reverse my close, which I consider correct. However, this does not mean that there isn't anything you can do. You can feel free to go to WP:DRV and ask for my close to be reviewed. If consensus there is that my close was incorrect and should be overturned, then I will gladly revert it. Otherwise, I won't. Cheers. → Call meHahc2121:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The topic was covered in depth by the Wall Street Journal, Fox News, Media Matters, The Blaze, About, ABC News, Time Magazine, Mumbai Mirror, Toronto Sun, Hindustan Times, the Holland Sentinel and others. Perhaps I don't understand notability. What more does this article need? --HansBarack (talk) 21:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly know wikipedia guidelines well. In your opinion what is missing from that article that would make it notable enough to keep? --HansBarack (talk) 21:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notability can be a pain sometimes, I know. I rage when I want to create an article about something and I discover that the topic is not notable. Usually, in depth means at least three or four third-party, independent, reliable sources discussing the topic in detail. This means that each article has to be between 3 to 4 paragraphs long, and it has to be only about the topic. Passing mentions, even if they happen in each paragraph, are not enough. The sources must be explicitly discussing the topic, and focus on the topic alone. Articles that discuss several topics at the same time are not enough. Articles that use the topic to discuss other topics are not valid either (a good example is an article that interviews the developer of a game; the article focuses on the game, adding weight to the game's notability, not to the developer's notability). I would have to take a look at Google and do a thorough research about Obamaism to give you a proper yes-or-no answer, but I am willing to try. → Call meHahc2121:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because the issue is interesting (and pinging Bbb23 in case he still agrees) - my conclusion would be that the artwork was copyrightable in both France and the US, and so the validity of the upload would depend on whether the uploader was the artist or just the photographer. I'm curious as to why you assert that the work would not be protected by copyright. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Two questions: (1) hypothetically, what if the work were not protected by French copyright law and (2) why do you think the candidate's answer was "sub-par"?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:56, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That would depend on the particulars of why it was not protected in France. US legislation generally extends copyright protection to public 2D art, but the question is not detailed enough to determine whether there are other factors at play. You are correct that US copyright rather than French would be the overriding concern, though.
In an ideal answer, I would expect to see at least some of the following: a query to the uploader to clarify whether the PD-self tag applies to the art or only the photograph; a query to the complaining user about why they believe this to be a copyright violation (and possibly some consideration of the account's history); some means of addressing the "decorative use in a gallery" bit and its relation to the image use policy; a more detailed explanation of the issues at play here (whether FOP applies or not, which country's copyright laws are relevant, why the artwork is or is not free - depending on details of the situation it's quite possible that the artwork is in fact free); an acknowledgement that the photo is a derivative work of the artwork (this is present); and in general a more definitive and proactive solution to potential problems - PUF receives very little traffic, so the candidate is unlikely to receive much feedback, but he states he would want others there to "double-check the action I would take" (and he doesn't specify what that action would actually be). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: My line of thought focuses on two things: (1) how far the French FOP law actually extends in practice, and (2) whether or not valid proof exists to verify that the work is indeed copyrightable. For example, if I take a picture of a street in Paris that happens to have street art, we might have to consider if the street art is, or not, the sole focus of the picture. Apart from that, we have to take into account that there are two claims of copyright: there is the claim of existence of copyright protecting the street art, and there is the tangible copyright protecting the picture I took. Regardless of if the picture focuses solely or not on the street art, the only verifiable copyright claim is that of the picture I took, unless we speak about notable and widely recognized street art. Even if the street art is widely known, a clear-cut yes-or-no answer doesn't exist. The French FOP law determines that it protects works that pass the originality threshold. What if the street art did not pass this threshold? Then, the only copyright in existence is the one I hold as the photographer. → Call meHahc2101:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23: I was expecting the candidate to give an answer similar to the analysis I did above. And I think that Nikki was expecting the same. → Call meHahc2101:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Er...several issues with that. First off, the question states the upload is a "photograph of a piece of Parisian street art" - if the street art were incidental, I would expect the question to say that instead. (This part would of course be much easier to discuss if we had an actual example, but from the description I was imagining something along the lines of File:Llinars_Graffiti.JPG.) Second, if this is a 2D artwork, usually your photograph would not generate a new copyright, as it would simply be a photographic reproduction. Third, I agree that it's unclear from the question whether the artwork would or would not pass the threshold of originality, but assuming it does, we don't require a "verifiable copyright claim" - the absence of an explicit copyright claim, or even of an identifiable author, does not make the work free. Rather, we assume that a work is copyrighted, and require evidence (usually AGF in the case of claimed self-created works) that it is either PD or freely licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's true. I was making a more broad revaluation of the subject, rather than one focused on Wikipedia practice. → Call meHahc2102:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike speedy keep closes, a discussion with only "delete" votes still needs to be opened for the standard 7 days. This is because somebody could find something last-minute that could shift the entire outcome of the discussion. Cheers! → Call meHahc2115:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. I could swear that I saw your answers a while ago and commented about them on your talk. Was I dreaming?.... → Call meHahc2103:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have to ask about your rationale for closing, rather than relisting, the debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fox Attacks. Specifically, it was demonstrated quite clearly that the supposed sources about the topic were not about the topic at all, and should have severely discounted those claims of keep based on the sources. Furthermore, Sportfan5000 is an indeffed sock. Can I have you take another look? Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how could have I overlooked that Sportsfan was indeffed (I saw that coming), though I took a closer look and a couple other reasons convinced me that relisting was indeed a better option. Thanks for pointing this out to me. Cheers. → Call meHahc2103:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re this, you don't need to know the who the master is to block indefinitely. In fact you can block indef as a suspected sock of someone then report to SPI with a CU request to work out who it is. Assuming that you have compelling evidence of sock puppetry. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. The point is that I don't have compelling evidence that it is a sock, aside from my gut feeling screaming "sock!" all around the place. But since I'm not too familiar with SPI and sock-related proceedings, I prefer to err on the side of caution. Feel free to extend the block to indef if you are more certain than me in this case. → Call meHahc2107:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I just wanted to make sure that you knew that one. It doesn't look like a sock of Smauritius to me though there is enough of a crossover that it could be a new MO, but it wouldn't be enough for me to block without CU confirmation. Whether there is enough evidence to warrant a check is another story, and I think it would be borderline. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't convinced that it was a sock of Smauritius either, but he's not one of the sockmasters I'm familiar with so I am at a loss on that one. My gut told me that it is very likely to be a sock of someone. I have seen this pattern before but I can't point to where. It was a long time ago. However, since there is an AN/I thread about it, maybe somebody more familiar with this one can shed light on the matter. Thanks for keeping an eye though, Callan. Much appreciated :) → Call meHahc2107:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Krimuk. I will look into it a little more. I had held off filing the SPI because I wanted to see how things would proceed. apparently it is proceeding poorly. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that closings were based on strength of argument. How do any of the delete !votes have an argument consistent with the evidence? "just another rape/murder case", "a local murder case", "only a routine news story" are refuted by international coverage in three countries over 10 years resulting in a new award presented in the state capital. The discussion, while presumably about a logical fallacy, repeatedly emphasizes that this case is unique. How is this anything other than a clear keep result? Respectfully, Unscintillating (talk) 09:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This was very far from a clear keep result, in my opinion. Apart from actually voting and backing up votes with valid rationales, there is also the precedent of which is the bright line murder cases must meet to be kept. Behind the "just another rape/murder case", "a local murder case" and "only a routine news story" claims (which should have been more comprehensive, to be fair and honest) are several policies that properly back up what these users said. The first thing I could grasp from these comments is WP:EVENT. For me, "just another rape/murder case" translated into "this is not notable per WP:EVENT, given that it lacks a significant lasting effect and was not covered in depth." "A local murder case" translated into the common and valid claim that "this might be locally notable, but that doesn't make it pass WP:GNG." The second claim can also be translated as to be a disguised mention of WP:DIVERSE. The third claim directly refers to WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:DEPTH. These, taken into account against the rationale presented to keep the article, showed me that the strongest arguments were the ones asking for a deletion. → Call meHahc2116:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Attic Greek: see here. No arguments, no sources, simply demands from me to talk (as if I hadn't tried to talk to Lfdder; the thought of he/she/them going to the talk page to argue against an inter alia heavily cited passage seems to be considered by them as alien) and preferential invocations of wiki-rules; he/she has even admitted that "I haven't even read these edits"... I've reverted this, he/she then reverted back. I don't want to involve myself again in a ban-causing edit-war; enough spice... :) Please help, advise... Thanatos|talk|contributions22:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because the community reached the consensus that you are no notable enought to have a page in Wikipedia. → Call meHahc2118:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
