User talk:MECU/Archive/2008/January
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
As a UM Bishop he is certainly notable. What was the source of the copyvio? -- roundhouse0 (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- The external link on the page, http://www.cviog.uga.edu/Projects/gainfo/gahistmarkers/bishopfranklinhistmarker.htm . It was word-for-word with the text there. That page states "© Carl Vinson Institute of Government, University of Georgia" MECU≈talk 19:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Copied from my Talk page
Why did you do this? MECU≈talk 20:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- My guess is he assumes you are going to create an article for that eventually and rather than having a red link on his 2008 Texas page, he went ahead and created a redirect so the link isn't red and when you do create the article, his page will automatically go to it. amiright?↔NMajdan•talk 20:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- NMajdan is 100% correct! I was working on the 2008 Texas article and I didn't like the red links. Mecu, I figured you would come along soon and make a proper article. In the meantime, at least the redirect takes the reader to some place that is fairly useful. Johntex\talk 20:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject College football January 2008 Newsletter
The January 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Image:Armillaria.jpg
Why this speedy image deletion? CSD I1 says: Redundant. Any image or other media file that is a redundant copy, in the same file format and same or lower quality/resolution,. The deleted image was not a duplicate of the current version from commons; rather, it was a completely different photograph of a mushroom of not even the exact same species (as I recall was written in its description). Han-Kwang (t) 22:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- The other image on Commons is identical. But, it means that it doesn't meet CSD I1, so I restored it and marked it that it's a commons duplicate. It should get deleted here in 7 days then. MECU≈talk 02:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- OK, I didn't realize Image:armillaria.jpg it was at the commons under a different name (Image:armillaria (1).jpg). Han-Kwang (t) 10:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Jaden.jpg
Hi, I was wondering why you keep deleting Jaden.jpg? I don't really know too much about wiki images, but I do know that Jaden, the owner of the photo, said I could use it for wikipedia. Could you please help me out?
Thanks, Kris (talk) 19:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Jonathan Pease
Today an article titled "Jonathan Pease" was created and then speedily deleted. I read it before it vanished - it was not about the Jonathan Pease I know, a successful racehorse trainer. It was a pooly conceived paragraph about an Australian celebrity, and was quite rightly deleted.
An article concerning the racehorse trainer is long overdue, and the vast majority of backlinks which have been removed are about him. They existed long before today's dodgy article and need re-linking as soon as possible. -- Zafonic (talk) 17:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Return the page Paeonia peregrina that you just deleted. Hardyplants (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't like being ordered around. My deletion was certainly justified. MECU≈talk 20:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
this is sort of a "SIGH" message
and not an attack of any kind. I started uploading images, mostly of sculpture in the United States in 2004 (or so) when the rules and templates et al were not so well defined. I now find them being plucked off one at a time thumb|88px|left this being one of the most recent ones, and I am not inclined to go back and write up fair uses for them all, partly because there are humdreds of them, but also because likely what happens is No, that's not good enough etc. My reading of copyrights is that pre-1990 works copyrights expire when the creator dies and he's dead in this case. Not that this makes much difference to you, because I understand that you are doing this to make wikipedia a better (more legal) place, but I no longer have the inclination to keep this up and am tempted to just remove all my images and save you the time and trouble. Let's see. I think I will begin with Lee Lawrie. Do you think a Removed because of possible copyright violations is a good tag to use? Life. It's always interesting. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 23:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- I understand your frustrations, and I've been there too. You could create one generic one and apply it to all of these. I don't think I've ever seen a "rationale not good enough" other than replaceable, for which this couldn't really apply, other than making an attempt to contact the owner and get a free license which is a long shot to begin with. I know it's frustrating, you do have 5 days though. I'm sorry too. MECU≈talk 04:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, I think I will let these and the other go. The ower of the works is the City of Cleveland, but the copyright is probably the estate of the late Marshall Fredericks. Anyway, it's not just these three or four shots, it's the other 500 or so that I do not have time to go back to. But don't do things that you are sorry for. It's not good feng shui - or something. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Can you please have a look over at the talk page? Thanks. RaNdOm26 (talk) 15:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Image:Rayvercruz.jpg
Hello, I have a notice with regards to this image, however, I never added this one. Miaaa8 (talk) 12:20, 06 January 2008 (UTC)
- It was Image:MarianRiveraiGMA.jpg. MECU≈talk 22:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
David William Dodds
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article David William Dodds, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of David William Dodds. Korg (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Unspecified source for Image:127526416_4ccd08814c.jpg Tag
Please loook at talk page. hjuk (talk) 05:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
On permission licensing
On Wikipedia, we have a strict definition on what is considered a free image:
- Firstly, "Wikipedia-only" licenses are not allowed, they have to be freely redistributable.
- The requirement of attribution is allowed though (please note)
- Commercial use MUST be allowed
- Derivative works MUST be allowed.
That's why we can't use stuff like Creative Commons Non-Commercial or No-Derivs, it's not compatable with Wikipedia. Get him to license it under something like "Creative Commons Attribution". ViperSnake151 16:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Whoops, sorry, accidentally clicked the one who nominated that image, not the uploader! Sorry... ViperSnake151 16:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Deletions
Sorry, I added the templates I thought were appropriate using TW but I can see that was wrong. The problem is User:Bilalabbas has flooded the Peshawar article with many of these unlicenced and poor quality images. Some of them are very blurred and definitely should be deleted. One just shows some guy standing around, which is just unencyclopedic but wth hindsight it would be better in AfD. Green Giant (talk) 20:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Ron Paul image in OTRS?
Hello. A while ago, we had a discussion on the Commons about an image of Barack Obama on the Commons which was deleted via email through OTRS.
I was wondering if it would be possible to confirm the copyright status of another image, Image:RonPaul.jpg. A user, Borisblue, submitted a ticket to OTRS a few months ago with an email that supposedly confirms this image is free to use, but there hasn't been an OTRS template posted on the image page by a user with an account. The ticket number is 2007111910015184.
I am still suspicious of the copyright status, since it only says "unaltered use permitted" on its source page [1], but Borisblue says the campaign said the opposite via email. Would it be possible to confirm this image's copyright status (i.e., they didn't just say it was usable on Wikipedia, etc.)? Thanks for your help. --Tom (talk - email) 04:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- The OTRS permission was not sufficient. Another agent had replied and asked for a specific license that they wished to use it under. So the image cannot currently stay. However, it does seem they are willing to license it freely, under a free license, including modification, that would be acceptable to us, but we haven't ever received a response from either party in 2 months. So, I will delete the image because the license terms are not currently acceptable, but if you (or anyone) were to try and get a specific license and statement of release (see WP:COPYREQ), I believe they might do it and we could have such an image. MECU≈talk 13:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 2nd and 7th, 2008.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 1 | 2 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 2 | 7 January 2008 | 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 (talk) 09:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
You deleted this image as having no fair use rationale, and now the uploader has re-uploaded it claiming they have permission from the copyright holder. I've asked them to provide proof that they have such permission, what would my next step be? Corvus cornixtalk 23:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Mark it as "no license", since there isn't any license on the image (I already did this). If they add a license, but no statement of permission or OTRS information, then you can list it at WP:PUI stating "permission claimed but no OTRS, see WP:COPYREQ" which is what I would do. You could leave a message on their talk page telling them about COPYREQ and OTRS permission needed before PUI listing, but it's a 14-day delay at PUI minimum, so I just list it. MECU≈talk 18:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. Corvus cornixtalk 21:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Greetings. I recently added 2007 Hawaii Bowl to FAC. If you agree, I would love to have your support in the nomination. Thank you, PGPirate 16:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Images uploaded by User:Greenock125
You recently deleted a number of images uploaded by User:Greenock125 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) as suspected copyright infringements. The user has embarked on another spate of uploading images. These include some Geograph images that had been deleted, but with "The photograph is licensed under CC Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic." added to the summary. Don't know if that suffices, I did advise on the user's talk page about how to use the Geograph template. Examples include Inverkip.jpg and Langbank.jpg, while at Woodhall.jpg a Geograph image replaces a Railscot image. The user has also been reported for suspected sockpuppetry at WP:SSP#User:Fila3466757. Your advice or comments will be welcome. Thanks, .. dave souza, talk 17:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- All the new images appear okay. The source page clearly identifies the valid free license. Before, there was no such declaration of any license. I haven't deal with the user other than deleting the images, so I can't help much more. MECU≈talk 18:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, that helps. .. dave souza, talk 23:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:SanFrancisco49ers 1000.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:SanFrancisco49ers 1000.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 14th, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 3 | 14 January 2008 | 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 (talk) 08:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Image:Coronation_Street_Opening_2002.jpg
I have tagged Image:Coronation_Street_Opening_2002.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 11:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:RockyMountainShowdown.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:RockyMountainShowdown.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Reds 2.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Reds 2.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 12:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:OTRS
Hi Mecu-- Curious about a couple of things and thought you might be able to help. Interchange fee looked a little biased and short of citations to me. I saw some heat there (silly reversions) and then looked at the talk page. How can a talk page be locked? Or are they referring to the page itself? If so why wouldn't the article itself be tagged as such? what does OTRS have to do with it? Finally where is the right place to ask these questions? Village pump perhaps? Mediathink (talk) 23:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)