User talk:Slp1/Archive 10
Non-free rationale for File:Marclepine.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Marclepine.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale. If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- Talkpage stalker here: I fixed this problem. – Quadell (talk) 17:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi there Slp1 - how are you!
You may have seen that I've queried the inclusion of a previously unknown picture of Wilberforce on the article page. Apart from anything else, it seems to bear little resemblance to any other portrait of the great man — although this could possibly be because it depicts him when very elderly. I suspect that the person who uploaded the image of the painting may be descended from the artist, George Hayter, which immediately rang alarm bells (as all of his/her contriburions seem to be about similar subjects).
I wondered what your take on this is? On the other hand, the picture is featured on the BBC website and clearly seems to be recognised by the Ferens Gallery in Hull as authentic. What would you advise? Cheers, Bruce — Agendum (talk) 15:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Bruce. I hope you are well. I'll answer at the talkpage.--Slp1 (talk) 13:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
The image is from the collections of the Ferens Art Gallery, Hull Museums. See the following link
- I have seen this page belonging to the Hull Museums Collections, and have been in touch with the archivist of the Ferens Art Gallery for clarification regarding the date of the work attributed to Hayter, as well as of its acquisition by the gallery. I await a response. Cheers, Bruce Agendum (talk) 23:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- I've heard from the Curator of Art at the Ferens, who forwarded the enquiry on to another person who is Assistant Curator at the Wilberforce House Museum in Hull, and apparently has considerable expertise on the man himself. I have now heard from her also. In short, although the authenticity of the painting has not been challenged before, there is some sympathy for my view about the depiction. In fact, the person concerned has an interesting theory as to the actual identity of the sitter. The consensus of both experts is that the image should be removed from Wikipedia for the time being, while further investigations take place at the gallery (which may take some time).
- I would prefer not to publish the correspondence (which is quite enlightening) here, but will gladly copy it to you, Slp1 – although I do not have your email address. If you wish to send it to me, you can do so by contacting me via my User Page. Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 21:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Dispute opened by Hermiod against Kgorman-ucb about men's rights
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Men's Rights". Thank you. --SarahStierch (talk) 13:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
For you :)
|The Barnstar of Diligence|
|For your exemplary precision in dealing with sources at Talk:Men's rights. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)|
Mario Duschenes photo
Hi - Just a note to alert you that the photo you posted of Mario Duschenes in 2009 is apparently under threat of removal from a bot who claims you provided no fair-use rationale. It looks to me that you did, but it is time to argue and defend the use of this photo. As a long-ago student of Mario, I hope you can succeed in keeping his photo on Wikipedia. Bonne chance. Dirac66 (talk) 16:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Dirac66. Thanks for this. I'll try and fix it, though I agree that it is somewhat crazy making as all the information seems there, just not in a form that the bot deigns to recognize. Thanks too for your memories of Mario. I got started with music learning from Mario's recorder books, so always retained a fondness and admiration for him. --Slp1 (talk) 20:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
|You are awesome and should thus have a cookie. Kevin (talk) 20:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)|