Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:19, 17 December 2012

Archives

Note: If you leave a message here I will most often respond here

VladimirMeraklija84

Ok, can you please help me tag these since they were recomended for deletion, they are not in any way taken without consent, but given to me by their authors personally. Files concerned are in FK FAP article as well as Priboj City Stadium article. I tried to fix them, but obviously I do not have enough experience. This is a very important info for me as well as FK FAP. I reside in the United States, but I have direct contact with the club.

geezerlaw

I received a notification that this photo *File:Kristina Vaculik & Elena Davydova.jpg was going to be deleted. It is a personal photo given to me by the mother of the subject to put on web re daughter. Can you unrestrict? I have asked her to send in a consent but she is away and not sure if I have given her the correct instrucitons.

ankhmorpork again

user ankhmorpork is edit warring on dhimmi-page again. he is also gaming my 1-rr restriction.

RE:Karen Kondazian

Hi, Can her head shot be used? Also, Is there any way to put the picture up or do they all have to be free use. Since Karen does own the pictures...I could ask if she wants to do this.

I'm all set. I resubmitted the picture as free use.

Rada Cutlery Page

You deemed it as unambiguous advertising. I was simply giving the general information about the company. Any advice or help would be appreciated. Along with this, I have added credible references to Rada Mfg Co. page. I wanted your input on the Rada Cutlery page as these two are two different divisons.

Thanks, KightIa

thanks.... begzada

thanks for helping For Page Begzada 18:06, 27 Sep 2012 --BeyPeople (talk)--

About the Image: Stefan_Brunnhuber.jpg

Dear Sir,

With due respect, I would like to draw your attention to the following fact that about a couple of months ago I have created an Article on Misplaced Pages with the Title: Stefan Brunnhuber. The link to the Misplaced Pages Article is: http://en.wikipedia.org/Stefan_Brunnhuber. On that Article, I have uploaded some images. All of them were deleted by you. One of the image was named as Stefan_Brunnhuber.jpg. The Link to the image file is: http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Stefan_Brunnhuber.jpg. Mr. Stefan Brunnhuber has personally contacted Misplaced Pages through Email and the Misplaced Pages Authority has approved the image called Stefan_Brunnhuber.jpg with the Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Stefan_Brunnhuber.jpg. So, shall I re-post the image on WIKIMEDIA Common? Or is there anything else that you can suggest me to do. I would eagerly wait for your reply.

I, therefore, hope that you would be kind enough to give me a solution about the problem and oblige me thereby.

I remain, Yours Sincerely, Sourov00.

Your premature closing of an RfE without obtaining consensus first.

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

In case you missed it, I posted my reply. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you planning on responding? Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that as an admin, you are required to justify your actions. First, you blocked an editor against consensus and then you closed an RfE without consensus. Perfection is not expected from admins, but that's 2 bad mistakes in a row. You need to explain why the community should entrust you with the tools. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I think I gave you all the answers that were needed. When you started commenting on the AE closure, you were simply late to the party; the consensus of administrators had already formed and was stable, and AE threads commonly get closed whenever that is the case. If you are not happy with the outcome, that is your prerogative, but don't claim I didn't explain myself. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

That's not how consensus works here at Misplaced Pages. When a new editor offers a fresh perspective, you need to take the time to examine their analysis, not bowl them over because you have the admin bit. You closed down the thread only '6 minutes after I posted. Do you honestly think that all the AE admins had a chance to read the post or consider the issues I raised? It's one thing if you admit that you screwed up. Like I said, perfection is not expected from admins. But it's quite another if you don't think you've done anything wrong, because you're likely to repeat the same problematic behavior. AE requires admins who carefully weigh the facts, not admins who jump the gun, and you did it twice in a row. Personally, I'd rather work things out with you and I'd rather not file an ArbCom case, but you abused your admin tools twice, and you need to justify why the community should trust you again. You're not helping yourself by being evasive. Please help me to resolve this matter. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is how consensus works on this project: consensus can stabilize and be formally called even while a single observer is still unhappy with it and still wants to argue about it. In this case, consensus among uninvolved administrators formed between the edits by myself (13:01), ErrantX (16:31), myself again (17:25), John Carter (17:28), T. Canens (18:40), and Seraphimblade (18:40). Your objections were raised at 17:53 and stood on the page for more than four hours, until my closure at 22:03. During these four hours, none of the admins who agreed with the closure chose to take up your points. At least three admins (me included) were active on the page after you made your opinion known; at least one other was online during that time and may have seen it, but did not choose to respond. Thus, your objections were known; if nobody took them up it was presumably because they didn't convince people. The fact that you chose to expand your argument once more at 21:56 didn't change the situation.

I committed the heinous crime of sealing a consensus with which you personally disagreed, that's the long and the short of it. To present that as an act of admin abuse is, frankly, outrageous. I consider this matter closed now. My obligation to explain and justify my admin actions does not extend to being available for continued pestering indefinitely. Your postings on this matter have been repetitive; more repetitions will most likely be ignored. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

If this was an ordinary discussion, your premature close would have been reverted, and then consensus could be obtained naturally. But since you're an admin, it can't be reverted by members of the community. So, we are back where we started. Why should the community entrust you to use the tools?

Again, I am trying to resolve this dispute in good faith. Calling good faith attempts at dispute resolution as "pestering" only undermines your case because it doesn't appear as if you're providing a good faith attempt to resolve this issue. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of WP:AE is to cut through nonsense and resolve issues that are causing disruption, and which often require considerable experience from dedicated admins who work in the area. The admins and onlookers at AE need no assistance in deciding whether a particular action needs to be overturned or addressed in some fashion—if there is no one to support a claim that a problem has occurred, there is no problem, and the current discussion is a misunderstanding. Johnuniq (talk) 02:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

This is what consensus looks like. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Uhm, no, that's what an editor making minor stylistic tweaks to a posting of his looks like. Was that really the diff you meant to link to? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Surely, you can figure out that I was referring to the entire discussion. Does this really need to be spelled out? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Strange. I don't know where in that page you see anything like a consensus for or against anything – to me it looks rather like a lot of people disagreeing with a lot of other people. But I suggest you don't waste your time further explaining it to me. I am well aware of what is going on on that page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Afrikan Liberationist

You just indeffed this guy, the guy he called a racist idiot is dead, so that was not a BLP thing. Two edits and you indeff? Seems a tad harsh. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:21, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Point taken about the guy no longer being alive (hadn't noticed that, honestly), but it's still quite blatant disruptive editing, and his response to you looks pretty much like trolling to me. In fact, the other edit where he calls (unnamed) critics "racists" could also be seen as a BLP violation. I see little or no value in warning such people and trying to educate them to become NPOV-abiding Wikipedians; the only thing that typically achieves is to turn them from clumsy POV-pushers into more sophisticated POV pushers. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I would not call it disruptive editing, just a guy with a little tude. Your shout but I think a second chnace ought to be given, just ask the guy to read the rules Darkness Shines (talk) 23:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thank you for the work that you do. It has helped me and many others when a disruptive editor is blocked. Keep up the good work! Maine12329 (talk) 08:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Dethklok Live at The Tabernacle, Atlanta, GA, on 8 December 2012.jpg

Hello, is it possible to change the licensing on this photo so it does not get deleted? I was not sure where the copyright on this photo falls under, as I took it myself, but could find no option for performance photographs.

Ah, if this is your own photograph, then you can release it under any license of your own choice. If you are willing to put it under a free license, such as {{cc-by-sa}}, there shouldn't be any problem. We'd only need some form of proof that you are really that person – the easiest way to do that would probably be to just add the licensing statement on your own original website (e.g. "This photograph is released under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license"). Thanks for your contribution, – Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello Fut.Perf., I have edited my blog with a Copyright and Attributions disclaimer on the left hand side underneath the user image: http://cigsphotography.blogspot.com/

Deleted Ruger Images

Hello. You recently deleted 4 images that I uploaded. I wanted to see if you could help me. I obviously did something wrong with the way I uploaded them. I have permission to use these images. I got the permission, in writing VIA e-mail from the company that owns the images. How should I go about uploading these images? I thought that "logo" was the best category to put them under (I was wrong) and I didn't mean to mark them as non-replaceable. All of this was done through the upload wizard.

Again, I would beg your assistance. I want to be a helpful contributor and follow the rules. I DO have permission to use these images, I just don't know how to cite them I guess. Thank you for correcting my mistakes and thanks in advance for any and all assistance! --Zackmann08 (talk) 22:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The permission you mention will only be of help to us if it is a fully free license, i.e. one that allows not just us to use the images on Misplaced Pages, but also everybody else to use them elsewhere, for whatever purpose (e.g. the standardized {{cc-by-sa}} license). Can you please clarify if that is the owners' intention? If yes, please forward their licensing statement to our registry at "permissions-en (at) wikimedia.org". If not, I'm afraid there will be no way for us to keep them, according to our image use policy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

They specifically did say that the images were usable under "Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License". (I got the feeling that the person who responded to my e-mail was a Wiki-Editor him/herself.) I forward the email this morning, about 6 hours ago. Do I need to wait for the e-mail to be processed or something? Again, please forgive my ignorance. I know my way around editing but still have a LOT to learn. --Zackmann08 (talk) 22:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah, that changes a lot. If we have a cc-by-sa license, you just need to say so on the file page :-) (Next time, if you use the upload wizard again, use the section about "free files by somebody else" and it will guide you through the right questions). I'll undelete the files now and change the description on one of them as a model; I'd ask you to adapt the rest accordingly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I would be more than happy to! Thank you so much. I'm sure you get a lot of people yelling at you for deleting their stuff. I hope I didn't come across that way. Thanks again for your help! --Zackmann08 (talk) 22:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

As a followup, if I upload additional images from this same source, do I need to re-send the e-mail? --Zackmann08 (talk) 22:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

If the text of the e-mail makes it clear what images it applies to, it should be sufficient to point to the existing mail as registered in OTRS. Once the license has been verified by the OTRS people, they'll put a tag with the OTRS ticket number on the file page; it should then be ok to just re-use that tag on any subsequent files. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Terrific! Yea, the initial email contained a link to the first image I uploaded. Thanks again for all your help. --Zackmann08 (talk) 22:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Sabyasachi's grand finale collection of 2008.jpg

Hi there,

I am quite new with wikimedia commons, can you help me with this image, the image is retrieved from flickr

http://www.flickr.com/photos/21481508@N07/2981926588/in/photostream/

i have even mentioned the individuals name who posted this on the website...however, i cudn't find the licence of this website...i saw another image taken from the same site & the licence appears there http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Manisharora4.jpg......

can u plz help me this???

regards Callousfreak (talk) 10:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The image on Flickr is described as "all rights reserved", so it is not under a free license that we can use. In this situation, the only way we could possibly use the image would be if it fulfilled our criteria for non-free content, and I don't think it does. Your description in the non-free use rationale doesn't really make a case why the article needs this particular image. Could a new photograph that somebody might take of some other fashion show of this person not serve as an illustration just as well? If it could, then using this one instead is out. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Sanctions

What kind of sanctions? I am involved in MMA, and would like to know about them. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 07:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Look a few sections above on the WP:AN page, under #MMA sanction proposal. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

What does this mean exactly? Does this mean removing MMA from wikipedia? I dont support that if thats what that means. MMA deserves to be on here, like any other sport. And the editors do not deserve to be harassed by deletionists. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 08:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

It's got nothing directly to do with deletion. It just means that whenever editors (from either camp) behave in an aggressive, unconstructive manner, the threshold for admins to hand out blocks or other sanctions will be far lower than it's been up to now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I just hope it's not one sided. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 10:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello!

Hello, please close this Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Karthikndr. Thanks! -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 16:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Seems like somebody has done so already. A pity it had to end like this, but I hope you'll understand I had to raise these objections. Let me say again that I appreciate that you finally came clear about those image issues; that will certainly make it easier for you if and when you decide to give it another try later. For now, it was certainly the wisest decision to retract, as it would otherwise have resulted in a frustrating pile-on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Hie, I have sent you an email. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 04:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello brother, I would face this embarrassment and would come back in flying colors with in an year. I'm quite stressed out now, hence will ping you when back, if you can help me and mentor me. I strongly feel WP India needs a better admin, and would make it, not now, but after being an all round editor. Will need your help! Thanks and cya soon. :) -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 06:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

non free stuff

Hi, Future Perfect at Sunrise, you seem very knowledgable in the areas of non-free content. So I'd like to ask you, do you think File:I Not Stupid screenshot 2.jpg and File:I Not Stupid screenshot 4.jpg should stay and qualify for fair use? Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 08:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Pics

Uhh, why would you delete these Simpsons pics when there was no consensus? Many of them passed GAC and even FAC with the pics in. CTF83! 11:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

See previous DRV of 25 November for a preceding batch of similar kinds (closed by another admin), and multiple precedents. I deleted those where no tangible argument for NFCC#8 conformance was made, either in the FUR (which in almost all these cases was entirely boilerplated and devoid of concrete reference to the specific image and article, and thus prima facie invalid) or in the FFD (as the two stereotyped "keep" votes never addressed the individual NFCC case of the specific images either). In these situations, the "delete" argument of the nomination statements, even though itself also boilerplated, remained valid and stood unchallenged; hence the deletion. I've so far skipped those cases where I could see at least some kind of discussion-worthy claim to NFCC#8 relevance, and/or some actual debate in the FFD involving specific, substantial keep votes. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Propose adding guidance on etymology sections

Hello Future! I've responded to your comments at Misplaced Pages talk:What Misplaced Pages is not#Propose adding guidance on etymology sections. Cheers. Kaldari (talk) 18:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2012 December 13#File:Coachs Daughter.jpg

I've made a reply and an update. --George Ho (talk) 02:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Fringe

I removed the latest fringe claim added by Antidiskriminator and as it's almost certain that he'll revert it back without admin intervention, please remind him some of the basics of wikipedia if he does so.--— ZjarriRrethues —  09:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

As expected.--— ZjarriRrethues —  17:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom case request notification

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Future Perfect at Sunrise and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,