Revision as of 22:19, 22 May 2009 editAitias (talk | contribs)Rollbackers50,076 edits →WP:AN/I: new section← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 07:14, 6 May 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
(378 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== File:Turtle_crossing_sign_JPG.jpeg == | |||
== Deletion == | |||
Could you comment over at ] about this image. Regards, ] <sup>(])</sup> 22:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
Please do not gratuitously remove content from Misplaced Pages{{#if:|, as you did {{#if:|with }} to the ] page|{{#if:|, as you did with }}}}. It is considered ]. If you would like to experiment, please use the ]. Thank you. <!-- Template:Test2a (Second level warning) -->] ] 20:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
==]== | |||
== Deleting images without any discussion or explanation == | |||
Sorry for the late response; yep, it checks out. ]<sup><small>(])</small></sup> 19:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
Fasach Nua, please do ''not'' remove images without either engaging in discussion, or (at the very, very least) providing some form of explanation. It was bad enough when you were doing multiple reverts a short while ago using only cryptic references, but today's deletion of images from several ''Star Trek: Voyager'' articles did not have ''any'' form of edit summary. You may or may not be correct in removing them - I'm not addressing that issue here - but your methodology is causing problems. --''']'''''<small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small>'' 20:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
:Fasach Nua, you know full well that the images were not ''added''; instead, they were restored from deletions by ''you'', all of which were without any form of explanation whatsoever. (One of your edits even broke the formatting for an article's infobox, an error that you did not correct when you reverted me.) Again, as per what I and others have told you repeatedly, you would probably find that your concerns receive a more positive response if you took the time to engage in discussion, rather than just deleting without even explaining why you are doing so. --''']'''''<small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small>'' 21:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
::(reply to your message on my talk page) Please do not misrepresent the situation. You deleted material, you did not explain why, you did not provide an edit summary, and you refuse to participate in any form of discussion about the deletions. FN, I'm presuming that your intentions are good> However, you must keep in mind that the behaviour I've described above - if taken by an IP or an editor without a good track record - would be considered vandalism. Please reconsider your refusal to explain your edits; I am certainly not the only editor to take issue with this problem. --''']'''''<small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small>'' 21:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
Your tag was reviewed and your concern was dismissed by two separate editors. Do not edit war. If you would like to stop wasting everyone's time with drive by tagging, and demonstrate that you are actually acting in good faith, then post your rationale on my talk page and we can discuss it. Before you do, I would suggest you actually read the article, because at this point, I very strongly doubt you have. ]] 23:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
== Deletions == | |||
== History of Sesame Street FAC == | |||
] Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Misplaced Pages{{#if:|, as you did to ]}}, you will be ] from editing. <!-- Template:uw-delete3 -->] ] 20:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
Hi Fasach, | |||
== Edit summaries == | |||
I wanted to let you know that I moved the discussion you were involved in regarding ] to its talk page, as per Sandy's recommendation. I moved your oppose, too, but returned it after I was told that I shouldn't have done it. I was also told to ping you, although as it turns out, it's not going to make much difference because it looks like Sandy's going to archive it because of lack of consensus. | |||
Please read ] about using edit summaries to detail why you perform your edits. ] ] 20:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
I also wanted to ask your opinion about an idea I had regarding the article's images. I've suggested that instead of the images being too few or not high enough quality, that we just not have any images at all. Does a featured article, especially one about the article's subject, *need* to have images? What do you think? Be honest, now! ;) ] (]) 22:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
== |
== Image assistance == | ||
Am working on a page now that has a lot of images. Appreciate any advice on what to look for in terms of questionable stuff. See here: ] (]) 06:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
] This is the '''last warning''' you will receive for your disruptive edits. <br> The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Misplaced Pages{{#if:|, as you did to ]}}, you '''will''' be ] from editing. <!-- Template:uw-delete4 -->] ] 11:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
:HEY! '''That was a serious request for help.''' Would like a gander at these images with a bunch of different licences, and maybe learn myself how to think through some of these issues as well. Also, in particular wonder of this issue of when something is listed as government derived, but it's not really obvious the source (govt document or current web precense). ] (]) 21:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
If you continue to remove content from Misplaced Pages, especially without an explanation, you will be blocked from editing. ] ] 11:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
::I had not been on wiki between first and second messages and would encourage you to check activity before leaving follow up messages. I have had a superficial look over this article and for the most part it is fine. I have concerns about ] regarding the email (not huge concerns, but concerns none the less), ] is fine, it is basically CC with attributions, ] has serious problems, it is derived from four different images, and the licensing for all must be compatible with the one used on the montage, this is currently not the case! On ] issues it is generally best practice to have images with faces look into the text, and for lists it is much tidier if all images use the same aspect ratio. ] (]) 14:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
== Fair use images == | |||
:::If you are having trouble tracking images back to their source I would recommend ] (]) 01:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::OK. Thanks for the comments! ] (]) 08:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
If you consider an image to not be being used in accordance with fair use policies, could you please open a discussion at ] rather than just deleting them without comment from articles. If there is a reason to delete the images the yes, they should go, but just removing them from articles without comment isn't a very productive way of approaching the problem. As you see it's started a few edit wars and disruptive editing patterns. So please, if you think an image isn't suitable or not allowed to be used, please take it through the deletion discussion instead of gratuitously removing them from articles without explanation. | |||
Also, I encourage you to use edit summaries on your edits to prevent edit warring and to let other editors know why you've performed an edit. Thanks. ] ] 11:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
== |
==]== | ||
Hi, I restored the non-free use rationale, you gave no reason for its removal. There was a discussion about that image in the FA nom which you started but did not reply to any further, sadly. Why remove the note now that the discussion is over? Regards ] (]) 01:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
== Image question == | |||
Hi. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. ] <sup>] • ]</sup> 13:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
Your thoughts on ? It ''sounds'' good but ... Thanks,--] (]) 19:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
== Responses == | |||
:It is not implausible, although I would be wary of terms like "generally considered", the definition of "published" is crucial here, and the method and extent of publication should be stated, along with the states in which the publication was made ] (]) 21:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
::I'd really like to see something a bit more authoritative on the legal side, too.--] (]) 21:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
::: is a photo lawyer's blog. Very far from definitive legal opinion that Wehwalt is going to buy, but still I donno...interesting. ] (]) 21:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
It is very important to keep ontop of the flood of image violations we get every day. I thank you for that effort. However in doing so you must explain to folks that ask why you do things in a clear and concise manner. Failure to do so is no better then reverting to the "correct" version in an editwar without discussing your revert on the talk page. Its just as ], and it does not help others understand why you are doing your actions. Please work on using accurate and informative edit summaries and spend time explaining your actions to those that ask you. Thanks —— ''']]</font><sup><small>]</small></sup>''' 16:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
::::Which entry do you feel bears on this?--] (]) 21:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::::None. Sorry. :( There was one that did bear on something important a while ago. But I can't even recall what that was. I guess if you wanted an opinion you could pay her for one. Although I'm sure you could just look up right sort in DC as well at some big firm. Sorry, too much segue. Brain blood pressure dropping again (grr...) ] (]) 22:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
== FAR == | |||
Not a problem. Anyway, including that in ] would be too much trouble for the worth.--] (]) 22:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
In practice I don't think it's as stringent as FAC ''']''' ('']'') 00:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
==Image question== | |||
]]] | |||
Fasach Nua, I uploaded this picture but as you can see it is sideways. Is there any way to turn it upright? ] <sup> ]</sup> 05:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Request for image Assistance == | |||
]]] | |||
:I'm running low on time at the moment, I'll drop a note how to do it later ] (]) 06:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
I have little experience with the 'legality' of images and am presently reviewing a GAN. There are four images. Could you review them? I don't want to pass to GA until I'm absolutely sure the images are legal. The article is ]. I simply don't have the expertise to make any decision on the images. Thank you! ] (]) 12:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
::Fasach, Thank you very much! I saw your edits on the monastery page to see how you did it. I was wondering about the arrangement of the other pictures too and saw how you added "gallery". You don't need to tell me anything more, I think I can do this now. Thanks again. ] <sup> ]</sup> 20:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
:They all seem fine, either the copyright has expired, or they are ], I would prefer they were tagged as <nowiki>{{PD-EU}}</nowiki> where appropriate so that they can be moved to commons which requires images to be free in the US and their country of origin, and thus allows them to be enjoyed by other projects ] (]) 12:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
:: Thank you! We're fortunate to have someone here with your expertise! Thank you again! ] (]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 16:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
==Malmö FF== | |||
== House cast image == | |||
Hi, could you please specify which images made you tag the article with the copyright warning? Thanks!--] (]) 22:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
Hi, I don't know if you watch FAcs, but I have replied to your image comment on the ''House'' FAc, and removed the image. Please read the FAc and consider striking your oppose. Thank you very much.--]]] 18:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
:FAC is not a ], if my object is found to be invalid, ie the images is gone then it will be discounted by the director, however I am not prepared to strike the oppose until I am content the article is stable, and there I think there is still ongoing discussion on the matter. ] (]) 20:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
==Another image question== | |||
This photo is taken with the subjects own camera and is posted on his myspace page. He gave me permission to upload this for Misplaced Pages but it has been tagged as needing a copyright. Do I have to have something in writing from Howard Davis? Is it not OK to take pictures off of someone's myspace page? He told me all his myspace pictures are public domain and preferred for these to be used instead of something I might take myself. The picture of him winning the Olympic gold medal is unreproduceable and I would like to use it on his page but it is also tagged. I can get written permission if necessary, I was just wondering why these were not being considered public domain.] <sup> ]</sup> 21:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
:You need to link to the source, ie the myspace page, you can tag the copyright status yourself, but best practice would be to use the ] system. It may be worth looking at ] ] (]) 04:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
::Thanks for your help, I provided the link now. ] <sup> ]</sup> 17:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Your opinion please == | |||
:I've responded to you about RCC pics here . ] <sup> ]</sup> 21:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
I uploaded for possible use in the ] article. You have one side, the other is a Johnny Walker Red logo. My position is that as it contains for the most part dates and city names (plus the team name of the Jets and the football image, I believe the TM refers to the other side, or possibly to the name "New York Jets"), it is too simple to be copyrighted and is PD. If your opinion is adverse, I will of course delete it, that is why I uploaded it to en wiki. Many thanks for your help.--] (]) 16:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
== FAC == | |||
== Appreciation for participating in an FAC == | |||
Can you point me to some FACs where you supported and they contained fair use images. Thanks. - ] (]) (]) 04:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
:The short answer is no, I only look at criteria 3, and meeting one criteria is not enough for a FA, which must meet all four ]. I generally only hold a position of neutrality or opposition, and I allow other editors better qualified than I, to make judgements in their area of expertise, all opinions are collated by Sandy, and she decides whether the article meets FA criteria. If it is something specific you are looking for, all contributions to FAC are available in the archive. (I had this on my main page for a long time , but recently removed it) ] (]) 11:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
{{clear}} | |||
== 3RR == | |||
{| style="border: 2px solid red; background-color: white;" | |||
|align="center" |] | |||
|<font=3> Thank you for your image checks and comments — ] is now a ] of the ]!</font> ] (]) 22:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
|align="center" |] | |||
|} | |||
== ] == | |||
] | |||
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly{{#if:Template:Defunct national football teams|, as you are doing at ]}}. If you continue, you may be ] from editing Misplaced Pages. Note that the ] prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for ], even if they do not technically violate the ]. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.<!-- Template:3RR -->] ] 11:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
Hi, I was just wondering if you could quickly run over the images and make sure they're all okay? It shouldn't take more than a few minutes, and I would appreciate it. Thanks! <span style="color:#ffffff; background-color:#ff3300;"> – ]<sup>]</sup></span> 19:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
== Template suggestion == | |||
==Deletion review for ]== | |||
Hi, I'm posting the same message to you and ]. After discussing possible alterations to the Defunct national teams template at ludicrous length and seeing the problems on both sides of this argument, I think I can offer a solution. | |||
An editor has asked for a ] of ]. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. <!-- This originally was from the template {{subst:DRVNote|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~ --> ] (]) 10:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
All team articles that have a recognised successor should be merged and redirected to their successor's article (eg ] merged into ]). In the case of Russia/CIS/USSR there may be a case for having separate articles on the teams' histories for the sake of length but not 3 separate 'national team' articles. The introduction would explain the team's history, and historic names would be bolded - much like the current ] article. I explained the rationale ], and although there was only one reply, there wasn't any disagreement so it doesn't seem like it would be a controversial move. | |||
As you took part in the first FAC for this article, I though you might be interested in participating in the current FAC for ]. Regards, ''']''' ] 20:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
This would make the 'other' section of the template meaningless as all the listed teams would simply be redirects. The template could have a footnote redirecting ] and/or ] for further information if you wanted. | |||
==Season's tidings!== | |||
Let me know what you think. ] (]) 12:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
] FWiW ] (]) 13:35, 25 December 2011 (UTC). | |||
{{Clear}} | |||
:That sounds reasonable, although people dont like to see their pet articles turned into redirects, An alternative might be creating History articles, renaming the USSR to ] or ], which would maintain the article without any POV, and could sit alongside ], ] ....etc ] (]) 16:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
{{Tb|Template talk:Infobox GB station|Page move|ts=<span style="white-space:nowrap;">-- ]</span> (]) 11:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)}} | |||
== Blocked == | |||
== ] of ] == | |||
]] has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> ] (]) 17:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
== Notification of automated file description generation == | |||
<div class="user-block"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for {{#if:|a period of '''{{{time}}}'''|a short time}} in accordance with ] for violating the ]{{#if:| at ]}}. Please be more careful to ] or seek ] rather than engaging in an ]. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx" argument. -->{{tlx|unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our ] first. {{#if:|] ] 00:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)}}</div><!-- Template:uw-3block -->] ] 00:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
Your upload of ] or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page. | |||
This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions ]. Thanks!<!--Template:Un-botfill-null--> ''Message delivered by ] (])'' 14:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
You are very near a new block. Please start communicating and stop edit warring. Consider this your last warning. ] (]) 18:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
*Another one of your uploads, ], has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks!<!--Template:Un-botfill--> ''Message delivered by ] (])'' 15:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
== Possibly unfree File:Wales Ireland 1950.png == | |||
A file that you uploaded or altered, ], has been listed at ] because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the ]. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at ] if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. <!-- Template:Fdw-puf --> ] (]<small> • </small>]) 18:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
Hello, {{BASEPAGENAME}}. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. {{#if:|The thread is ]. }}{{#if:Template:Defunct national football teams|The discussion is about the topic ].}} <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. — ] <span style="color: #999;">//</span> ] 22:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} ] (]) 13:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=692009577 --> | |||
== File:IFA international Cap 1909-1910.png listed for discussion == | |||
] A file that you uploaded or altered, ], has been listed at ]. Please see the ] to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. <!-- Template:Fdw --> ] (]) 15:23, 5 May 2016 (UTC) | |||
== Nomination for deletion of Template:Famous players generic == | |||
]] has been ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> <span style="color:green">'''Ten Pound Hammer'''</span> • <sup>(])</sup> 21:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC) | |||
== ] of ] == | |||
] | |||
The file ] has been ] because of the following concern: | |||
<blockquote>Orphaned image with no foreseeable encyclopedic use.</blockquote> | |||
While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ]. | |||
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ]. | |||
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> ] (]) 12:32, 20 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
== ] of ] == | |||
] | |||
The file ] has been ] because of the following concern: | |||
<blockquote>unused, low-res, no obvious use</blockquote> | |||
While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ]. | |||
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ]. | |||
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> | |||
<span style="color:red;font-weight:bold;">This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the ] of each individual file for details.</span> Thanks, ] (]) 01:02, 23 November 2019 (UTC) | |||
== ] of ] == | |||
] | |||
The file ] has been ] because of the following concern: | |||
<blockquote>unused, low-res, no obvious use</blockquote> | |||
While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ]. | |||
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ]. | |||
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> | |||
<span style="color:red;font-weight:bold;">This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the ] of each individual file for details.</span> Thanks, ] (]) 01:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 07:14, 6 May 2022
File:Turtle_crossing_sign_JPG.jpeg
Could you comment over at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Turtle crossing sign JPG.jpeg about this image. Regards, SunCreator 22:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
File:ZX81 concept design.jpg
Sorry for the late response; yep, it checks out. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 19:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Calgary Hitmen
Your tag was reviewed and your concern was dismissed by two separate editors. Do not edit war. If you would like to stop wasting everyone's time with drive by tagging, and demonstrate that you are actually acting in good faith, then post your rationale on my talk page and we can discuss it. Before you do, I would suggest you actually read the article, because at this point, I very strongly doubt you have. Resolute 23:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
History of Sesame Street FAC
Hi Fasach,
I wanted to let you know that I moved the discussion you were involved in regarding WP:Featured article candidates/History of Sesame Street/archive1 to its talk page, as per Sandy's recommendation. I moved your oppose, too, but returned it after I was told that I shouldn't have done it. I was also told to ping you, although as it turns out, it's not going to make much difference because it looks like Sandy's going to archive it because of lack of consensus. I also wanted to ask your opinion about an idea I had regarding the article's images. I've suggested that instead of the images being too few or not high enough quality, that we just not have any images at all. Does a featured article, especially one about the article's subject, *need* to have images? What do you think? Be honest, now! ;) Christine (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Image assistance
Am working on a page now that has a lot of images. Appreciate any advice on what to look for in terms of questionable stuff. See here: TCO (talk) 06:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- HEY! That was a serious request for help. Would like a gander at these images with a bunch of different licences, and maybe learn myself how to think through some of these issues as well. Also, in particular wonder of this issue of when something is listed as government derived, but it's not really obvious the source (govt document or current web precense). TCO (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- I had not been on wiki between first and second messages and would encourage you to check activity before leaving follow up messages. I have had a superficial look over this article and for the most part it is fine. I have concerns about File:Collared_Lizard_Albuquerque_NM_Preview.JPG regarding the email (not huge concerns, but concerns none the less), File:Cnemidophorus-ThreeSpecies.jpg is fine, it is basically CC with attributions, File:Reptiles.jpg has serious problems, it is derived from four different images, and the licensing for all must be compatible with the one used on the montage, this is currently not the case! On WP:MOS issues it is generally best practice to have images with faces look into the text, and for lists it is much tidier if all images use the same aspect ratio. Fasach Nua (talk) 14:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- If you are having trouble tracking images back to their source I would recommend tineye Fasach Nua (talk) 01:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- I had not been on wiki between first and second messages and would encourage you to check activity before leaving follow up messages. I have had a superficial look over this article and for the most part it is fine. I have concerns about File:Collared_Lizard_Albuquerque_NM_Preview.JPG regarding the email (not huge concerns, but concerns none the less), File:Cnemidophorus-ThreeSpecies.jpg is fine, it is basically CC with attributions, File:Reptiles.jpg has serious problems, it is derived from four different images, and the licensing for all must be compatible with the one used on the montage, this is currently not the case! On WP:MOS issues it is generally best practice to have images with faces look into the text, and for lists it is much tidier if all images use the same aspect ratio. Fasach Nua (talk) 14:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- OK. Thanks for the comments! TCO (talk) 08:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
File:Cruttwell.jpg
Hi, I restored the non-free use rationale, you gave no reason for its removal. There was a discussion about that image in the FA nom which you started but did not reply to any further, sadly. Why remove the note now that the discussion is over? Regards Hekerui (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Image question
Your thoughts on this? It sounds good but ... Thanks,--Wehwalt (talk) 19:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- It is not implausible, although I would be wary of terms like "generally considered", the definition of "published" is crucial here, and the method and extent of publication should be stated, along with the states in which the publication was made Fasach Nua (talk) 21:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'd really like to see something a bit more authoritative on the legal side, too.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- is a photo lawyer's blog. Very far from definitive legal opinion that Wehwalt is going to buy, but still I donno...interesting. TCO (talk) 21:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Which entry do you feel bears on this?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- is a photo lawyer's blog. Very far from definitive legal opinion that Wehwalt is going to buy, but still I donno...interesting. TCO (talk) 21:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- None. Sorry. :( There was one that did bear on something important a while ago. But I can't even recall what that was. I guess if you wanted an opinion you could pay her for one. Although I'm sure you could just look up right sort in DC as well at some big firm. Sorry, too much segue. Brain blood pressure dropping again (grr...) TCO (talk) 22:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Not a problem. Anyway, including that in Allegro (musical) would be too much trouble for the worth.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Request for image Assistance
I have little experience with the 'legality' of images and am presently reviewing a GAN. There are four images. Could you review them? I don't want to pass to GA until I'm absolutely sure the images are legal. The article is Delphine LaLaurie. I simply don't have the expertise to make any decision on the images. Thank you! 56tyvfg88yju (talk) 12:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- They all seem fine, either the copyright has expired, or they are freedom of panorama, I would prefer they were tagged as {{PD-EU}} where appropriate so that they can be moved to commons which requires images to be free in the US and their country of origin, and thus allows them to be enjoyed by other projects Fasach Nua (talk) 12:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you! We're fortunate to have someone here with your expertise! Thank you again! 56tyvfg88yju (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC).
Malmö FF
Hi, could you please specify which images made you tag the article with the copyright warning? Thanks!--Reckless182 (talk) 22:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Your opinion please
I uploaded this image for possible use in the History of the New York Jets article. You have one side, the other is a Johnny Walker Red logo. My position is that as it contains for the most part dates and city names (plus the team name of the Jets and the football image, I believe the TM refers to the other side, or possibly to the name "New York Jets"), it is too simple to be copyrighted and is PD. If your opinion is adverse, I will of course delete it, that is why I uploaded it to en wiki. Many thanks for your help.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Appreciation for participating in an FAC
<font=3> Thank you for your image checks and comments — Battle of Towton is now a featured article of the Wars of the Roses! Jappalang (talk) 22:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC) |
Eduard Streltsov FAC
Hi, I was just wondering if you could quickly run over the images and make sure they're all okay? It shouldn't take more than a few minutes, and I would appreciate it. Thanks! – Cliftonian 19:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Deletion review for File:Stover at Yale book cover image.jpg
An editor has asked for a deletion review of File:Stover at Yale book cover image.jpg. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. TCO (talk) 10:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Somerset County Cricket Club in 2009/archive2
As you took part in the first FAC for this article, I though you might be interested in participating in the current FAC for Somerset County Cricket Club in 2009. Regards, Harrias 20:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Season's tidings!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:35, 25 December 2011 (UTC).
Template:Infobox GB station
Hello, Fasach Nua. You have new messages at Template talk:Infobox GB station.Message added -- Trevj (talk) 11:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Nomination for deletion of Template:ORList
Template:ORList has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Notification of automated file description generation
Your upload of File:Botanic gardens belfast sign post.JPG or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.
This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- Another one of your uploads, File:Carson Mural.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Possibly unfree File:Wales Ireland 1950.png
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Wales Ireland 1950.png, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 18:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
File:IFA international Cap 1909-1910.png listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:IFA international Cap 1909-1910.png, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:23, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Famous players generic
Template:Famous players generic has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • 21:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of File:Bloomfield park sign.PNG
The file File:Bloomfield park sign.PNG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Orphaned image with no foreseeable encyclopedic use.
While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Pkbwcgs (talk) 12:32, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of File:Fermanagh outline.png
The file File:Fermanagh outline.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
unused, low-res, no obvious use
While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of File:Oak leaf.PNG
The file File:Oak leaf.PNG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
unused, low-res, no obvious use
While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)