User talk:3dimen

Welcome!

Hello, 3dimen, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, Super Video CD. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. Thank you. Rcooley (talk) 09:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}} Hello editors. This is a test to see how helpme works. Regards, 3dimen (talk) 17:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Switcher CAD

The article Switcher CAD has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no evidence of notability

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Douglas Hopkins

The article Douglas Hopkins has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Highly promotional article, no evidence of sufficient independent sources to establish notability, orphan for two years

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Will Beback talk 23:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editing

Are you writing articles for pay? If so, please disclose your conflict of interest. WP:COI. Will Beback talk 20:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. In my opinion the Hopkins subject is a notable person, and I think it's a good article. I'm sorry if some people consider it promotional. Perhaps the problem is that this is an unusual person who has done a lot of interesting things in his life, and I can't help that. However, I will try to find more secondary sources. 3dimen (talk) 03:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Ap cov 488824530.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Ap cov 488824530.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. [1], and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:

state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
add the relevant copyright tag.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Morning Sunshine (talk) 14:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Vol 488851659.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Vol 488851659.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. [2], and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:

state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
add the relevant copyright tag.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Morning Sunshine (talk) 14:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Bott 2068761571.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Bott 2068761571.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. [3], and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:

state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
add the relevant copyright tag.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Morning Sunshine (talk) 14:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. 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. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further re your question on the help page

I'll also note some of these images are at Flickr, with rights inconsistent with Wikipedia. See [4], and [5]. This is technically not a problem, if we have a permission statement on file with different rights, it will override the rights statement at Flickr, however, it can lead to confusion. Only OTRS agents can see the permission statement, while anyone can see the Flickr page, and it might lead to confusion. It shouldn't but it might. It is helpful to change the Flickr rights to match what is sent to Wikimedia, just to avoid confusion.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 20:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Checking further I do not see that a permission statement has been filed with OTRS. That should not be required IF the Flickr rights are changed, but we need some evidence of an acceptable license. --SPhilbrick (Talk) 20:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To Sphilbrick, just to let you know that I will need some time to digest your message and get back to you. But let me say I was very careful when I posted those pictures and I am surprised this is coming up. I feel my hands are tied because I cannot see the original licensing information I provided way back then. Am I correct in assuming only administrators can see that information now? 3dimen (talk) 22:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you filed permission with the OTRS system, by sending an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, then not even admins can find it, but I can. The permissions statements are only viewable by OTRS agents. If one had been filed and accepted. there should have been a template attached to each of the three images, which would not contain the permission statement, but would have a link to it, and would signal to admins (and everyone else) that there is permission on file.

Look at File:Pandit Ram Kishore Shukla with Rajiv Gandhi at 7, Race course road in 1988.jpg to see a recent example of the template. I did not see the template on the three images you uploaded.

If you believe you did send in permission, let me know and I'll help track it down.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 12:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've now looked at the help page where you asked to see what licensing was chosen. Primehunter copied the information to the help page. The key point is that the template for the cc-by-sa-3.0 license was added. This is the right license, however, in many cases, especially in the case of clearly professional images, we require a formal permission statement to be filed. Especially in this case, as there is information about the copyright license at the Flickr site, and it is not a compatible license. When such a situation is identified, ideally at time of upload, but in this case three years later, we add a notice to the talk page of the editor who uploaded, letting them know they need to address the problem. We normally allow seven days, which is more than enough time for active editors. Let me re-emphasize, the fact that they are deleted is no big deal. I can restore them, but we need a permission statement from the photographer.

If you provided one, I'll search for it. If not, the desired form is here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries --SPhilbrick (Talk) 12:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sphilbrick, this is really good news. I know how to contact the photographer and will help him fill out the form. Incidentally, I will be trying the talkback template (first time) to let you know I left you a message. 3dimen (talk) 05:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! and the talk back worked perfectly.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 11:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Need help restoring images

In April of 2012, the following images were removed from the Douglas Hopkins page:

Vol 488851659.jpg
Ap cov 488824530.jpg
Bott 2068761571.jpg

The photographer has now filed a formal permission statement. I would like to rename the images with more descriptive names and restore them to the article. The new names are, respectively:

Volcano_cover_harvard_magazine_by_douglas_hopkins.jpg
Cover_american_photographer_by_douglas_hopkins.jpg
Bottle_fragrance_by_douglas_hopkins.jpg

Both sets of names are included in the permission statement. It might be a struggle for me to learn how to do all this, so I would appreciate any help from the Wikipedia cognoscenti.

3dimen (talk) 04:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can help but I need help finding the permission statement. I searched for any permission statement with the name "Douglas Hopkins" filed in the last week but did not find it. I also seaarched for any ticket mentioning "Bott 2068761571" but found none. I tried "Bottle_fragrance_by_douglas_hopkins" but that failed. If you can narrow down the date sent, I can check, or if you can share the email address (via email if confidential) I can search for that.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 13:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While waiting for an answer I will note that a permissions statement did not need to be filed if the license on the Flickr page were changed. I prefer that option, because, at present, the Flickr image license is incompatible with licenses acceptable for Wikipedia. The license in a permission statement trumps that license, but permission statements are not viewable by most editors. We hope that an editor reviewing license would see a permission template, once it is added, and check, but the process is much cleaner if the Flickr license is an acceptable license, then it can be checked an verified by bot. Having the Flickr license correct as well as a permissions statement is also fine.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 13:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've now scanned all the unprocessed tickets created in the last five days and have not found it. I assume it was sent to an English Wikipedia address, rather than the Commons address, because the images are on the English Wikipedia. I haven't scanned the open Commons requests, but there are hundreds, so that is not an option. In theory, the search should have found it, but the search can be very picky for free text.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 13:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A quick followup, as it appears we may be in different time zone/ In a few hours, I have to leave for a business trip, with little time for Wikipedia. If I get an answer before then, I will try to address this today, otherwise, I can't get to it until Thursday.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 16:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you SPhilbrick. I'm not sure what an open request is, so please let me know if I need to file one. Thursday is fine - there is no hurry. I should have told you the permission statement was sent by email on Oct 8, 2012. This is a "time available" project for me - apologies for being intermittent. I thought the permission statement would be associated with the images. If you want Hopkins to change Flickr, please tell me what license, and please be sure Flickr offers that option - my recollection is that they don't, but this was a long time ago. Thanks again for your help. 3dimen (talk) 17:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When you say permission was sent my email, I presume you mean it was sent to our permissions recording system, called OTRS. They are saved in that system, and when processed a permissions template is attached to the image. Do you think he sent the permission to <permissions@wikimedia.org>? I found 107 emails sent on October 8, 2012, but most were closed, which means either that a template was added to the image, and a response sent, or if there was a problem, an email response would have been sent. Only 8 are still open, none in English, so I have not been able to find the email.

The page Wikipedia:FLICKR identifies the acceptable, and unacceptable licenses. One of the images see here has the (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0), which is why it was deleted. If the license is changed, which is as simple as clicking on the License section, and choosing on of the last three options, then we wouldn't even have to deal with filing a permissions statement at OTRS. (Obviously, only the image owner can change the license)--SPhilbrick (Talk) 17:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/EazyDraw.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! SL93 (talk) 10:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/EazyDraw concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/EazyDraw, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:06, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/EazyDraw

Hello 3dimen. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "EazyDraw".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/EazyDraw}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 08:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]