Jump to content

User talk:Postdlf/Archive30

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
  • Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
  • The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

About resolving dispute about which and how many images of paintings can be included in an artist's page

Hello Postdlf We read your comment on the Gauguin article. In which you said: ‘I don't think the article is anywhere near being "overloaded" by images. As for Wikipedia not being meant as "art gallery site", I don't know where this comes from, either. I would love to eventually see individual articles for every major work of art, and list articles for every artist that would have pictures of all of their works with a brief description. How is that not encyclopedic? I'm replacing the images. Postdlf 01:59, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)’ We are running into dispute about images of paintings we can upload in the article about Artist Mumbiram. As an administrator on Wikipedia and someone with a BFA degree we feel you will be able to make constructive contributions in resolving the issues arsing about which and how many images of a visual artist’s paintings can be uploaded and included in an article about the artist and about the movement he is espousing. We are constructing pages “Mumbiram” and “Rasa Renaissance”. You can see what has transpired so far on our talk page. We request you to urgently intervene. Kusum Bhagavat (talk) 11:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Replied to on your talk page. postdlf (talk) 15:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Berlin helicopter crash (2nd nomination)

Hello Postdlf. You closed this deletion discussion in back 2013. Meanwhile developments have occured in the aftermath of this crash that I think are significant enough to restore the article and update the information. Unfortunately the sources are only in German but I would like to give you a summary with reliable links. As a result of the investigation into the crash, the helicopter landing manual of the German Federal Police was heavily criticised by the investigators who are themselves a federal authority. They even scolded an EU regulation that exempts police helicopters from being under control of civilian aviation authorities. Regulations for police aviation on a national German level had been suggested to the government in 2006, but to no avial ([1]. Subsequently, the German federal police adjusted their landing routines within 1.5 years of the accident.[2] The crash reportedly even sparked a multinational NATO trial in 2016/17 for new technical means that support helicopter flights in low-visibility conditions.[3]

So before I iniate a formal deletion review I would like to discuss this with you. Pinging also @Lankiveil: who closed the first discussion as "no consensus". Media coverage four years after the event, possibly flawed EU legislation, short-term changes on at least national level and triggering NATO research make me think that the event does have lasting notability beyond NOTNEWS. De728631 (talk) 03:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

No opinion. If you do post a DRV, just be clear that you're not challenging the result of the original deletion discussion (which is an uphill battle), but instead relying on subsequent developments and sources to cure the complaints raised by the participants in that discussion. Good luck, postdlf (talk) 15:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Alright, I have now started a review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 March 1. De728631 (talk) 17:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Concerning images for "Mumbiram" and "Rasa Renaissance" articles

Dear Postdlf. We seek clarification about the following three points:

1. In view of the valuable inputs provided by Tathony and postdlf we understand that we will be able to include as many images of Mumbiram’s paintings and photos of Mumbiram’s life circumstances as we find relevant in understanding the genre of Rasa Art and the movement of Rasa Renaissance that Mumbiram is introducing and practising provided that such images are in the free-usage category.

2. If we obtain permission from the copyright holder Artist Mumbiram of such images for uploading in the free usage category confirmed by OTRS then there should be no issue in including all such relevant images in Mumbiram and/or Rasa Renaissance articles.

3. We understand that when the copyright holder for the low-resolution images allows by OTRS their upload in the free usage category he is not giving away his copyright on the original painting or any other higher resolution images of the painting.

Please advise if we are right in our understanding in the above three statements.Kusum Bhagavat (talk) 14:30, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Please revisit

Please revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of kosher restaurants, now that I have replied to your comment and updated the article and, correspondingly, the deletion discussion. Debresser (talk) 03:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Chuck Close 1.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Chuck Close 1.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
  2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:35, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Please take another look at the article now, as I've restored the image usage back to how I had originally added it to the article. That's not a selfportrait of Close in the infobox, so the photo of Close is not a free equivalent. It wasn't uploaded to be in the infobox in the first place, but rather to be viewed in context with the image of the later portrait executed in the different style to illustrate development in technique at different stages of his career, as the "style" section discusses. So the context is already there in the article as well as the image captions, and it is not replaceable as you suggested. Please remove your RFU template from File:Chuck Close 1.jpg. Thank you! postdlf (talk) 22:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
While the image is no longer being used in the main infobox, I don't see how it's current use satisfies WP:NFCC#8. This particular work is not the subject of any sourced discussion anywhere in the article that I can see. Why does the reader need to see this particular file to understand any of the article content and how would removing the file be detrimental to that understanding? What is written in the caption is unsourced so it's technically WP:OR. If there's any kind of critical discussion of this work found in reliable sources that can be added to the article, then please add it. As for the replaceable fair use template, you've disputed the template so the reviewing admin will see what you wrote and decide what to do. FWIW, replaceable fair use does not only mean replaced by another image; it also can mean replaced by textual content as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
You seem to be reading a restriction into NFCC#8 that isn't actually there. "This particular work" does not have to be itself discussed, because a representative image can be used to further understanding of a general point. postdlf (talk) 00:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
When I refer to sourced discussion, I am referring to WP:NFC#Meeting the contextual significance criterion. Simply wanting to show the image is not enough. The has to be a strong enough justification for showing so that actually seeing it significantly improves the reader's understanding, and omitting it is detrimental to that understanding. How does seeing this particular file significantly improve the reader's understanding of the article content to such a degree that not seeing it would be detrimental to that understanding? If the image is just intended to be one rpresentative example of Close's work, then another image (free or non-free) could be used to serve the same purpose. If another image could be used to serve the same purpose, then there is really no non-free justifiction for using this particular one. There's no need to have two representative examples of Close's work in the article, unless one of them is specifically the subject of sourced critical commentary. This discussion can be moved to WP:FFD if you like to see what others think.
As for removeing the rfu template, my repsonse to that may have came off as being snarky so I should clarify. You responded using {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}} so I was not sure that removing the {{rfu}} template would make sense without removing the "disputed" template as well. That's the only reason I suggested leaving it for the reviewing admin. I just noticed, however, that you are an admin. So, if removing them both in order to move the discussion to another venue like FFD would be accpetable and not out of process, then that's fine. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
I've improved the citations with specific sources referencing the two paintings chosen as representative of the different phases of his work and contrasting their techniques and styles. postdlf (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
I think the aditional detail/sources you added does help strengthen the justification for the file's (or files') non-free use. Is there a way to incorporate some of that specific info (especially the sourced stuff) into the body of the article? Perhaps in the last part of the "Style" section? A caption will go where its corresponding image will go, so if one or both are removed from the article (by accident or with intent) that information will be lost. Adding something about this directly to the article body itself will, in my opinion, more strongly contextually tie the image(s) to the article content and thus make omitting them detrimental to the reader's understanding of that content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
The article could certainly use more development, but whether the sourced commentary is in the body of the article or the captions the context is there either way so the informational value is clear. The style section already has sourced commentary regarding the development of his technique that relates to both works; the captions are merely more specific on those points. postdlf (talk) 21:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Ballad of Sexual Dependency.jpg

Hi Postdlf. Since we've already been introduced, I figured a more personal message would be better this time than another template. File:Ballad of Sexual Dependency.jpg is missing a non-free use rationale for the article The Ballad of Sexual Dependency. I know you did not create that article or add the file to it, but I thought you could verify whether it is actually the cover art used for the book since you uploaded the file.

In addition, the fact that a stand-alone article for this book does now exist means that the non-free use in the author's article needs to be reassessed. Generally, non-free cover art is considered almost always acceptable when it is used as the primary means of identification in a stand-alone article about the work in question, but a much stronger justfication is required for other articles as explained in WP:NFC#cite_note-3. Although there is a bit of sourced critical commentary about the book in Nan Goldin#Life and work, none of it seems to be particularly about the cover art itself; therefore, a link to the book's article seems, at least to me, more than adequate in this case per item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI. There are also three other non-free images being used in that particular section whose use justification is questionable, especially since they do not seem to be mentioned anywhere by name other than their respective captions, which makes all the non-free use look a bit excessive.

After looking at the article's page history, it does not appear that you have edited it since September 2013 so the article may have been changed quite a bit since then with relevant content to the cover art itself being removed in the process. So, if there's any sourced commentary about the cover itself which can be added to the article (or the caption), then that would make the case for keeping at least the cover art stronger. Anyway, I'm not trying to dump this all in your lap and say "fix it", but just thought I'd let you know about the book cover file's non-free issues since you were the one who uploaded it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly, I agree that there isn't good reason to have the cover image remain in the artist's article if there is a separate article on that body of work/book. The NFUR is completely standardized boilerplate for book cover images in articles on books, so anyone can fill that in easily for that use. As far as whether it is "actually" the book cover art, I got the cover art from Amazon (I do not own a copy to scan), which a simple Google search would reveal. Where the file isn't their own work, uploaders don't necessarily have any special information about an image that any other editor could not find, nor a special relationship with the file which (as happened here) others are free to put to new uses many years later (it is now 12 years since I uploaded that file). So any time you discover a fixable issue with NFC, it's a good exercise (and a gesture of good faith) to fix it yourself. Adding Template:di-missing some article links instead was a waste of time (adding the right NFUR template wouldn't have taken any longer to do), and that approach has the potential to generate ill will with other editors, which I have seen happen many times over the years with people who have focused only on pointing out issues with NFC compliance without helping to address them when they are so easily fixable. postdlf (talk) 14:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
While I understand what you're saying, I also feel that what seems like an obvious fix to one editor may not always seem so to another. I do add rationales for files which are missing them when it seems obvious to me that the file's use complies with WP:NFCCP , but I don't just add the a rationales for the sake of adding one like some editors seem to do. FWIW, I am not trying to imply you do such things, but I've seen quite a lot of copy-and-pasitng of nfurs done by others who do not seem to give any thought as to whether the particular use actually complies with relevant policy. So, when I have doubts, I try to find out who added/uploaded the file and ask them to clarify. If another editor feels such a thing is done in bad faith, then that is more of a reflection on them than anything else. Anyway, thanks for helping to sort out the use of this file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Deleted Steven Beattie (Footballer)

Hi

I am a massive Cork City Football Club fan I am trying to create a page on my favourite player Steven Beattie. I noticed you deleted a page a long time ago. He has played professionaly for six years could you please approve his page again so I can edit it properly.

Kind Regards

Sean Jones — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccfc12345 (talk • contribs) 23:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions

I created an article about SCOTUS new decision. Please help to make it better. And I wonder why the name of case is still red in this article. Best regards. M.Karelin (talk) 09:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Seeing a redlink display for a new article is just a caching issue. I'll try to take a look at the article soonpostdlf (talk) 01:40, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

re closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tornadoes striking downtown areas of large cities

As I pointed out along the way, the "subject is of interest" argument that is the basis for the various "keep" responses does not address the original objection: that "downtown areas of large cities" is poorly defined and doesn't provide a good basis for inclusion. Mangoe (talk) 18:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

And that would be a valid reason for deletion if the consensus had found that to be the case such that the list was indiscriminate and unworkable. Most of the participants, however, believed that was instead an issue for editing, not deletion, and thought that the current state of the list and its history bore that out. postdlf (talk) 01:34, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review for 2032 Summer Olympics

Georgia guy has asked for a deletion review of 2032 Summer Olympics. 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. —Cryptic 14:20, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Captain Marvel special 1.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Captain Marvel special 1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:08, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Pavan v. Smith

Dear college, in Pavan v. Smith besides Gorsuch, Alito and Thomas also descenthing. Regards. M.Karelin (talk) 16:02, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Yep, already corrected, thank you! postdlf (talk) 16:04, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Deleted article comparison

Could I get you to compare a couple of articles to see how similar they were? Namely, Domestic average home attendances of football clubs, Football clubs average attendances, and Average home attendances of football clubs. I strongly suspect the authors of these pages are one and the same. Thanks in advance. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:30, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to Admin confidence survey

Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Do not attempt to Redirect to other page or change the URL

This is an official page for List of Super Ma'am episodes, this is correct capitalization of this URL. Do not attempt to redirect to the other page. Do not change the capitalization of this URL, only to do is input the official hashtag of the episode, rating and reference of the episode ratings. Spidermanmaiden (talk) 11:35, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@Spidermanmaiden: Excuse me? Why on earth not? We don't host "official pages" here. postdlf (talk) 16:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Precious four years!

Precious
Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I am unsure if you are watching my page, so I'm reposting my response to your message here. Feel free to delete this if you've seen it.


I don't mind changing it to either plaintiffs or Barnett, as you make a valid point, just be sure if you are going to talk about Barnett you spell his name properly. It is Barnett, no ending "e" (as I'm sure you know, case names are often misspelled). How about this: "The state's principal argument was that the Barnett's raised no substantial federal question because Gobitis settled the constitutional questions raised by the flag-salute expulsions."

Also, unless I'm mistaken, I believe "Gobitis" should be italicized in that section, as it is referring to the case and not Walter Gobitas (again a misspelled case name). Vyselink (talk) 17:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Joint enclaves

Noting discussions about enclave communities within larger cities, there are numerous cases of enclaves which consist of more than just a single city, such as Highland Park and Hamtramck in Detroit, or Beverly Hills and West Hollywood in Los Angeles. These are enclaves, but can't be referred to by a single name. If either of these were unified into a single city, they would be notable as an enclave, but divided as they are, they didn't really belong in the "enclave" category. Hence, I invented a category for municipalities, each of which is completely surrounded by a larger city, but along with another municipality or municipalities.

The situation in Detroit is the one I'm most familiar with. A Google search on HAMTRAMCK "HIGHLAND PARK" ENCLAVE yields more than 40,000 results, so obviously it is common to refer to the two cities together as an enclave. The list of notable enclaves would seem incomplete without it. This subcategory seemed a reasonable compromise. Kestenbaum (talk) 03:36, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@Kestenbaum: My concern is that the "joint enclave" term is an invention that makes the category WP:OR. That some may occasionally refer to municipalities that, together, are surrounded by another as "enclaves" doesn't mean that this characterization is appropriate for a category, if the concept is vague (and effectively is a loosening of the usual meaning of the term "enclave") or nondefining of the article topic. postdlf (talk) 15:04, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Template:Infobox U.S. Courts of Appeals case - En banc opinons

Hi Postdlf, I started a discussion over on Template talk:Infobox U.S. Courts of Appeals case regarding potential new parameters for cases where a decision by a 3-judge panel is superseded by a second decision in the same case by the court sitting en banc. Thank you for all your work on this template and elsewhere! --LegalSkeptic (talk) 19:37, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of members of the Lok Sabha (1952–present)#Split proposal

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of members of the Lok Sabha (1952–present)#Split proposal. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 22:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Postdlf. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Seasons' Greetings

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:39, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Postdlf/Archive30&oldid=1238355309"