User talk:Skier Dude/archive/archive Oct 10

Your opinion please

You recently advised me that File:Calvin Gibbs, from his high school yearbook, via the Washington Post.jpg was orphaned, and would be subject to speedy deletion.

I restored the image to the article on Calvin Gibbs. As I wrote here the contributor who excised the image is entitled to challenge whether the fair use rationale was inadequate -- but shouldn't they have used some other procedure than simple excision of the image in order to mount that challenge.

In a note on my talk page a few days prior to this excision this contributor claimed fair use images could never be used in biographies. I asked them to direct me to a wikidocument that this. But I am sorry to report they didn't do so.

Are you aware of any blanket proscription against ever using a fair use on articles that are biographies?

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 20:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know of no blanket proscription of ever using a fair use image on biographical articles. If there is one, I'd be surprised, given that the "Fair Use Rationale" can be used (as far as I know) in any article. Skier Dude (talk 22:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 11:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Baltika logo.svg.png

Dear Skier Dude,

Would you be so kind as to reload this image (if possible) from local (English) Wikipedia to Wikipedia Commons?

The present status of this image does not allow it to be shown outside en-wiki.

In particular, I wanted to place it at a page of Mr. Anton Artemyev, a CEO of «Baltika» — the Baltic Beverages Holding’s entity in St. Petersburg. Link to his page is: (click here). As you may see, the image (a logo of «Baltika») is not shown now, only a filename (Baltika logo.svg.png).

Thanks in advance, Cherurbino (talk) 23:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As this is a logo, it can't be used on commons. I attempted to upload at [1] but evidently I'm not auto-confirmed, so I can't upload there. It would probably need to be uploaded directly to the ru. site. If you have an e-mail address, I can forward the image for you to upload there; or you can download (right click - save as...) and then download there as well. Skier Dude (talk 00:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Skier! Thanx for a prompt reply :). Alas, my e-mail shall not be helpful — what is needed, is a permission of a logo owner. I supposed you had a direct line :))) to BBH to ask them to extend a license they have already provided for you and/or Wikipedia… that's why I wrote you. So, I'll continue to look for another sources. Please, send me a call-back message to my page again (as you did it before) if you may have further comments on that subject. Cherurbino (talk) 00:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just trying to reload it from my Commons Account. Shall let you know after.Cherurbino (talk) 00:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did upload it; now it hangs in an article (you may see using a link above)… yet I'm not sure it shall survive. What I did was simply copying an existing file description into an upload form. There I replaced only the "Location" parameter showing a link to file location at http:\\wiki…. Seems to be plain, but there's a certain chance that admins shall delete it if I was mistaken at any step. Another, good chance is that they may show me a right way. Thanks again, and have a good weekend! Cherurbino (talk) 01:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

...that was fast. Well done =) ResMar 01:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the source on File:Forestride.jpg reliable?

I assume you patrol files don't you? Anyway, I was about to nominate The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion to featured article status until I found out that the image File:Forestride.jpg which is related to the article had no source; And in that case [nominated this file for deletion because of it. Then this IP added the source [2] but I don't know if it is reliable enough. I hope it is, but could you check if possible? Minima c (talk) 08:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshots are usually considered as being done/made by the uploader unless stated otherwise. So, it's weak, but probably passable (would have been better for the uploader to confirm he was the one that did it and didn't copy it from elsewhere. Skier Dude (talk 01:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Traveling Circle

Hi Skier Dude,

Regarding the "Handmade House" album cover image. It is copyrighted. We own the rights, etc.

Please let me know if you have further questions...

Thanks, ArkSon —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArkSon (talk • contribs) 11:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Traveling Circle album cover image

Hi Skier Dude,

I also added an additional reference to support the album cover image, just to make it clear that we have the rights.

Sorry, I forgot to sign the post before this one...

ArkSon ArkSon (talk) 08:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC) ArkSon (talk) 08:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned Non-Free Image note

Is it okay with you if I delete those automated messages you post when an image get deleted? They tend to clutter up my talk pages and the image can always to re-uploaded it's needed again. –BuickCentury Driver 04:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem - it's your talk page! Skier Dude (talk) 04:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Baltimoresunlogo.png

Thanks

Thanks for adding FURs. --Mjpresson (talk) 00:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hi, Skier Dude. Would you clean up the mess I created at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:PhishRCool/The Page of Ages and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Skittlesrgood4u/Tricked? Thank you, Cunard (talk) 07:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be all right if I added {{db-xfd}} to those pages—this time with the correct link to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:PhishRCool/Bravo? Cunard (talk) 08:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you delete the pages listed here per the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:PhishRCool/Bravo? Though not explicitly included in that nomination, they should be uncontroversial deletions since they would have been deleted if they were included. (By the way, I mentioned this at User talk:Angusmclellan#Thank you, but Angusmclellan hasn't seen my message.) Cunard (talk) 22:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Got it - thanks Skier Dude (talk 23:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is one more page left: User:Skittlesrgood4u/Could It Be?. Thank you for your work. Cunard (talk) 23:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:New Times Rwanda Logo.jpg

I think you can just delete this one. It was uploaded to illustrate the article: The New Times (Rwanda). Another editor replaced the image in the article with File:NewTimesCover2007.jpg, which is a photo of the newspaper's front page that includes the logo, and is a better illustration in my view. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Notification: Deletion of File:Xmenlegends_newxmen.png

This file can be deleted. It was deemed unnecessary in a GAN review. --Teancum (talk) 03:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rationales

I noticed you recently tagged image File:Frontiers of science comic strip.jpg for deletion, as not presenting a sufficient rationale for use. Is that really correct? The summary says used to illustrate the article on that strip; and the caption in the article itself says that the image is being used as a sample strip. This would seem an entirely appropriate reason, namely giving a sample illustration of the thing itself, the subject of the article.

The explanation may not be headlined "Rationale" -- but then it wouldn't be, as the image was uploaded in July 2006, significantly before we required actual explicit statement of a rationale. Nevertheless, as presented above, the summary that was given at the time does actually present a convincing rationale for its use.

Could I therefore ask you to be especially careful of these older images? Especially as their uploaders may have long gone away, or no longer check in regularly at Wikipedia. It would be a shame to lose appropriate content, which was uploaded with a reasonable supporting description by the standards of the time, merely because that description does not include the keyword "rationale".

It seems that a number of the images that you're tagging are these older images -- for example, I also noticed File:Future Boy Conan.gif just in another recent edit, which again is transparently appropriate, even if in Novemeber 2005 this was not spelt out explicitly, as at that time there was no requirement to do so.

Of course compliance is important; but we should also be trying to minimise unnecessary collateral damage along the way. Jheald (talk) 09:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Related to this I'm curious how you decide which images you add a FUR to, and which you tag to delete as lacking a FUR. You seem to add FURs to many that have an obvious rationale, which is extremely commendable, but not to others with equally obvious rationales (I happened to notice File:Fuwa.png and File:Gallery magazine.jpg). How is the rationale for (say) File:Frontban.jpg any more obvious than these? Is it simply whether it's obvious to you, or is there something else involved - like, perhaps, Wikipedia:FurMe doesn't make it as easy for some as others? -- Rick Block (talk) 09:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I look for is the basics of the FuR need to be there -regardless if in a "Fair Use Rationale" 'section' or not- (and sometimes even when the information may be there I'll re-arrange it within the appropriate template to readability/continuity/ease of understanding):

Example of Frontiers of Science comic strip 1962 to 1987 uploaded from --source--. and used to illustrate the article on that strip. see Frontiers of Science.
- I would give you a general 'ok' on that one, although some would say that it does not answer "replacapeability", as any image from the same series would suffice (& that is not stated). I'm sure that the admin that evaluates this would have made the appropriate judgment call.

File:Future Boy Conan.gif

Future Boy Conan. Conan and Lana. From http://www.highharbor.net/~daffy/conan.html
- There is nothing there but the source and description - that the talk pages questions the veracity of that as well. No rationale for its use on the article.

File:Fuwa.png

Description The Olympic mascots, the Fuwa.
Source http://www.mercurious.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/fuwa.png
Date June, 2008
- FuR was added after I tagged it (see history)
- No rationale for purpose & replaceability. IMHO the "purpose" is the heart of the FuR

File:Gallery magazine.jpg -contents were:

February 2002 cover of Gallery (magazine), featuring Jenna Jameson
Source: http://usedmagazines.com/titles/Gallery/2002/
- FuR was added after I tagged it (see history)
- No rationale for purpose & replaceability.

Older images are given extra time for the FuR to be added - they are put into categories that any editor can go to if they are interested in salvaging the images.

And you do realize that I could simply mark all of these as no-FuR? There is no obligation to add a FuR to any of them. So you consider 1000s of FuRs added versus 100s of ones marked for no-FuR as not minimizing collateral damage? IMHO I'm doing just that. I add ones that are, as you say, relatively obvious to me - regardless of FuRme's abilities (which don't catch lots of stuff like, missing article titles (redirected image names), use on more than one article, etc., which I research & fill in). Skier Dude (talk 23:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark I Friedman

Wow over 200,000 edits you are probably going to tell me I got it all the wrong way round but I proposed a move of the article you started to Mark I Friedman to avoid confusion with Mark Friedman, Director of the Fiscal Policy Studies Institute - I should have waited a month or so but after carefully reading the disambiguation page guidance decided that as this was a two sentence stub it would be OK to proceed. (I will see if I can find anything more about Dr Friedman) Thruxton (talk) 15:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say being bold would cover this, and FYI, it was .seVer!Ty^- who created the article. But a good move, IMO. Skier Dude (talk 23:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wigan Athletic.svg

I've reverted your edits on File:Wigan Athletic.svg per rationale as provided here. Regards, Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 03:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Philatelic covers

Please would you have a look at the three deletion notices and my comments about them over on a commons user talk page to see if you agree with my assessment of the three covers? If you comment there, just say I asked for your opinion. TIA ww2censor (talk) 15:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Heron portrait

Hi Skier Dude- I see you have deleted the portrait of patrick heron I put up- if you link to this site http://robinsimononart.blogspot.com/ You will find the portrait and an apology from the Publisher of British and Irish Art 1945-1951 who have published a photo of of the wrong Patrick Heron. see http://www.paul-holberton.net/british-and-irish-art-1945-1951-from-war-to-festival,product,view,153,14,,.html Any help you can offer in putting up an image of the right Patrick Heron would be gratefully received. And any help in linking the right portrait to the right man I would also be grateful for. I was hoping to add the portrait in the text of the article and keep the image of Red Garden Painting- more important than the portrait of the artist.. poet (talk) 12:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Free Content size limits

Hi Skier Dude,

The orphaned image you tagged was replaced by a similar image with smaller pixel dimensions out of concern that the previous image may have been too large. On retrospect I was wondering (and hoping) that if the now tagged image is acceptable for WP use that it could be saved and used in the page it was assigned to. See note on the discussion page. A couple of months ago I conferred with an administrator on the issue of size limitations for Non-free content images and was told that 300 px was considered the acceptable limit, though he also said that this number is not carved in stone (specified in NFC). As I am trying to establish a common consensus on the size issue any feedback on Non-free content image size limits would be greatly appreciated. Regards, -- GWillHickers (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 300px size is sort of the "norm", but there's nothing set in stone about that. Also taken into consideration is the resolution and the image size (KB/MB). In images such as this (rectangular) you're not going to be able to apply the 'rule of thumb', simply because of the shape. However, the image file:Lincoln_2009_Anniversary_4-Issues.jpg is low res and each of the individual stamp images would be well under the 300px 'norm', so I don't really see a problem with this one. Skier Dude (talk 01:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sister Crayon

May I ask why you removed the Sister Crayon image? Edisoncarter462 (talk) 17:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I actually didn't delete the image File:Ballet 210.jpg, it was Explicit, I just removed the red-link from the article. However, it was deleted under Criteria for speedy deletion #4 as there was no source given for the image. Skier Dude (talk 02:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Pht-solder-joint.jpg

Did you read the discussions on my talk page before commenting on this? I'm thinking you missed them. The image adds value to the article and is considered fair use, I believe. Prosecreator (talk) 19:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to French Wikipedia?

Hi during research for a new article about Louis-Guillaume Perreaux I found this on French Wikipedia (not much good no citations). Please can you remind me how to cross link to my version? Thanks Thruxton (talk) 19:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)

Done ww2censor (talk) 21:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete image tag

Please refer Syed Abdul Mujeeb's award receiving image - It’s an image of a non-living person receiving public award that might have previous publication record but surely comes under a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. This is also my personal copy and have now given to public domain for fair use. You may remove the delete template of this image before 23rd October! Thanks Hashemi1971 (talk) 05:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

deleted my page

why did you delete my content about my company?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.119.152.182 (talk) 10:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - you need to give the article name or login with your user name. There's no way to know what you're talking about without a way to identify the article. Skier Dude (talk 04:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image deletion when it is of me/my band

Hi, I posted the photo on the Dangerous Muse wikipedia and that is of me and my band. I want to know how I can verify that since, yes, it is copywritten and I (we) own such copyrights. Thanks Comtap (talk) 02:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:75.47.138.166

Just curious on the reasoning for the block on 75.47.138.166 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Granted, their edits to the sandbox were clearly soapboxing and deserved warnings - their only other warnings were from blanking their own talk page, which they are allowed to do under WP:BLANKING. If not for their apparent existing understanding of WP policy, the reverting of their blanking of their talk page then warning them for it with level 3 and 4 would seem somewhat bite-ish. Still, they clearly understand WP policy, so sockpuppetry is possible, and they oddly placed a sock tag on their own talk page claiming two different sock identities here and here.
I'm not planning to undo the block, but wanted to discuss it with you to better understand the reasoning used. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, disruptive editing - this is someone that understands the system & appears to be trying to do some really odd cover-up stuff (? - hard to tell exactly the motivation). IMO, if we see this pop up again soon (IP hopping) there may be a better ability to figure out what the real motive is and if there's a range block/link to the real puppetmaster/ or something similar possible. I'd agree with the "bite", but not completely as it's someone who is gaming the system. Skier Dude (talk 01:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I got your message about File:JackieEvanchoTVsnip.jpg...I have np if its deleted as its the only one there was before...But i am concern that the image that has replaced in the article will not be there long File:Jackie1.jpg as its clearly from here...But i guess i could just upload the old one again if need be...Ps thanks for the notice. Moxy (talk) 02:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing that exact image there & a 'tineye' search ([3]) doesn't find the same image there either (but doesn't check for images from which this may have been cropped). You can be "bold" and revert & nominate the commons image for deletion - but without a specific source, I've found that they won't delete as a (c) violation. Skier Dude (talk 02:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dont realy care for nominating things for deletion....as you say i would need the link etc...Moxy (talk) 03:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image Deletion

Why is my image up for deletion? I have changed the source and copyright information numerous times. Evaporation Expert (talk) 14:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the strange vandalism on my userpage. I feel honored and slightly surprised that it is the first time in more than 4.5 years on here that my page was vandalized.--TM 05:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Graffiti Kings

Hi there

I am getting quite lost by all the editing functions on Wikipedia but your name has come up as deleting a file for a piece I was working on. The file was called GrafKing1.jpeg and was not a copyright infringement as I am part of a collective in the UK called Graffiti Kings. The guy in charge, Darren Cullen (Ser) actually did the piece of artwork himself along with two other graffiti artists and we are all confused as to why the images cannot be used under this profile. The Graffiti Kings logo has also been removed although without any more info. We are only able to work on this once a week really and so you can imagine how disappointing it is to find out that all the photos I've added have now gone. Any help with this matter would be appreciated as I am now getting confused by all the Wiki variation sites that I am being sent to to upload new information and the instructions or help I just simply don't understand at all. Thank you & respect

Ness part of the Graffiti Kings collective —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikklechick (talk • contribs) 17:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Traveling Circle - Handmade House cover image was deleted????

Hi,

We have the rights to publish our album cover but it was deleted. Can you explain why? We referenced it and included all the support we could but it was still deleted. Very confused....

Thanks for explain...

ArkSon (talk) 02:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Missed files

Some files seem to have gotten missed here. --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 05:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maquee.png

Hey Skier Dude,

I started working on the album article last night and didn't finish, it will be used soon though. Thank you - Theornamentalist (talk) 10:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

in response to your comment on my page about uploading images

I don't upload images not to be used in articles. All of the images that I've uploaded that have been deleted were at one time used in articles but replaced by better, png svg images uploaded by me. When I find a better image and replace an older one what am I supposed to do with the older image ? Is there a way I can delete it ? I don't want administrators to be bothered by it but I'm not going to avoid replacing an image just because I don't know how to delete the one being replaced.Grmike (talk) 07:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)grmike[reply]

Re: Orphaned non-free image File:US Chula-Vista logo.svg

Hello, It would appear that someone uploaded the logo of Chula Vista vectorised by me with another name and licensing and replaced my work with this new file in the corresponding article. They are virtually the same files. Although I can partially see the reasoning here (now, the filename is more proper), I have no idea why this new uploader claims to be the author, and doesn't mention the original creator and the person who vectorised it (namely, me). Can You help me resolve this? Regards. Avalokitesvara (talk) 17:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image file: GordionwoodstorageWP18.jpg

Hi Skier Dude. Thanks for your attentiveness. However, I am going to use all the images I have uploaded, including the one you mention, in an article that I intend to post today. Please remove my image from your hit list. Very important that you skiers be patient, as we do have several days to post our articles. Thanks. E. S. V. Leigh (talk) 20:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request AWBUser access

Thanks for approval :-) Jherschel (talk) 09:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Traveling Circle - HandmadeHouse_cover.web.jpg deleted?

I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=File:HandmadeHouse_cover.web.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1

I agree to publish that work under the free art license.

I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs, as long as they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me.

I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

October 15th 2010

Nasoni-Records

ArkSon (talk) 03:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image

Please refer Syed Abdul Mujeeb's award receiving image - It’s an image of a non-living person receiving public award that might have previous publication record but surely comes under a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. This is also my personal copy and have now given to public domain for fair use. You may remove the delete template of this image before 23rd October! Thanks Hashemi1971 (talk) 05:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tinku (actor)

Hi. I beg to diffr on your recent change in Talk:Tinku (actor). If you notice, the subject of the article has been seen in at least two films. Hence it should belong to WP:FILM. Mspraveen (talk) 05:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Project scope - the project does not track actors (but does track characters). Skier Dude (talk 05:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, was it so? Either that this is new or I haven't noticed this since I started editing. Thanks for pointing it out. Cheers, Mspraveen (talk) 06:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I accuatualy want the image to be out of the commons

I want the File:Wikiwikiweb2000.jpg to be remvoed --S1312 (talk) 09:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note of thanks

For your work and courtesy of notification on my page. Nishidani (talk) 16:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So much for a clean block log

My sincerest apologies. After reverting some vandalism to your pages, in my haste to make it to a meeting, I blocked you rather than the vandal who was harassing you. So much for a clean block log. I truly am sorry for the trouble. 7 07:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]