User talk:Skier Dude/archive/archive Sep 10

Cray

Hey Dude, I'm sure you're on to it, but just in case, Cray CX1000 is pretty much like yesterday's deleted version. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Cray CX1000

Hello, Skier Dude. You have new messages at Fastily's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:WillowW/Universe

You recently closed the above deletion discussion as "Deleted per G7/U1 - on 12:43, 9 January 2008 User:WillowW blanked the page stating in the edit summary, (no need for these at all!)"

In fact the edit referred to merely removed categories and interwikis, reducing the page from 29,768 bytes to 28,386 bytes - hardly blanking the page! Your conclusion gives the impression that your decision was taken a little hastily, and without reference to the deletion discussion, which had already proposed a solution.

Whether that is the case or not, please do take care with your admin tools. Thanks, Geometry guy 12:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Squire and Partners Images

Hi there, several images on the Squire and Partners page have been tagged with the following "Purpose = "Illustrative/informational purposes only" = too restrictive for use here; also no FuR" Can you help me with a more suitable description, as the copyright owner has given permission for these images to be used, and also explain the meaning of FuR? Thanks for your help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eravenst (talk • contribs) 10:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC) There are multiple issues with all of these images -[reply]

The phrase "Illustrative/informational purposes only" may be contrary to the license {{Non-free promotional}} as it adds a restriction to the license
The images need a Fair use rationale (FuR)
The images are used in a gallery without any critical comment, usually contrary to non-free content in galleries guideline
Even if these are completed, they could easily be marked as Non-free content #1 or Criteria for speedy deletion - F7. Invalid fair-use claim., as they're pictures that can be replaced by "free" images.
All claims of "they have given permission..." must be confirmed through the WP:OTRS system - follow the instructions there and have the (c) holders (not you) email the requested materials to the e-mail address that is given there.

Hope this helps.Skier Dude (talk 01:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proofreading request

Hi, would you be willing to proofread a translation from Italian to English, please? The original article is at it:Collegio Borromeo and the draft translation is at User:Philtweir/Collegio Borromeo (the current en article is Collegio Borromeo). With best wishes! Philtweir (talk) 00:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you very much for going through that so quickly! Your notes were very helpful; I have gone through and made the suggested changes, leaving the explanations in the hidden text for reference. That has clarified a few areas I felt a bit confused by which is also appreciated. All the best, Philtweir (talk) 03:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT

Why would you edit my sandbox? --SheaSheaShea (talk) 18:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand

When it's a work-in-progress article, it's probably better to leave it to DASHBot. I have relinked to the images without transclusions (as though DASHBot had removed them anyway). mechamind 9 0 01:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of changing [[Image:Name]] to , it would be better to change [[Image:Name]] to [[:Image:Name]] to assume a little more good faith. This will also prevent redundant edits from DASHBot. mechamind 9 0 02:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I'm trying to add the biography of an armenian artist jean Kazndjian. I'm not very good with computers so it's taking me a long time to do all the updates etc...I was trying to figure out how to add the sources/references, when the page got deleted. I still don't know how to do it. The biography I added can be seen on the artist website: jeankazandjian.com and on the website: christineargilletgallery.com

Can you help me?

Thanks

Beverly —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbueninck (talk • contribs) 22:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thank you for your help, I'll do my best!

Beverly Bueninck —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbueninck (talk • contribs) 22:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Actually, this is a prank. There is no such book (I wish it were !) You may delete the picture if you want to. I do not need it. Thanks. Regards Jon Ascton (talk) 08:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good ! Fast work

Permission to use a photo of yours

Good afternoon,

I am organizing a trip to the Pepsico Sculpture garden next month and came across your lovely photo of the Calder (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:KendallSculptGardensSouthSide122008.JPG). Would you be willing to give me permission to use this photo in a promotional flier publicizing this trip. I'm not sure if I need your permission given the permission field in the summary, but always like to err on the side of caution.

Best Curly Cello Girlie (talk) 19:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image is not mine, but is originally from User:Noroton who said that the image was "given without any restrictions", so it appears it can be reused. Additional information on image reuse can be found on Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia Skier Dude (talk 03:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:EdwinHarbor

I opened a WP:SPI about User:EdwinHarbor because he posted the same article you posted on his userpage as the WP:COI by the new user. ----moreno oso (talk) 04:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CCSD logo

This is a strange one. I thought at first it accidentally hadn't survived a vandalism revert. But it seems like the image is still in the infobox ... it's just not showing up. Perhaps someone has deaked around with the infobox code. Daniel Case (talk) 14:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that it hadn't been showing up for quite a while & it was only with [1] that edit that fixed the infobox field (image vs logo) combined with the prior one that fixed the vandalism that it showed up in the category: Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused non-free files - you can see it on the most recent report. I always double-check them before tagging & it wasn't being shown as used when it was tagged. A bit odd ;0) Skier Dude (talk 23:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

On File:MINDEF crest.jpeg, honestly its very embarrassing but I had forgotten to tag the fair-use rationale after uploading the image. Thanks for checking and reminding, best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 07:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks spam

Hello Skier Dude, thank you for supporting my RfA!
I was promoted with a final tally of 65/4/3.
I hope I can live up to everyone's expectations, do my best for Wikipedia, and take to heart the constructive criticism. Always feel free to message me if I'm around.

Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regaurding the Orphaned NBA jam boxart

The box art is used in an article. It is in the article NBA Jam (2010 video game) Jman442 (talk) 13:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry, the image used there is File:Nba jam 2010 cover.png not File:Nba jam.jpg. To verify what image is actually used, click on the link to the image - and then check the image description page - bottom left hand corner will read something like:

"File links - No pages on the English Wikipedia link to this file. (Pages on other projects are not counted.)"

or

"File links - The following pages on the English Wikipedia link to this file (pages on other projects are not listed): * NBA Jam (2010 video game)"

Hope that helps. Skier Dude (talk 22:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jensenite

Hi there, I was just about to contest the speedy and ask WP Chemicals if there was a chance at saving it. Do you mind restoring it for just a little longer? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 04:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you're probably right. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Christmas Special (Robot Chicken episode) for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Christmas Special (Robot Chicken episode), which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christmas Special (Robot Chicken episode) until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. JJ98 (Talk) 00:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

… for granting me WP:ROLLBACK. I'll try to do my best. Alfie ↑↓© 11:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Gemmell

I don't really edit on here any more, I don't understand the fair use policy properly for the David Gemmell picture. If you want to remove it then go for it. Will Decay (talk) 14:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doink

I have updated and removed the tag. Jeremy (talk) 03:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:StokeColLogo.jpg‎

Hi. Just wondering why this is up for CSD. It has a standard FUR that is in use on over a hundred UK schools, is in use on a Wikipedia page, and has a valid copyright notice. --Kudpung (talk) 07:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is just really weird - if you look at the image page, you'll still see "No pages on the English Wikipedia link to this file. (Pages on other projects are not counted.)" - but it is clearly being used on Stoke-on-Trent College - I've done a couple of null edits on the page (trying to purge the server cache, to no avail. If you could check it out - it might be "stuck" on my end and is actually appearing as being used on the page by someone who's not using the same cache as I am :( Skier Dude (talk 00:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tried using a different browser and the null edit seems to have worked! Skier Dude (talk 00:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:QEGSbadgelogo.jpg

Hello again. Just wondered what is happening - received a CSD notice alleging this file is orphaned - but the file is in use on the school's article and always has been ... it is still there now so what is afoot?. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 12:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that an editor has made a recent inaccurate amendment to the 'school and educational facilities info box' that now no longer reports the images to be in use ... consequently thousands of school logos show as not being in use (when they actually still are) and you are nominating them all for deletion. Can you quickly go back and un-nominate them before they are incorrectly deleted? It will create a massive amount of work for editors to reinstate them. Many thanks 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 17:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make a note of this at the admin notice board - but we always do check the orphaned images actual use before deleting them. It does appear that simply doing a null edit of the article is enough to "fix" the issue. WIll get to this after dinner :) Skier Dude (talk 00:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phew, glad it is not a major issue. Do you actually click on the link to the actual article (in the non-free use rationale) to see if the image is in use? ... or do you just look at the bottom of the page to see what the image links to? ... I only mention it because the two things may tell differing stories. Is there anything I can do to help? 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 00:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I click through, but these didn't appear (or showed up as wiki-markup characters) - I didn't make the connection that the schools were overrepresented in the last list. Skier Dude (talk 01:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image cleanup

Any chance of looking over User:Sfan00_IMG's recent efforts to reduce short pages? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe this for one moment

This File:Clouds - photo 4.jpg is claimed and licenced as "own work" but I have seen this image in many locations and uses over the years. My feeling is the only own work involved was scanning a copyrighted image. I don't know how to flag the item for investigation or deletion. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 17:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

S'OK someone else has picked up on it and nominated for deletion. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 17:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image is on commons, so you'll need to go to [2] to see it. I've nominated it over there as a probable (c) violation. There's a line "This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. Information from its description page there is shown below" near the middle - the "Its description page" Is clickable over to commons. Skier Dude (talk 17:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info for future reference. Damn that was quick. I have other issues to sort at the Clouds page. The same guy has been making dozens of unreferenced edits there. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 17:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please try contacting user through other means before deleting

I was wondering -- before you delete an image -- if you could try emailing or contacting the author through some other means? Some of us use the same handle throughout the net as on W, and we don't check on our Wikipedia talk page that often.

About a week or so ago, you deleted an image that I created years ago as an undergrad. I no longer have a copy of it, due to various hard drive failures through the years. It was crucial to the article, or I wouldn't have put it in. I'm wondering if you can help me retrieve it.

(Yosofun (talk) 07:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Image deletion proposal

Hello, re the image listed for deletion, I acknowledge that I failed to categorise it, this was due to an ignorance of wiki methods; but I also failed to notice that this image may indeed be a scan of publicity material; the image was given to me by an associate of the people represented, I thought it was simply a personal photograph. I apologise for the inconvenience to you and wiki users generally, and agree that the following image be deleted.

File:Clouds_-_photo_4.jpg

Thank you

Matthew Hartington Matthew.hartington (talk) 11:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I note the comments made about unreferenced changes - absolutely not. Full citations are given throughout. This was done in a genuine attempt to clarify the article. If you check the previous contributions against where it is now, I think you'll have to admit it makes more sense, and is fully referenced, but obviously welcome meaningful changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew.hartington (talk • contribs) 11:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page deletion

Hi Skier Dude, what was the reason for deleting of the Template:Brand X talk page ? Cdl obelix (talk) 12:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ummmm - this page was never deleted. if you're talking about Template talk:Brand X, it was mistagged with the album projects template & that project doesn't appear to track these (marked so back on 4 March 2010). Skier Dude (talk 01:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Created the talk page again and tagged it as Wikipedia:WikiProject Progressive Rock Template (Template talk:Brand X). Hope there are no objections. Cdl obelix (talk) 21:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image uploads and deletion issues

I seem to be making rather a mess of procedures in uploading images; I do apologise for the inconvenience this has caused you and the other wiki editors. I obviously need to do some homework before causing more chaos.

Thank you for your patience

Matthew.hartington (talk) 12:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not so regular...

But I am still an admin and all, so I suggest you reread WP:DTTR (especially since, if you *look* at the page, under licensing, it does give the rationale). I'll leave it to you to undo what looks like a bot-sweep, not an error that would be made by a human. Thanks. --Thespian (talk) 18:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re your comment on my user page: "these were all done by me, and it's not the first (or 10th) time that I've been accused of being a bot" - then *maybe* you want to change your style. Especially not to template an regular or an admin. If people are repeatedly accusing you of that, there's an issue with how you are treating other users. Please consider. --Thespian (talk) 05:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talal

Requesting un-protection on Talal for a disambig page.

Regards. JohnCengiz77 (talk) 00:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done - unprotected, but there really wasn't anything there worth restoring if it's going to be a disambig page. Skier Dude (talk 01:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Father Guido Sarducci.jpg

I have no memory of this image, which I apparently uploaded over five years ago when the image use policy was rather different, probably back when I was trying to be helpful by scavenging the internet for useful promotional images (foolish me). I have no interest in or continuing connection to the image, the article, or the topic. Given that the image is still in use in an article, the best practice in such a stale case is to post a notice on the talk page of the article that uses the image, because anyone who has that article watchlisted is going to be in the best position to either give a rationale as to why it can't be replaced (I don't know) or find a free replacement. I've taken care of it for you in this instance.[3] Cheers, postdlf (talk) 05:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Dinosaurworld.jpg

Still trying to work out how to do this. The image falls under Australian copyright laws, and I haven't been able to find a way to contact the owner of the image as the park closed down a while ago. The image cannot be replaced by another. It was taking from promotional material and is to be used to illustrate the features of the park which is commented upon in the article itself. Suggestions on how I can provide a rational would be helpful. Thanks. --Clarrisani (talk) 22:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Orphaned non-free image File:Prince royce - corazon sin cara.jpg

You can delete the image now. The article that it would be in doesn't have enough notability, so it is redirected elsewhere. Which just pretty means the image isn't neccessary at this point. Thanks, Garry says OK (talk) 04:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by 718 Bot

Just a heads up, files uploaded by 718 Bot (talk · contribs) don't require the bot to be notified. Its talk page is fully protected to avoid them and I see your notifications far too often. — ξ ^xplicit 05:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright tool?

Hi. I presume you used an automated tool for adding the warning at User talk:Sloebs#Fair use rationale for File:BA A319(CMA).jpg? Can you tell me what it is, and where else it reports such copyvio problems (I've only been using Twinkle, which reports such things to AfD or PUF, but with less informative warning messages). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only using Twinkle (Look at the page revision history - the "Twinkle" edits are at the end of the summary as (TW). Skier Dude (talk 22:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK, thanks - I guess I need to inspect its list of available warnings more closely. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Al Lohman picture

Skier:

I'm not sure how to proceed here. This picture was a part of an in-house newsletter produced by the radio station I was employed at. The newsletter had no copyright at all, it was simply for internal distribution and enjoyment. I was the editor, took the picture, and pasted up the newsletter for the station.

Help me out here?

File:AlLohman.jpg

Regards, --Manway (talk) 08:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might be able to disregard this comment now. Since it was stated that there was no copyright attached and PMDrive suggested a GFDL tag, I changed it.
To Manway, the CSD was just a premature presumption after another user mistakenly tagged it as non-free. mechamind 9 0 14:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]