User talk:hmwith/March09
| 2007 | <<
|
<<
|
<<
|
•
|
•
|
•
|
•
|
•
|
•
|
•
|
•
|
|||||||||||||
| 2008 | •
|
•
|
•
|
•
|
•
|
•
|
•
|
•
|
•
|
•
|
•
|
|||||||||||||
| 2009 | •
|
•
|
•
|
•
|
•
|
•
|
•
|
•
|
•
|
•
|
•
|
|||||||||||||
| 2010 | •
|
•
|
•
|
•
|
>>
|
>>
|
>>
|
>>
|
>>
|
>>
|
>>
|
>>
|
Image deletion
Apologies about the Phillies logo. Another user apparently deleted the fair use rationales which did exist before. I've restored them. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 22:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand your removal of the Phillies logo (nor do I understand not using my talk page to respond instead of an edit summary). The NFCC says "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." There is no free content version of the Phillies' logo, and there is no other way to represent the team's logo in an encyclopedic manner. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 18:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- I apologize for lack of talk page communication. I just thought that seemed easier, but I can certainly elaborate. Yes, no free equivalent is available, as it is a logo, but, what it fails is that it is not needed in this article: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." (boldface for emphasis, from WP:Non-free content criteria#Policy) hmwithτ 21:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I fail to see how the exclusion of the team's logo isn't detrimental to the article... KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the burden of proof is on the person wishing to add an image to the article & claim fair use. The article can get across everything it must without the decoration. Not every single article about a team needs the the team's logo. The main one will have it, and, sometimes, rivalry articles (but that's currently being debated as well). If you like the look of an image in the right corner of that article, a free image of an actual team would work very well there. hmwithτ 17:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
That, I actually have. I can make that happen. Cheers. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 18:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, wonderful. The History of the Philadelphia Phillies article looks great. That picture is very encyclopedic, and it sets the tone for the whole piece. Nice work. hmwithτ 16:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
File:Canihavearideoctave.ogg
Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 4! --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 06:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up. It seems that consensus has been reached. hmwithτ 21:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Media bias in India
Hi, It is very important that this article stays on Wiki. If it needs cleaning up it can be done. It was not original research. May reports and work exist and I need to add them and clean up. Media bias is a big menace in India and it will be great to have an article on that here. ~rAGU (talk)
- (edit conflict) Please start all new sections at the bottom of talk pages. The page that existed was an essay based on original research. If you have reliable sources, feel free to add information in a new section in the Media of India article, but a whole separate article simply on how it's biased does not need to exist. hmwithτ 21:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
restoring image so I can tag it correctly
Can you restore File:Hrvati1.JPG so I can give it a correct FUR for the Croats article? Please give it a new date on the tag so it gets 7 more days of time and doesn't get deleted before I can update it. Thanks. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Please check that the FUR I put is correct. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- There are actually several concerns. I'll address each image individually:
- King Tomislav - needs a source (File:Kralj_Tomislav.jpg doesn't have a source, which is needed to verify the copyright status).
- Ivan Gundulić - needs a source (same thing, File:Di_Gondola.jpg doesn't have a source).
- Andrija Mohorovičić -
needs to state why it is not replaceable by text and why it is needed in the article.remove. - Miroslav Krleža -
needs a fair use rationale as well as copyright information, as it's not in the public domain in the United States.remove. - Josip Jelačić - needs a source (same thing, the linked image doesn't have a source).
- Antun Lučić - needs a copyright tag & source on this page.
- It will likely be deleted unless these concerns are addressed. The copyrighted images (Andrija Mohorovičić and Miroslav Krleža) should simply be removed, per WP:Non-free content#Non-free image use in galleries. hmwithτ 13:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- There are actually several concerns. I'll address each image individually:
Thanks for removing those. I updated the sources a bit more; sorry that I can't pinpoint the sources better, but all the images left appear to be on the public domain for one or other reason. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- I also removed the non-free gallery deletion template, as the non-free images are no longer in the collage. The image descriptions and their licensing information still needs some work, but I'm leaving for vacation, so I'll leave it to another (uninvolved) admin to check out. hmwithτ 14:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- I made some final changes, and it looks good to me now. hmwithτ 00:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Email?
Hi Hmwith! I see you are back from your spring break vacation (hope you had a good time) and I was wondering if you had a chance to think about the email I sent you. If you are not interested, please say so now otherwise we are still holding a spot for you should you wish to accept. Either way, I await your reply. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 23:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you, I had a wonderful time. The first day of spring classes was today. For some reason, Yahoo! wasn't showing that I had email, but I just received it, & I'll respond shortly. hmwithτ 02:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)