User talk:ShakespeareFan00/Archive7

TfD nomination of Template:Non-free diagnostic

Template:Non-free diagnostic has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I've also nominated Template:Non-free official document for pretty much the same reason; see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Non-free official document. Your input would be genuinely appreciated. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

{{coord}}

Could you show me the policy as to why I'm changing like 1500 links to coord templates? Thanks. Yamakiri ^T_C § 06-16-2008 • 21:28:04

PS I kept trying to memo you on IRC, (what a hassle) until I gave up and just posted on your talk page.

Heads up

For the record, your Archive 4 seems to have a space in its name, causing your box above to have a red link. Thought you'd like to know. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 06:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Your contributions

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Just wanted to tell you there are people appreciating your efforts to keep the encyclopedia on the right track. Keep up the good work! Megata Sanshiro (talk) 15:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned

This is a long overdue message but you left one of my adoptees a message through your alternate account Sfan00 IMG, here and went ahead and removed a youtube link from his userpage here stating that the copyright status was unclear. If you look at the diff, you'll see that he clearly stated that the youtube account he had linked to was his own and if you look still further, you'll notice that at the time there weren't even any videos listed on said account. The message you left on his talkpage was both bitey and unwarranted and it's people like you who scare potentially good editors away from the project with your bad-faith, templated warnings. So I just wanted to thank you for scaring away another decent editor. Please stop and assess the situation before you go ahead and template new users' talkpages, thanks ——Possum (talk) 19:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Great Rebuilding

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Great Rebuilding, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

October 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Christmas lights. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. CardinalDan (talk) 23:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You Have New Messages

Hello, ShakespeareFan00. You have new messages at StewieGriffin!'s talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign Listen 15:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

WCR

Here they are: 1, 2. Enjoy. :) — neuro^(talk) 22:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Mediawiki hacks

We had short contact on the Freenode IRC network about that you want some people to test your Mediawiki hacks. You can contact me at Freenode #defocus (Mark17) or by email: info@streamservice.nl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.75.192.50 (talk) 22:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

An annoying problem with moving images to commons

There are quite a few images on wikipedia that have names that commons just won't accept (eg File:960s.PNG). What do you suggest doing in these cases? Renaming the image? I'm not entirely comfortable with that, and I can't find any official guidance on the matter. Thanks. --Closedmouth (talk) 14:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Nordvarg

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

What was the guy's name? What are our sources? Where did these assertions come from?

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. Orange Mike | Talk 17:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Linda McMahon

Hey there!

This is Screwball, and I appreciate your work on the 2006 Wrestling Investigation image. I've been working on the Linda McMahon page for some time now, and I would love to have your feedback and constructive criticism.

Again, thank you!

-Sincerely, --Screwball23 talk 03:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

...

Are you intending to tag this file and spam my talk page once every 18 months for the rest of eternity? Gurch (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair-use rationale

Hello! I wrote you a message here (just in case you didn't see it yet). Razvan Socol (talk) 19:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Audio Wikinews

Hey. On Wikinews, there's a new user (Turtlestack) who's trying to restart audio wikinews. He's trying to put together a team of people so that one person doesn't get sick of doing it. I'm not sure if you're still interested, but I remember that you used to do them, so I thought I'd let you know in case you are. Anyways n:Wikinews talk:Audio Wikinews if you are. Cheers. Bawolff (talk) 03:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of the Angus mix image

I am not very versed on image policy, but what is wrong with that image?--It's me...Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 22:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a file description page for a file that is located on Commons. The page is tagged for deletion because the file exists on Commons, and not locally. Such pages are routinely deleted for housekeeping/maintenance. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 23:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh...makes sense..thanks!--It's me...Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 07:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Edits by Sfan00 IMG

Hi there. I'm a bit concerned by edits being made by your alternate account Sfan00 IMG. The concerns are:

• (a) They appear to be being made by a bot, but are not tagged as bot edits and you do not appear to have the relevant approvals to operate a bot.
• (b) I am not sure they are in accordance with policy; relevantly, the CSD categories relating to images rely on the lack of a fair use rationale, not lack of tags, and it is inappropriate to propose images for deletion where they have a clearly explained fair use rationale merely because they lack the tag templates.
• (c) Deletion is not for clean-up. Where a file (or article) is not compliant with policy, but on the basis of available information can be MADE compliant with policy, the onus is on you to attempt that work prior to calling for deletion. This means if you have sufficient information to add image copyright tags yourself, you should do so, rather than marking the image for deletion.
• (d) A number of users - many of them new users - do not realise Sfan000 IMG is not your primary account and are asking questions on the talk page there which you do not appear to be responding to. Please answer their questions, and make the connection between your accounts clearer to users whose images you are tagging.
• Many thanks. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• As a side note, I'm also not clear which of the legitimate reasons for sockpuppetry your sock falls under and it would be helpful to clearly note the relevant reason on both your user page and Sfan00 IMG's. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Confused

I have no idea what is going on. I'm hoping you can enlighten me. This is compunded by the fact that WP has unilaterally changed the user interface, and something has dumped a pile of spam on my talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APdfpdf&action=historysubmit&diff=361890538&oldid=361062602 Pdfpdf (talk) 15:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 21:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK images

(copied from User talk:Sfan00 IMG)

I noticed that you requested a couple DYK images be speedily deleted (File:Elena Myers after winning Race 1 Round 1 of 2010 AMA Pro Supersport Championship cropped.jpg and File:Natalka-Poltavka (1936).jpg. The bots were run by me (you should be checking if you're placing the alert on a redirect by the way) and DYK has been tagging images locally for months now, like the Featured Picture process. Will you reconsider? Shubinator (talk) 01:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

My bad. Shubinator (talk) 03:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Your fair use whatever

Your bot or whatever the hell it is does not notice when files have fair use rationales that are not written in the basic template thing, as seen here, here, here, etc. You need to modify the script or actually look at the files you are tagging with this other account to check whether or not they have the NFCC compliant content or not.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Repeated tagging

Your image bot keeps tagging the same images with reasons that don't stand up to human scrutiny. Guy (Help!) 23:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Unblock?

If you can promise to quit tagging fixable issues with the DFU tag? Black Kite (t) (c) 21:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Please raise this in the appropriate ANI thread, but subject to clarification of what you mean by 'fixable' issues, I think some sort of agreement can be reached. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Raised at ANI. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

F2 images

Hi. Can you provide a link to a discussion regarding deleting categorizations of Commons images under F2? Pages like File:2005 gibbs 021.jpg that contain an en category for a commons image have traditionally been permitted. Has this changed? --B (talk) 15:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It was my understanding that images on commons should be categorised at Commons, and the local page removed, I suggest you bring this up on the Village Pump.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Your understanding based on what? A policy? A discussion somewhere? --B (talk) 18:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Image_tagging_by_User:Sfan00_IMG. --B (talk) 18:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

...

You appear to have left me an image-deletion notice. My prominent talkpage header clearly says, "Don't leave impersonal, standard templates." So why did you do it? ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 07:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Your talk page header is NOT visible when using a script based tagging method like Twinkle, but noted. BTW Thanks for adding a source to the image. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Folk enemy

The article Folk enemy has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A poorly defined concept, with no indication given that it exists as a coherent encyclopedic topic. Article unreferenced and unimproved for three 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 {{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. Nsk92 (talk) 13:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Boulton watt image copyright

I noticed that you deleted my upload of the new £50 note reverse (see my talk page). This was supplied by the Bank of England under conditions that it only be used to illustrate articles about the release of the new notes. I uploaded it for use on the article about £50 notes, specifically the section that discusses the release of new notes at the end of this year. I feel that a section of a wikipedia article falls within the BoE's use of the word "article" even if the entire page is not about therelease of the new notes (compare, a banknotes magazine with a page on the £50 note, which contains a section/article describing the new release). The BoE source page was linked to from the image description page, which contained both the original image and distribution license. I do not see how its intended use contravenes the license under which the image was provided. Can you please justify this and if you are unable, please restore the image. — Nicholas (reply) @ 12:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Just letting you know...

Figured I'd let you know of this. LikeLakers2 (talk) 16:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Concerning a Logo

Hi ShakespeareFan00, I'm in the process of drafting an article on the company this logo belongs to. I'm looking for (a) any specific guidelines that relate to writing a non-promotional article about a company (the guidelines section is somewhat of a disjointed, redundant mess), and (b) confirmation that the logo will not be deleted, as it is going to be used for the as-yet-in-progress page Zynx Health. Any feedback on either of those? -- Pkimmich (talk) 17:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)Pkimmich

File:Monument to George Tsimbidaros-Fteris.jpg

Just curious — was tagging this an error? It's not on Commons, but you tagged it for F2 deletion. Nyttend (talk) 02:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Expimgsrc

Template:Expimgsrc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Regarding wrong license on File:UNC Chapel Hill Cornerstone.jpg

You recently marked File:UNC Chapel Hill Cornerstone.jpg as "wrong license" (Sorry, I don't know how to wiki-link those without inserting the picture/template)

A little help please.

This is a photo I took of a mural that is over 60 years old in a goverment-owned building (courthouse/post office)

Therefore, is it not copyright-free as a "publication" of the government?

So should this be marked "public domain" or "Non-free historic image" as it is a "faithful digitisation of a unique historic image, and the copyright for it is most likely held by the person who created the image or the agency employing the person."?

Thanks!

 Eric Cable  |  Talk  20:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Cobalt blue.jpg

The file is explicitly licensed as CC-BY. Why did you tag it for deletion? Double sharp (talk) 05:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of List of brand name food products for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of brand name food products is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of brand name food products until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Files with short filenames

Category:Files with short filenames, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Short filename

Template:Short filename has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

re: File:Vvoice august cover.jpg ‎

In the future, when an image lacks a rationale and the user who uploaded is both active and experienced, I would strongly suggest that you not CSD tag the article and leave them a template. Rather, leave a message on their talk page asking for a rationale before tagging, like a normal human being instead of a robot. Steven Walling • talk 17:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: Non-free rationale for File:UrbanAssault-boxart.png

Hello user "ShakespeareFan00",

This message is in reply to your message on my talk page regarding File:UrbanAssault-boxart.png. I assume that in your tireless semi- or fully-automated quest to earn another "barnstar", you overlooked the fact that the page you tagged does, in fact, have a "fair use rationale". It, however, does not have the "fair use rationale template" for cover art that other video game articles such as Call of Duty 4 have. After seeing how difficult using Template:Non-free use rationale video game cover was, I have helpfully done this work for you. You seem to be quite busy, adding all those templates to all those pages. I'd definitely support you in the future if there is a vote for another "barnstar" or, even better, "administrator". All of these other people on your various talk pages complaining about your automatic tagging of images for deletion are just haters; feel free to ignore them.

Regards,

—shoecream 03:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: File:Drewbeer.jpg

Hello there SF00,

This message is regarding your semi automated slapping of no licence and no description tags on an image I uploaded over 7 years ago with no problems at the time. Despite the fact that I included both at the time, and my original description and licensing are still on the page! I understand you're a busy chap trying to delete as much stuff as possible, but this is not a suitable target. I have undone your changes, feel free to get in touch in a non-automated manner if you have further things to discuss.

Regards,

Winckle (talk) 15:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Did not tag it as having a missing licence, I tagged it as potentially having a 'wrong' license which is a different issue.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Query

I seem to be receiving a number of messages from Sfan00 IMG about missing Free Use criterion on pages that clearly do have them. I suspect that an automated tool is being used to find these... is that the case? Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I see that a new tag has also been added, which also appears to be wrong. Is this automated as well? Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Fair use criteria - which the images tagged don't have ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Wayout Club

The article The Wayout Club has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Seemingly orphan article with unresolved multiple issues fro over 2 years, Whilst various LGBT clubs are notable, little of no additional citations exist for this article, which is largely based on information from the entity's own websites.

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. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

New message

Hello, ShakespeareFan00. You have a new message at User talk:Sfan00 IMG.

—David Levy 17:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Marc Maiffret

The article Marc Maiffret has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

May not meet notability standards.

While all constructive 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. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 00:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

NFCCC2

I dont understand ncff 2 can you elaborate on it for me?.21:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Quoting: "Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media." ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I already read it. If I understood it, I wouldnt have asked. Out of all the criteria, this one elaborates the least. Im assuming its related to resolution so people cant bootleg or pieate anything.Lucia Black (talk) 22:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, It also relates to the fact that you can't use obviously 'agency' images Sfan00 IMG (talk) 06:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I dont know what agency images are.Lucia Black (talk) 09:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Timeball station.jpg

Please don't tag images for F11 speedy deletion when they've survived FFDs, as you did with File:Timeball station.jpg. As WP:CSD notes, images that have survived deletion discussions may not be speedy deleted except under a bunch of housekeeping criteria (e.g. F8 and G6) and under G12 — if you disagree with the previous FFD, please start a new one. Nyttend (talk) 02:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, ShakespeareFan00. You have new messages at Sfan00 IMG's talk page.
Message added 11:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Peridon (talk) 11:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

PD-ineligible images

See the history of File:Amc theatres logo.svg. If edits like this continue, you should expect to be blocked for repeated misuse of the speedy deletion process, because as you've been warned numerous times before, PD-ineligible images do not need sources. Nyttend (talk) 05:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Noted.. I will posting to WP:AN shortly to arrange something in response to your concerns..Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:57, 4 October 2013 (UTC)