User talk:ShakespeareFan00/Sfan00 IMG/Archive 14

Why don't you fix stuff like File:Robert MacArthur.jpg yourself instead of going around making an arsehole of yourself? It's a trivial matter. Do something of value to the project. Richard001 (talk) 05:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

So making a request for rationales to the original contributor is not of value? Perhaps you should reconsider your attitude Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• Please do not tag with "no rationale" the images that have a rationale in place. They have a rationale in place, just not the newest template. As per person above, take the time to fix what you feel is inadequate if it takes the same amount of time or a little longer. When the current template for FUR gets superseded in the future we do not want people deleting the same images each time an old method gets superseded. It is a lot of work to find and load an image, and it is just as easy for you to fix what you find inadequate. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Coord review

Template:Coord review 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) 10:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Fixing the problem is much more valuable and uses the same amount of time or less. If it takes the same amount of time or less, why not fix the problem? Is your goal to have the best encyclopedia or to delete as much as possible? Which is your goal? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

RE: Wwwf logo

I didn't upload this image, originally. You should ask the original uploader. JC · Talk · Contributions 21:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

File:A View of Baramulla .JPG

For your information: I replaced your F8 request with an F9 request. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, ShakespeareFan00. You have new messages at Stefan2's talk page.
Message added 14:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Stefan2 (talk) 14:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The remains of the ahihud creature.jpg

Could you please explain your removal of my unknown source tag on this imagehere? The tamplate says "To the uploader: this tag is not a sufficient claim of fair use. You must also include the source of the work, all available copyright information, and a detailed non-free use rationale." I have no problem with your justification of the fair use wrt purpose of use and replacability, but the requirement to include all available copyright information is clearly not met. We don't know what the original copyright/ permissions were, and we have no way of determining them since all we have is a vague reference to a facebook conversation history. Meters (talk) 17:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I removed the unknown source tag , because it's not an 'unknown' source - Just a VERY vauge one! Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It's certainly not a verifiable source. Anyways, moot now. Someone deleted the file and associated article. Meters (talk) 17:50, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

And they're back again! Meters (talk)

Permission For Vox logo

Hi Sfan00 IMG, thanks for pointing out that I did not provide permission evidence for the logo image usage of Vox. I am the original owner of this image and I have now included a description of usage by Creative Commons CC-BY-SA at the source of the image, see this link http://www.indiedb.com/games/vox/images/screenshot#imagebox and the left hand description for proof. Thanks Moondoggy (talk) 18:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk September 21, 2012

Hey, I noticed you have tagged the file "50 cent and ne-yo.jpg‎" for deletion. I've uploaded it today, and I don't know what license would serve to it because Ne-Yo posted the picture on his Instagram's account. I think you might can help me with that... Also, I marked the file as licensed by Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 cause I didn't find any other there what would serve to it as I said above. I am trying to create a good article on the page Street King Immortal, which is an studio album by American rapper 50 Cent, and I think the picture should help to improve the page. I'll be changing the file's summary now. If you can help me, I'll be glad. -Luis Guilherme (talk)

Hm, also, how can I found a image here in Wikipedia? Cause I don't know who took the pic in the case, so it probably will be deleted soon. If you know any picture uploaded under Wikimedia with Ne-Yo and 50 Cent hit me up. SrGangsta (talk) 00:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation newsletter

Hey ShakespeareFan00/Sfan00 IMG. I'm dropping you a note because you used to (or still do!) patrol new pages. This is just to let you know that we've deployed and developed Page Curation, which augments and supersedes Special:NewPages - there are a lot of interesting new features :). There's some help documentation here if you want to familiarise yourself with the system and start using it. If you find any bugs or have requests for new features, let us know here. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Photo at Gustavo Rojas Pinilla

Would you be able to go through the very recent archive at Gustavo Rojas Pinilla and find the photo of Rojas in military uniform to insert in the military section? Somebody removed the color picture of the bust and put in the inferior military photo. I thought it was a good addition, nonetheless, but out of place. Unfortunately, I was unable to make it show up! Thanks. Yopienso (talk) 06:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing my article

Thanks for reviewing my article and providing your feedback. Regarding Triratna Man Tuladhar's life after 1962, there's not much info on what he did. After the Tibet business closed down, the traders of his generation returned to Kathmandu and led unremarkable lives. I have added a closing sentence to the article. Karrattul (talk) 10:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Murchison 1.jpg

Permission is in OTRS (2009) — ticket N° 2009110210004777. Craig D. Blackmon, the photographer, and Holzman Moss Architecture (now Holzman Moss Bottino Architecture), the firm, donated the image to the public domain. The actual permission is in the email connected to the authorization ticket number. That email is in the OTRS archives. — Eurodog (talk) 16:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Updated - and tagged For Commons :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Question

Could you please explain what was wrong with File:Labor camp.jpg? Do you mean that OTRS ticket is not valid, or this is something else? Thanks, My very best wishes (talk) 14:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no recognised license tag. Is this CC-BY-SA or isn't it? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I forget to properly label it during download. Actually, that was a large series of images by Nikolai Getman from the web site of Jamestown Foundation. First, User:Mike18xx apparently contacted director of the Foundation and obtained permission to use these images (see for example File:Getman collage.jpg). After that I also contacted them and they gave permission. My very best wishes (talk) 22:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Template talk:Non-free biog-pic

Hello, ShakespeareFan00. You have new messages at Template talk:Non-free biog-pic.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nyttend (talk) 22:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

RE: Sample rationales

Thanks, but I was only taking care of the samples I uploaded in the past. Dan56 (talk) 23:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: File:Al-raqqah-map.png missing description details

I've added the relevant data. Please do check and let me know if there's anything else I should be doing? The file is only a modified version of files like File:Latakia-map.png and will be used in the same breath. Thanks for your note. Yazan (talk) 15:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Moving it to Commons :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

On NFUR Tracking

Hello, ShakespeareFan00. You have new messages at Template talk:Non-free video cover.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

– Fayenatic London 19:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

– Fayenatic London 19:48, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

?

?. Ryan Vesey 23:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

series of chemical images uploaded on subject of IUPAC-related nomenclature and with tagging for deletion

Hi Sfan00 IMG, many thanks for checking the copyright on these images. I have made the images myself specifically for wikipedia. I had (obviously mistakenly) thought that the tagging was good - indeed I had had talks with others I seem to remember about this and the images status that seemed to indicate that they were ok. However, if there are still problems with the copyright tagging for these images, I really cannot work out how to correct the copyright tagging on these images so that it is clear that I made them for this site - so that they do not infringe on the IUPAC nor wiki copyrights. Sorry about this but it really is not clear to me at all. Can you tell me how to add the tags please? I have read the related texts, and I'm afraid that I can't see a way in. Sorry about this, and thank you, Rogerchiorns (talk) 14:31, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Dear Sfan00 IMG, thank you very much for indication of what type of tag might be added. I have done this on two images with the hope that I have done it technically speaking in the right way. But I am not sure that I have. Would you be able to check that I added the tag in the right place on the image edit file please? If it is ok, then I'll do all the others. Sorry about this, but the edit codes are not very clear to me. The one I did was IUPAC phthaloyl divalent group.png. Thank you!, Rogerchiorns (talk) 14:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Dear Sfan00 IMG, Thanks for helpful link! Rogerchiorns (talk) 16:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Dear Sfan00 IMG, have added tags of the PD-chem type to each of the small chemical structures you have noted for concern, therefore I think that the problems you raised were dealt with. However, I am not sure if I should remove the red tag on each image page now? I have not tried to do this as best thought would you or another administrator who does this, but nevertheless was a bit concerned in case I should have done this. Please advise. Many thanks. Rogerchiorns (talk) 01:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Once a license is added , anyone even you can remove a speedy deletion notice :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 02:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Great Elm rail accident 6 Oct 2008 b.jpg

Hi. Please could you advise me regarding the correct licence status for this image (which you have marked as having the wrong license status).

The image was taken from a report published on the Rail Accident Investigation Branch website, whose terms and conditions state:

"The material featured on this site is subject to Crown copyright protection unless otherwise indicated. The Crown copyright protected material (other than departmental or agency logos) may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. This is subject to the material being reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. Where any of the Crown copyright items on this site are being republished or copied to others, the source of the material must be identified and the copyright status acknowledged."

However there does not appear to be a template for the Open Government Licence (the Wp:File copyright tags page mentions such a template, but it is a redlink: {{Open Government License}}).

Thanks. DavidWard ^talk 16:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, ShakespeareFan00. You have new messages at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks.
Message added 00:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Clarification request for the bot task Braincricket (talk) 00:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

permission problem with File:Tailgating through time.jpg

I was wondering if you could help me prove i have permission for the picture, I intern and the McDaniel Athletics, so i have permission to post it but i am confused about how to do it --WMCheerman (talk to me) 15:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

First read the notice you got carefully Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

NFUR review backlog

I've just spotted that you've updated pretty much all non-free templates to request a rationale review. The backlog is over 400,000 items (and it's probably still growing depending how far along you are). What is the plan with these? This backlog is ridiculous, I've uploaded over 100 pieces of rationaled non-free works, and I'm not going to revisit and tag those. Is these some bot request in place? Where is NFUR review being discussed? - hahnchen 14:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

A bot is under development to review ALL the trival cases :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Sixth attempt at Warren Coats Image permissions

I am writing to complain about Wikipedia’s image use policy as enforced by your editors. I’m not sure I agree with or understand why you have chosen a policy so strict that it basically negates the power and potential of the Internet—if you want to have the image policy of a print encyclopedia, that’s your business. What I object to is the impossibility of figuring out what you want and the apparent inability of any of your editors to actually help me solve the problem. The several editors who so vigilantly monitor licenses were quick to detect some problem, what problem I still don’t understand, then instantly delete the picture, and refer me to the same thicket of dozens of articles explaining licenses and policies. What I want to do should be very simple—upload a picture that a friend took of another friend that we all want to be used freely. Why is it so complicated to figure out how to do something simple? I believed I had complied with your demands proving this each time—we’re on the sixth attempt now—only to have someone else come along and complain and give me the same instructions that I thought I’d already satisfied. If I hadn’t satisfied the policy, can you help me do so? We’ve emailed you the permissions of both the person who took the picture and who owns the picture. So what do you want now? I love Wikipedia, but the number of hours I have spent trying to figure out what you want for one simple picture and the frustration this produced has greatly soured me. I’m all for quality control, but all this time that everyone has spent could have been much better invested than in proving the license of an image whose use no one will ever object to. Sincerely, Odell Huff (Writing in reference to the article and image of Warren Coats). Odellhuff (talk) 11:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odellhuff (talk • contribs) 11:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

If you've already mailed in the permission , you should add {{OTRS Pending}} to the file description page Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I reforwarded an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org from both the author and the subject (one contention has been that it was the subject's camera for the subject's computer but a friend snapped the picture--we had to track down the person who snapped the picture, the "author," to ask his permission to actually use it?). Then, in Wikimedia Commons on the file's description page (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Warren_Baghdad.JPG#.7B.7Bint:license-header.7D.7D) under the licensing heading I inserted: An email containing details of the permission for this text has been sent in accordance with WP:OTRS. Does that satisfy the requirements? Thank you for help. While I do understand the reasoning, my personal opinion is that licensing requirements this severe and a decision tree this complex are consuming manpower in recreating the limitations of print. Surely a better balance could be struck between unleashing wiki potential, especially for content meant to be in the public domain, and Wikipedia's legal needs.Odellhuff (talk) 14:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I can understand the frustrations as well Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

John Joseph Houston

Anitabrenner (talk) 05:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the comments. I added cites. Please take a look and let me know your suggestions. Thanks!

Nomination for deletion of Template:Commons needs your info

Template:Commons needs your info 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) 14:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Un-filemoved

Template:Un-filemoved 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) 14:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Uw-ilc

Template:Uw-ilc 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) 14:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

RE: Ejaz Chaudhary

Thank you for informing me, after this I had contacted the email of Mr Chaudhary and told him about the wikipedia licence, I assume that from then on he has told his webmaster to authorise a CC-BY-SA licence as his website has been updated see: http://www.ejazchaudhary.com/about-me/

Thank you for your help (Wiki id2(talk) 07:52, 6 October 2012 (UTC))

Template:Official document listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Official document. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Official document redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). MBisanz ^talk 15:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Legobot 21 - Done

Not sure of what the TfD procedure is, but I marked it as done. I'll fix some code for Legobot 22, and should have the trial done tomorrow. LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 07:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Redirects to a deleted pages

If there's a redirect to a deleted page, you don't usually need to take it to RFD, just tag it with {{db-g8}}. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, not {{db-g8}}, use {{Db-redirnone}}. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 18:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

... for the barnstar! It's much appreciated. De728631 (talk) 14:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

File:S Her arms.png

I have done what I can with the fair use rationale. Basically it is only really decoration for the article so it wouldn't be the end of the world if it disappeared from Wikipedia. I uploaded it 5 and a half years ago and standards (mine and Wikipedia's) may have changed since then :-) Lozleader (talk) 15:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

re File:Warsaw Arsenal 1938.jpg

Please delete, we have enough free photos I don't think fu is justified any longer. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure which it the correct tag, but I give you permission (as the uploader) to just speedy it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Antoni Heda IIWW.jpg - kill this as well, we have enough photos of the subject at commons:Category:Antoni_Heda, and I don't think the fact that this is a WWII image makes that much of a difference. Thanks for cleaning up those old images, it's been forever on my own to do list, too. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

RE Macedonian-Radio Television logo issue

Hi there. I wanted to inform you that I delivered e-mail to permissions-en@wikimedia.org about the copyrights of the logos. I noticed that the files I uploaded are pending for removal because I failed to provide evidence that they've been sent to me. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MRT_1_HD_logo.png, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MRT_1_new_logo.png , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MRT_Sobraniski_Kanal_new_logo.png , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MRT_2_new_logo.png ) IThe logos are clearly from the Macedonian Radio Television and I didn't take their copyrights at all but uploaded them just as every logo for television is. They will be found on their new website which is under construction and also at their e-mail mtv1.promo@gmail.com, in fact that's how i received them. I will send you the conversation between me and the guys from the Macedonian Radio Television. I asked them for the logos at a Macedonian forum for Television. This is copy from it.

Автор Порака мрт1.промо

Наслов на пораката: Re: Прашање Фолдер: Сандаче Може. Пратете е-маил на mtv1.promo@gmail со subject "МРТ-LOGOS" и ќе Ви бидат препретени.

Поздрав

Испратено: Пет Сеп 28, 2012 12:19 am Види ја пораката

Одговори со цитат Одговори на пораката Macedonicus

Наслов на пораката: Прашање Фолдер: Испратени пораки Здраво МРТ. Дали ќе може да ми ги пратите логоата за МРТ2 и МРТ Собранискиот за да ги поставам на Википедиjа и саjтот Предавател Македониjа? http://www.predavatel.com/mk/tv/index

Or translated :

Macedonicus: Hello MRT. Could you please send me the logos for MRT 2 and MRT parlament channel so I could post them on Wikipedia and Predavatel Macedonia? http://www.predavatel.com/mk/tv/index

mrt1Promo: Yes we can, send e-mail to mtv1promo@gmail.com with subject "МРТ-LOGOS" and they will be forwared to you. Regards

So as you can see, I have the permissions for usage of the logos directly from the Macedonian Radio Television. The email message from them doesn't contain any text but only the logos, but if you insist I will forward it to you.

I hope that this solves the issue Regards, Macedonicus Macedonicus (talk) 18:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The images are currently marked under fair-use.. Please do forward the e-mails to the relevant queue Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Empty file description pages for Commons files

Please note that unnecessary file description pages for Commons images is WP:CSD#F2, not WP:CSD#F8, and should be tagged accordingly. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 14:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Jimmy Savile

You seem to be engaged in a campaign to remove every mention of Savile, from a long list of articles, without any explanation. Can you explain why? Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

And you added an odd cn request to the mention about Savile at ITV Tyne Tees, despite it actually having a citation? The JPS^{talk to me} 22:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Re File:Hakim Ahmad Shuja 1.jpg

Dear Sfan00 IMG, hello. I sorry to bother you again but regarding the above photo image, I have already given a very detailed explanation and origin/source detail and also reiterated my ownership of this photo again and again. I dont know how to do this in technical/formal licencing terms, and get confused with all the terminology etc--and was wondering if you could please be kind enough to help me out? thanksKhani100 (talk) 12:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)Khani100

The image is at Commons, you'll have to take up the issue with them Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh ok, thanks Khani100 (talk) 14:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)Khani100

Didn't upload that image

I didn't upload that image so your message goes to wrong user. User that made that image is Fuzzy510. ^{Snake bgd} 15:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

What is your plan?

When you come across an image using an older text based rationale, rather than the most recent template, why do you tag it for deletion? All you have to do is paste in the newest most up-to-date template and it will take less time. Do you want all your images deleted 10 years from now when the current template is superseded? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

OrphanReferenceFixer: Help on reversion

Hi there! I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. Recently, you reverted my fix to Nachman Shai.

If you did this because the references should be removed from the article, you have misunderstood the situation. Most likely, the article originally contained both <ref name="foo">...</ref> and one or more <ref name="foo"/> referring to it. Someone then removed the <ref name="foo">...</ref> but left the <ref name="foo"/>, which results in a in the article. I replaced one of the remaining <ref name="foo"/> with a copy of the <ref name="foo">...</ref>; I did not re-insert the reference to where it was deleted, I just replaced one of the remaining instances. What you need to do to fix it is to make sure you remove all instances of the named reference so as to not leave any .

If you reverted because I made an actual mistake, please be sure to also correct any reference errors in the page so I won't come back and make the same mistake again. Also, please post an error report at User talk:AnomieBOT so my operator can fix me! If the error is so urgent that I need to be stopped, also post a message at User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 10:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC) If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add {{bots|optout=AnomieBOT-OrphanReferenceFixer}} to your talk page.

Proposed deletion of Solar Realms Elite

The article Solar Realms Elite has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I love BBS history, but this game game does not meet WP:N criteria. It doesn't have significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject.

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. czar · · 06:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Unsure...

what the intent of this edit but there's a stray bit of coding that was left behind in the text of the article that then also erased the other references from view. I went ahead and tried to fix it up but was unsure of your intent and thought you might like to take a look yourself. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 14:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Heh, was fixing it, got distracted and then realized it hadn't gone live but is sitting on my computer in Preview mode...oh well. Shearonink (talk) 14:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

NFCC proposal

Just a heads up to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Get_rid_of_the_NFCC_enforcement_drama. Legoktm (talk) 08:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

hmm

Yes, seems like a suggestion worth thinking about .... can you code this or did you just think that it was good in theory ? Victuallers (talk) 11:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Teletype Corporation Model 28 RT Set.pdf

I saw that you made this edit (This non-free media file should be replaced with a smaller version to comply with Wikipedia's non-free content policy and United States copyright law.) and have some questions. Do you look at file size alone when marking a file as you have done with Teletype Corporation Model 28 RT Set.pdf? Do you look for other criteria? Do you read the existing summary of the file in question? Do you look at the image to see if the quality is already poor?

In adding this image from a Teletype Corporation advertisements, I tried my best to provide an image that met all of the criteria that existed at the time (April 2012). You will note that the full resolution image is already quite grainy. I am sure that you took note of the fact that only one of six pages of the advertisement in question were uploaded. If I do reduce the image size any futher, the text will devolve into unreadability and the images of the tape punches and tape readers will become useless.Wa3frp (talk) 18:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Mention this on the file description page Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Peter Kambasis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blogger (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you very much for fixing File:Nada film.jpg to use the correct FUR tag. I thought there was one like that but I couldn't remember the template name. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 16:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Unexplained edits

Hello! Why are you bypassing functional template redirects on file description pages (example) and templates used thereon (example). Edit summaries would be helpful. Thanks! —David Levy 17:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The bypassing is so that older templates can be deprecated and removed.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

What benefit is this intended to provide? (Simplifying scripts, perhaps?) Has this been discussed somewhere? —David Levy 17:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Note that edit summaries like "Template migration" and "Template was redirected ." are not sufficiently informative. (They provide no explanation of why a "migration" from redirects is occurring.) If a relevant discussion has occurred, please point to it via the edit summaries. —David Levy 17:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

There are a number of reasons why the templates are being migrated, script simplification being one of them. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Again, where was this migration discussed?

And why are you still using the edit summary "Template was redirected ." (which provides absolutely no indication of why the redirects are being bypassed)? —David Levy 18:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Please kindly explain how making Wikipedia simpler is a bad thing? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Eliminating template redirects might make some things (such as script maintenance) simpler, but it has the opposite effect among editors unfamiliar with the templates' current names (whose transclusion attempts suddenly result in red links).

As you've again ignored my question regarding where this matter was discussed, I can only assume that it wasn't. Please cease the "migration" until consensus in its favor is established. Thank you. —David Levy 18:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, please say that again. I should stop 'migration' because you have a difference of opinion?

Has anythign actually broken yet? Has 'migrating' templates caused any real inconvenience?

I also wasn't aware simple fixes like template migrations required community approval if they didn't actually change things,

Can you please indicate in which debate to which you were a party that guideline changed? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I should stop 'migration' because you have a difference of opinion?

You should stop because it lacks consensus.

I neither support nor oppose the idea in principle. I would need to consider the unspecified "number of reasons" (and others' assessments thereof) to weigh the advantages and disadvantages. This is the sort of discussion that should occur. —David Levy 19:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

So YOU DON'T LIKE IT? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Did you read my reply? Again, I have no firm opinion on whether the "migration" is prudent. I've asked you to stop because it's undiscussed and lacks consensus. —David Levy 20:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I read your reply, so far you are the only other Wikipedian to have complained. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Again, my objection is based upon the community's established practices (as documented at WP:NOTBROKEN and WP:CONSENSUS), not upon my personal opinion.

You noted below that you're "prepared to concede that keeping the old names as redirects is a good idea". Does this mean that you've stopped bypassing them? —David Levy 20:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm at the moment not bypassing generally. I am however partioning {{Film cover fur}}to {{Non-free use rationale poster}} and {{Non-free use rationale video cover}} based on the license tag because of specific differences in wording between the NFUR.

I'd appreciate you raising the issue of redirected templates somewhere appropriate because it seems silly not to try and update usages, even if the old name are retained as redirects. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm at the moment not bypassing generally. I am however partioning {{Film cover fur}}to {{Non-free use rationale poster}} and {{Non-free use rationale video cover}} based on the license tag because of specific differences in wording between the NFUR.

Thanks for clarifying.  :)

It certainly is appropriate to replace {{Film cover fur}} with {{Non-free use rationale poster}} where the latter is applicable. —David Levy 21:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Noted 21:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

{{Film cover fur}} redirects to {{Non-free use rationale video cover}}, but if bypassing the redirect makes it easier to weed out the transclusions that should be replaced with {{Non-free use rationale poster}}, that seems reasonable. —David Levy 21:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

A side effect is that I've found some rationales that needed cleanup in the process. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

There's wide agreement that when performing actual cleanup (such as improvements to a description or rationale), bypassing a redirect at the same time is essentially harmless. (It consumes no additional overhead and causes no additional edits to appear on watchlists.) —David Levy 22:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The other issue is that by converting to Non-free use rationale types, Legobot22 picks them up for review,

I understand that changes have been made to that bot so it picks up balh fur types as well. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, any properly configured bot will recognize a template's redirects. —David Levy 22:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Definitely late to this conversation, but yes, Legobot will recognize redirects, and as a side-effect, it by-passes them. Legoktm (talk) 03:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd appreciate you raising the issue of redirected templates somewhere appropriate because it seems silly not to try and update usages, even if the old name are retained as redirects.

You're welcome to initiate a discussion. I see no need, as the matter already has been discussed at length (hence the aforementioned guideline).

The longstanding consensus is that it usually is harmless to bypass a redirect when performing one or more other edits (i.e. those affecting the rendered page) simultaneously, but editing a page solely to bypass a functional redirect is unjustified (because it results in non-negligible detriments and no significant benefits). —David Levy 21:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Has anythign actually broken yet?

No, not until the redirects are "deprecated and removed". Unless the community decides that such an occurrence is justified, your edits serve no valid purpose. —David Levy 19:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

In your opinion... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

No, the community has determined that pages shouldn't be edited purely to bypass functional redirects. I didn't write WP:NOTBROKEN. —David Levy 20:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

If consensus to delete the redirects is established, a bot can update the transclusions in a more efficient and less disruptive manner. —David Levy 19:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The removal would need an RfD anyway. I'm prepared to concede that keeping the old names as redirects is a good idea though. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

So you're abandoning the "migration"? —David Levy 20:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

For now, I reserve the right to implement 'bypasses' when doing other cleanup work. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you referring to other edits performed to the same pages at the same time? —David Levy

Yes. I'm not going to be solely changing template usages, as that can be done by a bot after debate. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. (: —David Levy 00:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Has 'migrating' templates caused any real inconvenience?

Yes. Your unnecessary edits are flooding people's watchlists. —David Levy 19:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

What people choose to watchlist is not my concern. There was a reason they were being flagged as minor edits Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't help users for whom edits labeled "minor" aren't filtered.

I can see that you do a great deal of legitimate cleanup. Such improvements outweigh the aforementioned inconvenience. Conversely, edits intended to "fix" functional template transclusions do not. (Again, this isn't my determination; it's the community's.) —David Levy 20:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I also wasn't aware simple fixes like template migrations required community approval if they didn't actually change things,

The redirects aren't broken, so these aren't "fixes". I linked to WP:NOTBROKEN above.

Can you please indicate in which debate to which you were a party that guideline changed?

To what change are you referring?

Again, please cease your unilateral "migration". —David Levy 19:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

And I would ask you to stop your 'unilateral' objection! Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Again, this is the community's position. I didn't write WP:NOTBROKEN. —David Levy 20:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

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

—David Levy 00:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

"Image" categories need renaming

Once Legobot finishes tagging everything, we should probably rename Category:Non-free images for NFUR review and Category:Non-free images with NFUR stated to Category:Non-free files for NFUR review and Category:Non-free files with NFUR stated. Legoktm (talk) 04:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

If you want to update all the templates, I'd have no objection to this :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Peter Wild

Thanks for the review of Peter Wild. Did you notice that I'd already tagged it refimprove? The difference was my tag read "Refimprove" and you added "refimprove". I'm wondering if this occurred because of Page Curation (or is it "page curation")? No Big Deal -- I've removed my redundant tag.--S. Rich (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Toxic.gif

A tag has been placed on File:Toxic.gif, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Renamed file, Eclipsing Commons

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Ivano-Frankivsk.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Ivano-Frankivsk.jpg, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Retitled media eclipsing Commons

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

speedy deletion nomination of files

hello! sorry to bother ;) you have posted here speedy deletion nomination of files. just wondering why? it was User:Elf who uploaded them here, if i am not mistaken --antanana 10:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

stub tags

Please take care not to add {{stub}} to an article which already has a specific stub template, as you did here. Thanks. PamD 10:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I've just found two more in quick succession, so you seem to have had a bad day yesterday! PamD 10:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Thokchom, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Occupation and Born (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Chakravyuh.jpg tagged under CSD#F5

Hello, You tagged one of movie poster:File:Chakravyuh.jpg from article Chakravyuh for deletion under Wikipedia:CSD#F5 for Orphaned non-free use dated 7th Nov.'12. But here i would like to clarify that same image was already been utilized in aforementioned article & follows licensing as Non-free movie poster with rationale. Just want to confirm about the status of the same.(  Abu Torsam  15:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC))

When tagged the image was not in use, The image concerned was not inserted into the relevant article until - 06:38, 8 November 2012, So your concern is noted,but misplaced Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Reflinks

Although it's good that you're using Reflinks to convert bare URLs into properly formatted references, please do not do so when the "references" are internal Wikipedia links. Thanks. DS (talk) 02:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: Orphaned non-free image File:Goa Medical College Logo.png

Hello, ShakespeareFan00. You have new messages at Drankush's talk page.
Message added Dr. Ankush ^{BUZZ ME!} 14:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

North Wales child abuse scandal

This has been discussed at WP:BLPN - please raise your concerns there, or on the article talk page, if you want to pursue this. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

George Entwistle resignation

Since George Entwistle has resigned this evening in the wake of the Newsnight controversy I'm wondering if we should adjust this to show the second invisible entry, perhaps with a slight rewording. As this doesn't identify any specific individuals it could maybe be justified. Any thoughts? Paul MacDermott (talk) 22:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

November 2012

Hello, I'm GroveGuy. Your recent edit to the page Satellite map images with missing or unclear data appears to have added incorrect information, so I removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. GroveGuy (talk) 05:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Non free reduce tag

Hi. You placed a non-free reduce tag on an image I uploaded, File:Cocaine can make you blind advertisement.jpg.

The original version of this file was in PDF. I don't know how to reduce a pdf in size, so I cannot reduce the original file. So I downloaded the jpg image straight from wikipedia and reduced the image in size by 50% using paintbrush, however, upon trying to replace the image with the smaller version I was given this error message: "File extension ".jpg" does not match the detected MIME type of the file (image/png)."

I am not experienced in either editing images, or uploading images to wikipedia, so I just don't know how to reduce it in size on wikipedia. Just thought I'd let you know that so you don't think I'm ignoring the issue. Freikorp (talk) 05:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Emotion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page State of mind (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Stub sorting

Recently, I've been working on WikiProject Stub Sorting, moving articles marked as {{stub}} to more specific stub categories so that people who know about a specific topic can focus on stubs about that topic. I noticed that you've tagged a lot of articles (at least 10) with a generic {{stub}}, which makes more work for stub sorters. A (mostly) complete list of all available stub types can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Stub_types. A userscript which makes finding stub categories easier is available at User:MC10/stubtagtab.js. — Wolfgang42 (talk) 15:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

As a long-term stub-sorter, I'd say it's OK for you to add {{stub}} to articles which need it, but you must check carefully that they don't have a specific stub tag already. In this edit you should not have added {{stub}}, as this just wastes time of stub-sorters. Thanks. PamD 12:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Non-free image rationale

Hi ShakespeareFan!

There's about to be some minor tidying of the rationale templates because their names, content and redirects have gotten out of sync - see here for details. The effect is going to be a minor one, just that you need to start using {{Non-free use rationale}} instead of the redirect {{Non-free media rationale}}. I'm letting you know because a bot run is about to happen to change all the uses of that redirect, and you've been identified as its most frequent user.

Thanks, and please let me know at either of the above discussions if there's a problem! — Hex (❝?!❞) 12:21, 19 November 2012 (UTC).

Please disregard the above message. I had a bug in my code which caused it to identify the person immediately before the edit I was looking for. You just happened to have made a number of edits at just the right place in the edit history. I apologize for any confusion. — Wolfgang42 (talk) 16:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Insidetrak logo.jpg

Hi Sfan00 IMG, thanks for the head's up. Please go ahead and delete this image (File:Insidetrak logo.jpg). I made a mistake uploading the image with an incorrect background and realised I didn't have admin access to delete it.

Thanks for your help. (InMktgWeTrust 12:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Please delete file File:Vislangbib.jpg., I do not have the time to sort through the regulations. Thanks for reaching out. Best. GearedBull

Orphaned non-free image File:UFC-155-dos-Santos-vs-Velasquez-2.jpg

Thank you for the warning on that. I filled out a rationale but was unsure if it was sufficiently low resolution so I uploaded a smaller version as a new file (rationale included). If you want to go ahead and delete the original file I'd be okay with that now. Beansy (talk) 06:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

File:ABCIncLogo.jpg

Hi sfan00 IMG- you appropriately marked this file for speedy deletion a few weeks back. Your action was the first indication I had that the file had been orphaned through the erroneous deletion of Associated_Builders_and_Contractors, which was finally restored today. I am happy to reupload the file, but if you might undelete and save me the trouble I would greatly appreciate it. Regards, Ayoh40 (talk) 04:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Prisonerassistantlogo.png and File:CompsdocLLC.jpg

Please go ahead and delete. They are no longer needed as the articles which they were attached to no longer exist. Meanie (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

File:1967 Adelaide Dutch Colonial House.jpg

Hi could you please remove the unfree tag. As you can see, the link to the image on Flickr clearly states a CC-BY-SA-2.0 license? Dodgedbullet (talk) 00:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

EDIT: I just noticed it says NC. I will contact the author. Dodgedbullet (talk) 00:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Lux-Development.png

Hello, File:Lux-Development.png is the first file I added on English Wikipedia. It is a company logo, integrated in the article Lux-Development. I don't really understand if the image is ok now, or if it still could be deleted, could you please tell me if there is something that I should do?

Some other examples logos from companies in Luxembourg that I found are File:ArcelorMittal.svg and File:RTL Group.svg. Thank You! --Bdx (talk) 13:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Keaton in Annie Hall.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Keaton in Annie Hall.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

You tagged too fast, and you templated rather than communicated. We all have moments of editing a little too quickly or thoughtlessly, without consideration given to what is occurring or the impact of our own actions, and I assume this was a one-off action, and that you normally take a little more care in your editing. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Looking at User:Sfan00 IMG/CSD log you have a high number of wrongly placed CSD tags. You are an experienced and knowledgeable user, so these mistakes are due to you tagging too soon, rather than not understanding the criteria. I'd like to see you making a little more assessment of the files and pages you are about to tag, and see if you can improve on your CSD accuracy. Possible approaches involve waiting at least 30 minutes on newly uploaded files to see what the uploader is going to do, or contacting the uploader with a handwritten query or offer of assistance. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Unsigned item

Licensing has been added it is copy righted to me as uploader.

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Waterland.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Waterland.jpg, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Commons Shadow Removal

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Stretch.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Stretch.jpg, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Commons shadow removal - Incoming links updated

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

1998 Coimbatore bombings.gif

Hii what i have to do bro Perumalism Chat 17:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

File:IMG 1218.JPG listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect File:IMG 1218.JPG. Since you had some involvement with the File:IMG 1218.JPG redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Not an orphan

Regarding File:Excerpt from Dave Brubeck interview by Martin Totusek in Cadence Magazine, December 1994, Vol. 20 No. 12 (PDF).pdf: There seems to be something wrong with files used in an article's references not showing as linked on the file's description page. The above file is and has been used for some time at Dave Brubeck#cite note-6; I don't understand why the file shows up as orphaned. Can you suggest any remedy for this situation? (I have no interest in this file other than to preserve some other editor's effort.) -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Template:MoneyCardScan listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:MoneyCardScan. Since you had some involvement with the Template:MoneyCardScan redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Non-free use rationale money

A tag has been placed on Template:Non-free use rationale money, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Template redirect, created by self when matching NFUR template with license name - No incoming links as such

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Non-free use rationale money/doc

A tag has been placed on Template:Non-free use rationale money/doc, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

User request

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Template redirects

Hi, I just wanted to leave you a note that I've declined/contested the template-space redirect CSD nominations you've made because I don't believe they meet the limit of CSD R3. Redirects are cheap and it seems plausible someone may use them so I don't think there is any need to delete them. Prodego ^talk 23:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

That's reasonable, BRD . I Did the B, you did the R, Lets now habe the D part somewhere appropriate. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I suppose the next step would be to send the pages to TfD if you think additional discussion is required. Then we could get some additional opinions. If you do that, I'd suggest just making one TfD for the whole set. Prodego ^talk 01:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, silly me, RfD is the appropriate place of course, I forgot that even exists. Prodego ^talk 01:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	thanks for your help Dangerousrave (talk) 11:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Theatre-Five, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages George Petrie and Robert Dryden (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Template replacement

Hello,

I noticed that you are are carrying out mass replacement of {{fur}} template with {{Non-free use rationale}} template. Would you share the link to the relevant community decision on replacement or explain why you think the previous template is wrong? Many thanks. kashmiri 20:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

There wasn't a community decision on this. It needed doing so that the {{fur}} form can be depreciated Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Was there any formal decision of the Wikipedia community to deprecate this template? Or it's your own idea? Sorry for asking about these details. kashmiri 00:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

It was semi-deprecated when it was re-directed, fixing the usages means it can be formally deprecated at a later date. :)Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Which is never going to happen because the only person that cares about deleting redirects for templates is you, and because the number of people that still use the original FUR templates is rather large. Honestly, your recent editing behavior is getting very grating. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:20, 13 January 2013 (UT

Is it actually breaking anything? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Your orphaning of redirects and then nominating them for deletion as unused is borderline gaming the system, and if the redirects are deleted then it is likely that this will break things. Also you are needlessly polluting watchlists and recent changes, increasing the chance that something damaging will be missed. The standard you, like every editor, should be holding your actions to is not "does this break anything?" but "does this benefit the encyclopaedia?". Thryduulf (talk) 01:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Reduction of complexity would be of benefit, but I understand your viewpoint.I won't be reverting anything already updated, but your viewpoint seems to be that I should cease trying to 'fix' stuff. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Fixing things is fine. It's fixing things that are not broken, such as needlessly bypassing redirects, that people have issues with. Nominating these redirects then for deletion is not so much fixing things that are not broken, but trying to break things that are not broken. Thryduulf (talk) 12:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	You are awesome. CURTAINTOAD! TALK! 22:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Guy Hallifax.jpg

Hi, thanks for picking this up. I have changed the license to PD-UK-unknown which is probably more appropriate. Gbawden (talk) 08:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletions

You have placed notices on my talk page saying various files are candidates for speedy deletion, and i cant find any evidence of such a tag at those files. i did not upload them, some are featured images. Please explain your edits to me, they make no sense.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

They were CSD under F2, because the file was already described at Wikimedia Commons Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Help requested

I'm not sure why, but I've been notified of five Speedy deletion nominations of photo files.

Four of them titled: Models-sean-kelly-onstage.jpg, Models-james-freud-la.jpg, James-freud-models-san-francisco-2.png and Sean-kelly-models-miyako-500.png were all uploaded by Andwhatsnext.

The fifth file, Serious - Deborah Conway at Fitzroy Gardens.jpg, was uploaded by Flickr upload bot.

As far as I can tell the two uploaders have not been informed of these Speedy deletions.

From my limited understanding, I can not find any particular problem with their permissions and so would like some clarification as to what, specifically, is the problem. You point to F2 at WP:CSD, which talks about a 'Corrupt or empty image'. However this does not help me: I still can't see where the problem is, the images look fine to me.

1. Where do they fail this criterion?

1. Where do I contest the speedy deletion of each file? i.e. Where is this 'speedy deletion tag' that I'm supposed to click on?

1. Why was I chosen for this quest?

Could you please help by clarifying these points.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

F2 also covers 'local file description page for images at Commons, NONE of the media has been lost, It's just the files concerned are now on Wikimedia Commons rather than locally. :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

1. The images are fine BECAUSE they are on Commons and show through.

2. The tags no longer exist, because someone deleted the local description page.

3. You received the notifcations, because as far as the logs were concerned you created the local description page.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that extra information. So the images are still usable by Wikipedia from the Commons files and will still appear in the relevant articles? I don't need to do anything else to keep them accessible?shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Should do ,provided they retained the same name on transfer :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Me, too, with a question. Were these files, that Shaidar and myself were notified about, previously found ONLY on WP, and were they recently transferred to the Commons (like this week or on the day of the csd)? i cant tell if some of these were WP images previously flagged by a bot for transfer. My faulty memory says they may have been, which explains why i gave them categories here. If so, then this all makes perfect sense now. I had noticed a lot of files here flagged for transfer, and the process for transfer looked too daunting for me. I think i know the answer to Shaidar's questions, but i suspect you are MUCH more familiar with this whole system. PS should i have their talk pages blanked here, as i place them in the SFBA task force?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Keeping the local talk page is fine. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Vanda Varvara

Hi there. I thought you might want to know that I've AfD'ed Vanda Varvara, an article that you patrolled almost a year ago, on the grounds that it appears to be an elaborate hoax. The hoaxster's goal was clearly to mimic the style of a high-quality article, and I imagine that if I were to see an article like that, I'd probably mark it as patrolled myself, so I'm not here to give you a hard time or anything; I was just wondering if you'd mind taking a look at the AfD entry, and give your take on the matter. Thanks. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 06:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Zen Wikimood 08.png listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect File:Zen Wikimood 08.png. Since you had some involvement with the File:Zen Wikimood 08.png redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Singapore2.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Singapore2.jpg, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Retitled image, no incominglinks, Shadows commons

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Tseung Kwan O.jpg listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect File:Tseung Kwan O.jpg. Since you had some involvement with the File:Tseung Kwan O.jpg redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Maybe free media

Template:Maybe free media 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) 13:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

"Non-free biog pic"

Excuse me, but what are you doing changing all those "no-permission" deletion candidates to "non-free biog pic", like here? These are obviously all living persons, so a non-free use claim obviously wouldn't stand a chance. If you seriously think it would be justified, you should at least also put in a FUR to that effect, explaining why. Letting a file that has already been queued for deletion slip back into such an obviously inappropriate state of tagging doesn't seem like a good idea to me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, I was being Bold in trying to rescue the images. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, it takes lots of time to tag all of those files with {{subst:rfu}}, {{subst:nfurd}}, {{subst:orfud}}, {{non-free reduce}} and other tags when the files just need to be deleted, and the uploaders just get troubled by extra talk page notices. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Noted, I am however not going to stop trying to 'rescue' images, I'll just need to be a bit more selective! Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh come on. Now you took an image that was correctly tagged as "no source, no license", removed the correct tag, added an empty "information" template in instead, and left it sitting around – still with no source and no license on [1]. Sorry, but that's not "rescuing". I hate to say this, because I normally appreciate the work you do with images, but I really don't get how you could think this was a constructive thing to do. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

P.S.: Same here [2]. With how many images did you do that? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Highways Agency.svg

I would be interested to hear how you think this file meets the Threshold of originality to be protected by US copyright law (given that is the law Wikipedia works to) and why it should not be tagged {{PD-ineligible-USonly|the United Kingdom}}. LightGreenApple _{talk to me} 01:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

It's above threshold of originality in the UK, where it clearly orignates from Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

That may or maynot be the case, however that is why we have {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} for logos that are PD in the US (due to threshold of originality) , but may be non-free in their home country and are not able to be copied to commons for that reason. LightGreenApple _{talk to me} 01:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thanks for consistently cleaning up my blunders in the filespace. I am obviously still learning and making many many mistakes. Thanks for all you do! -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 19:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)