User talk:Skier Dude/archive/archive Dec 08

CSD tag discussion

Hello. I see you changed some of the CSD tags placed on some images that were orphaned images (Image:BU Single.jpg and Image:Breakinupsingle.jpg)and fall under CSD G8 or G6. Even though the end result was still the same I would like to ask you to join in the discussion on the issue at New "i12"?. I look forward to hearing/reading your feedback. Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Your feedback is appreciated in the New "i12"? discussion on the rewording of G6. Thank you. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Image request on of albums

Hint: {{reqphoto|albums}} will place in the correct category Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of albums

Traveler100 (talk) 08:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Problem with category inclusion on Template:DANFS

(cross-posted at Template talk:DANFS)

This template should contain the following code:

<includeonly>[[Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships]]</includeonly>

so that articles with this template are put in the appropriate category. The above category is hidden, by the way.

For some reason, this category isn't in the template. Can you please add it? (Alternatively, if you think it is inappropriate to add this category to this template, you could add it to its talk-page counterpart, {{DANFS talk}}). --Eastlaw (talk) 14:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed you deleted two pictures from my Yue Li article. May I know the specific reasons? Thanks! Mohsin tahirkheli (talk) 20:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Merge history

I saw you in RecentChanges, so I thought I'd ask you. Would you please merge the history of Hector Wagner into Héctor Wagner, as it was to the same article, but was moved and the history was messed up. Thank you. -- American Eagle (talk) 07:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, and you're welcome. -- American Eagle (talk) 07:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films November 2008 Newsletter

The November 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. My apologies for the late delivery, and thanks go to both Wildroot and Erik for writing the newsletter. Remember that anyone can edit the newsletter, so feel free to help out! Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Please Restore KenMckenna2.jpg

Hello Skier Dude, I would like to ask you to please restore the image:KenMcKenna2.jpg. This is not the first time it has been deleted. As I have said before, it is my photo, it has always been my photo, the photo was taken, processed, and utilized ALWAYS within MY possession. It was taken in the courtroom, at defense counsels table, after the day's proceedings. I don't have video proof or paperwork which I can provide you that shows it is MY photo. Who would ever have such materials for their OWN photos. You and other editors have exercised subjective assumption about the photo because the image appears to be of a newspaper's usage of my photo. Which I find ironic, since this whole wiki enterprise is about objectivity. Assumptions, faulty subjectivity, and incorrect observations aside....this is, has been, and always will be MY photo, in my possession, created, taken, and allowed to be used by ME. Objective analysis of this situation I hope yields a proper restoration of the image to the article. Thank you for your time. Adreamer323 (talk) 09:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Redirect of Protege of The Game Volume 1

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Protege of The Game Volume 1, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Protege of The Game Volume 1 is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Protege of The Game Volume 1, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 23:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:2euro.2007.vatican.inc.jpg

Hi there,

I fixed the article that were supposed to use the image, so it is no longer orphaned. I have explained that in the IfD page. Do I have to do anything else?

Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 04:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Problems with upload of Image:Profile.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Profile.JPG. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 02:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Problems with upload of Image:Marty.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Marty.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 05:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Restore PRODs?

Hello.

Could you please restore the edit history of Dorn Graybrook, Innovindil, and Kimmuriel Oblodra for me? If you like, you can redirect them to List of Forgotten Realms characters. Thanks! :) BOZ (talk) 20:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! :) BOZ (talk) 21:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

hey buddy why did you delete my page-justin tobin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.92.178.100 (talk) 23:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberated_Christians

I have edited again reducing some comments and including references to a url.

I don't understand why someone can make false comments that claim our Couples group disbanded because of disputes from someone obviously has no idea what he is talking about or just wants to discredit a group with false facts can post.

Yet me as founder 20 years ago who knows it best is attempting to correct the facts, clearly identified as me as founder can not because I have a conflict of interest. Why not let both sides be heard as I tried to do, keep the false posts and let me clearly id'd as founder correct them.

We are not a business but a non profit corporation for educational purposes (Liberated Christians, Inc).

We are not selling or promoting just sharing info that so many have found helpful in their lives but don't like lies being posted which can not be responded to.

I have posted the false statement from Wikipedia on my site and added: This is an absolute lie. There was no disagreement about the focus. Bill totally supported my more intimacy interests and I totally supported his bible study interest which continued for awhile and I participated when they continued briefly after the main group was turned over to other leadership. See http://www.libchrist.com/phoenix/contents.html

But why does Wikipedia have to include a lie from someone who was not even a participate and not the founder rebutting it. Davephx (talk) 03:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Problems with upload of Image:Dot.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Dot.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 06:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Stephenie Meyer protection

Hello, I noticed that you protected the Stephenie Meyer article so that only autoconfirmed users can edit and move it. Would you also consider protecting the article from being moved as well? I do not see any legitimate reason for an editor to ever move the article, except if Meyer were to change her name. Thank you. LovesMacs (talk) 01:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Skeir

Why'd you delete my image, bra?

BroadswordCommunications (talk) 08:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Disease-related charities

Category:Disease-related charities, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Cgingold (talk) 12:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

New image tag

Thanks for listing images on PUI. Did you know that there's a new, faster process for images where the uploader provides a source claims the image has been released under a free license, but there is no evidence of the release? Images like this can be tagged {{subst:npd}} (or for Twinkle users, the third option ("No permission"), and are deleted unless verification of the permission is sent to OTRS within a week. Stifle (talk) 12:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Question re: album cover images

I see you make many edits to a variety of articles, so I thought you might be a good person to ask the following. I was wondering if there is a way of uploading album cover images that is fairly easy and practically a guarantee at success. It seems album cover images are a pain to deal with, so I see many album articles with no cover image included. My user profile contains a list of album articles I've created, many of which need album images. Are you aware of a reference I can look at regarding how to appropriately and easily upload an album image? If not, feel free to ignore or just let me know with a quick "no, sorry", hah! Just thought I'd ask. Thanks! Whataworld06 (talk) 22:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you SO MUCH. I sincerely appreciate the assistance. I will give your advice a try in the near future. Thanks again, and best wishes! Whataworld06 (talk) 02:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

96.4 The Wave image

Image of 'thewaveswan' - i don't understand. You say it's not used in any articles, but it is - it's used in 96.4 The Wave. I have stated the license detail etc.... It should not be removed. Jonny7003 (talk) 09:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean ? It's used on the 96.4 The Wave article. Jonny7003 (talk) 21:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Roubini_photo.jpg

Noticed the image was deleted even though a discussion on its fair use was open. Note that after it was placed for deletion the image info and fair use rationale was changed and after the change, six days ago, no responses were made to dispute the new rationale. Can you check into this? Thanks. Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 December 14
Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The image in question File:Roubini_photo.jpg still failed the basic criteria of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria #1 that states:

"Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense, or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available; "acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. (As a quick test, before adding non-free content requiring a rationale, ask yourself: "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all?" If the answer to either is yes, the non-free content probably does not meet this criterion.)"

The salient point here is that a free equivalent could be created by someone at his school or at one of the many places he frequents just taking his picture. An alternative to this is to get the school to "release" this via the WP:OTRS examples here system, as they do clearly state they hold the copyright for all images on their website [1]. IMHO the OTRS may be the easier road to go with at this time, until a free image can be obtained. Skier Dude (talk) 03:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

To avoid similar issues in the future, maybe you could clear up some questions:

1. According to the page Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion, "Images that have been listed here for more than 5 days are eligible for deletion if either a consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to deletion have been raised." It does not appear there was a "consensus" since only one person put the image on the page for discussion. After it was posted, I not only replied but totally revised the fair use rationale using a new set of criteria. There were no further objections. The next event was the image's deletion by you without explanation or objection. Your comments have come after the fact and only after asking. Is that the way the deletion page is supposed to work?

You will note that probably 95% of the images there have no discussion whatsoever; and quite often there isn't much discussion - seems to be the nature of this page for the most part (those that do have discussions are oft-times quite lengthy). The problem with this image, even after the rationale was changed (and yes, I did read the new rationale) is that it still didn't answer the base question of being a replaceable fair use image. Being a replaceable image, therefore, it was still deletable. I added that (admittedly brief) note on the deletion note.

2 The updated rationale was based on Wikipedia:Publicity photos, which includes the following: "If it is possible to replace the publicity image with a new, free, image of similar value to the reader then the free image must be used in preference to the restricted and copyrighted publicity photograph." This sounds close to your reasons. My question is isn't it always possible to get a new photo of a living person? The same sentence says "...then the free image must be used..." which basically means you can never use a non-free image of a living person (unless they're like a Greta Garbo). And since we're dealing with either a press realease or publicity type of image, the person will always be alive. The result is a perfect catch-22 and an almost impossible demand, which together eliminates any fair use possibility. But since Wiki does allow fair use images to be used, the end result is that anyone can tag any fair use image of a living person under the claim of "possibility." And then delete it because of the reasons you listed. Is that a correct reading?

There's no indication on the school website that this was ever presented as a publicity photo (i.e. distributed in a press kit and as part of that intended for even limited use). Simply putting it up on their website doesn't equal their offering it as a publicity photo. And yes, you're right, it would be very difficult to use any (c) image such as this. That's why there's a very active category for these: Category:Replaceable fair use images.

3 About your suggestion that I attempt to have the originating web site figure out what OTRS, GNU, and GFDL means, by reading dozens of pages of legal writing, I think I'll wait. From what I can see, even if they willingly gave permission to use the image on Wikipedia, they would be forced to allow its use and/or modification anywhere else on the web for any purpose, with the only condition being that the users admit they aren't the owners of the copyright. That's obviously another catch-22 since this is a tiny step less than donating it to the public domain. Isn't there a more reasonable middle ground where they can allow its use for Wikipedia only?

Yes, I agree 100% that OTRS is not the most ideal situation, and it can be complicated as all get-out. The issue with images here is that once an image is on Wikipedia it can be copied freely after that, as most web-browsers allow for this. There isn't the technical wherewithal yet to allow a "wikipedia only" image because of this (i.e. an image marked as "wiki only" would not be right-clickable/copyable). Even those sites that have attempted this can't stop simple things like screen catches or even people taking pictures with a camera of the images (and yes, I've seen bad examples of both of these here!)

Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for quick reply. Under the link you gave, Category:Replaceable fair use images, it states (emphasis added):

"These images are used under fair use, but fail our first fair use criteria in that they can be replaced with free-licensed images which could reasonably be found or created. Such images should be speedy deleted, per speedy deletion criterion #7 for images or media, if no one has made a convincing argument for why a free licensed replacement can not be created within a week of the image being flagged as replaceable."

More questions:

1. You earlier suggested that his photo could be taken "...by someone at his school or at one of the many places he frequents...", implies that it's more "reasonable" to take candid (i.e. papparazzi-style) photo or else interrupt a busy economist to snap a photo for the world to have. It's seems more reasonable that the person would simply say "why don't you just use the professional portrait that I have posted on my public web site?" After all, he put it there to publicize himself. It's doubtful he would prefer a snapshot by a stranger, and if that's the case the image on the web page is not reasonably "replaceable", and should not be deletable as such.

A few premises there can't be upheld; first, the person here in question didn't put his "professional portrait" on "his" public web site to "publicize himself". In fact, the likelihood that he owns a "professional portrait" is very low, as the photographer and/or the entity (i.e. ad agency, business, school) are the ones that usually hold the copyrights; he most likely didn't post it on the web, the (c) holder put up the portrait; and the reason for putting up a photo on a website isn't always publicity, but mere identification. And, sadly, what one wants (a snapshot by a stranger) isn't always what someone gets.

2. Even though its a requirement, no one made a "convincing argument" for its deletion. There were no objections to the new fair use rationale before it was deleted. If there were, than those would have allowed counter-responses. But the image was deleted anyway which seems to go against Category:Replaceable fair use images requirements.

Again, a convincing argument here isn't needed because the item still didn't meet the 'replaceable fair use' requirements. No additional discussion is needed if this is the case.

3. As for your feeling that the image was not intened for publicity, I'm not sure why you would think that. His web site is primarily to sell his consulting services and writings. The image is part of his site's professional bio and not just a year-book type photo for his school. That's why the publicity rationale was use for its fair use and that rationale still makes the most sense. It is really not a "replaceable" image by any reasonable standard. Hope you can agree.

Again, it can't be assumed that this was issued for publicity, unless it says there clearly, which I didn't see at the website mentioned. Use therefore must go through the leviathan OTRS system.

His company, RGE Monitor, of which he is Chairman, issues Press Releases and his photo accompanies his articles and bio. His web site and content are clearly for "publicity" purposes and seem to meet the basic criteria for promotional fair use. Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

And the same site [2] specifically states "The RGE Content is protected under both United States and international patent, copyright, trademark and other intellectual property laws. RGE may include in some RGE Content or in conjunction with your User-Supplied Content third party advertisements that appear when that RGE Content or User-Supplied Content are viewed. You hereby consent to the display and playback of these advertisements in conjunction with your User-Supplied Content. To the extent you elect to use or access RGE Content or User-Supplied Content from other Users, you also consent to the display of advertisements therein. " So, this again takes us back to the need to go to OTRS. If you want to pursue this further, please take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review Skier Dude (talk) 22:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

-addendum

I didn't realize that this image was just one of 275 that you deleted that day, so I assume it was done by your bot. And I guess that's normally OK, even if it was done automatically without analysis first. But please understand that I took the time to find and upload this image, cropped it, and placed it to fit the infobox and keep the wiki page attractive. Apparently another bot saw a tag that got put on it and also automatically deleted it until I formally asked to have it restored by the deleter. He said he put it on the delete page for open discussion and I was apparently the only person who said or did anything, namely change the rationale, which as I explained seems very reasonable. Then to have another bot just delete it and ignore the intent of the page, which is to allow time to fix a problem and hope for honest discussion before seeing his work taken down again. If some of those other 275 deletions on just one day were like this one, I feel bad for the other editors who can't take the time to deal with the issue.

No bots were used - my bot (User:SkiersBot) is not an "admin bot" and can't do deletions.

Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Review

Hello, I was wondering if you look over User talk:Hrafn#Problems, and tell me what you think of it. Particuarly my involvement in it, and if I broke any policies in what I said (as the editor said I was adding cruft, whining, making accusations and arguing in bad faith). You may do so through email or on-wiki, or you can completely ignore this, I was just wondering. If you had the time, that is. Thanks. ✼ American Eagle (talk) 21:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Image:Roubini1.jpg

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:Roubini1.jpg . Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Star Trek images

As the author of the images, I agreed with what you said and I deleted the images myself. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem about the notices, you're just doing the motions. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:16, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Small PD

Hello, Skier Dude. Thank you for helping tagging unencyclopedic small-pds while I was absent. OKBot is making a new list on tools:~osamak/newsmallpd by scanning Self-published work which will be imported to my sandbox as soon as it finishes, so I wanted to invite you again to help. Few changes, and I'll publish the source code, then you -if you wish- will be able to customize -e.g. run it in any category in any wiki you want- it freely easily. BTW, is your bot written in Python?.--OsamaK^{Reply? on my talk page, please} 09:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

The new list is ready and I added first 500 images.--OsamaK^{Reply? on my talk page, please} 19:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Hello Skier Dude! I just wanted to wish you and your family a merry Christmas! May this Christmas be full of great cheer and holiday spirit. Have a great day and a wonderful New Year, from The Bald One ^{White cat} 11:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

category cleanup

Thanks for your help in cleaning up unused categories. I know it can get tedious sometimes. - Stepheng3 (talk) 07:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Use of pictures in article on Yasmin Ahmad's film - MUALLAF

I am writing to inform that the use of the 5 screenshots from Yasmin Ahmad's film, Muallaf, is allowed by the director herself. Would you please kindly advise on how to exactly ensure that the screenshots that I uploaded remain there without risking them being deleted each time I upload them?

Thank you.

Caiweijie (talk) 07:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)Caiweijie

The screenshots were apparently used by the director in her own blogs (http://yasminthestoryteller.blogspot.com; http://yasminthefilmmaker.blosgpot.com). I took them from her blogs on her permission. What if I edit the screenshots to become a combined picture? Is that accepted?

Caiweijie (talk) 08:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)Caiweijie

Do NOT remove my photo

Possibly unfree File:ShaunToubbyPhilKonstantin2007.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, File:ShaunToubbyPhilKonstantin2007.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 03:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC) --Skier Dude (talk) 03:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

===========

What part of I took the photo myself do you not understand? I work at KUSI-TV. He came by to be interviewed. I took his photo with my camera, not off of a TV screen. I stood in front of him, pointed my camera at him & pressed the shutter button. I then edited the photo because our lighting is set up for video, not still photography. It is NOT a screen shot.

If you have removed it, return it.

All you have to do is ask..... http://americanindian.net/kusi.html

Phil Konstantin

Royal Danish Library Logo

The logo is the ownership of Royal Danish Library (Det Kongelige Bibliotek) but it is free to use for quotations. See this web-page at the Royal Library web-site

http://www.kb.dk/en/kb/copyright/index.html?State=print

Steen Bille Larsen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billelar (talk • contribs) 17:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Re image you have nominated for deletion of alistair Griffin

Hello there. I am writing to you on here as I have seen that you have asked Jud, who uplaoded photos of Alistair Griffin to her article on him, to sort out their copyright issues as there seems to be a problem with permission to use them or rather lack of the correct licencing tags. Unfortunately the user in question,Jud,wil ot be able to sort out the licencing,there is a real reason why and as I am an online friend of hers and if you can get back to me with a private way of contacting you,I can let you know the reason why.I know Jud worked hard on this article and I can assure you she will have had permission to use these photos so please out of respect for her till you have contacted me ,please dont delete them. many thanks --Purplepickledonions (talk) 20:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello again ... Yes those are the images I am referring to.I didnt want to have to do this on here publically but sadly Jud died a few months ago suddenly,so theres no way she can change the licences for these photos and I dont know what to do in these circumstances...any ideas on how to get permissions for them would be helpful thanks.I really dont want an article she so proudly worked on to be compromised by having stuff deleted from it. --Purplepickledonions (talk) 12:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for all your help,I will try to do what you have suggested regarding the info on licencing ,I am fairly new to wiki so im still finding my way round how it all works so I may need to call on you again for mor help and advice in the future if thats ok Many thanks for all your help so far --Purplepickledonions (talk) 10:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)