User talk:Melesse/Archive 43
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Now you deleted that file, although I disputed the comment that usage wasn't fair Sandman888 (talk) 07:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I saw the deletion, and decided to double-check the forum thread the image was posted in. It seems that a few hours before you deleted the file, the person in question posted this. If you undelete, please also revert this bot edit. Thanks. Anomie⚔ 01:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
File deleted in error
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at WP:ANI regarding File deleted in error. The discussion is about the topic File:BBC_World_Service_Big_Ben_1-1-2009.ogg. Thank you. --HairyWombat (talk) 16:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- As I commented there, you should not be the one making a final call on a file you nominated that another user disputed. Please stop this practice and leave it to an uninvolved admin to make the final call. –xenotalk 23:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Hiya. I've brought you up at the noticeboard above Sandman888 (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- From WP:ADMIN - "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed."
- A thread is ongoing since yesterday regarding your administrative actions to which you have neglected to respond. I see that you performed 283 deletions this morning, including at least three that were out of process (File:Brokara thoughts.jpg, Dheeraj_Reddy_Brokara.jpg, Paul_Syme.jpg - uploaders were not notified 48 hours prior as you indicated in your log summary) but you did not find the time to respond to these good faith queries.
- Please visit the above-linked thread to respond to these concerns. Further out-of-process deletions may result in your account being blocked pending the same. –xenotalk 14:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
This thread concerns a file you deleted. Thought you should know. -- Flyguy649 talk 06:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
File deletion
I see that back in August 2008 you deleted File:Shea miller mader murphy.png. The rationale was that there was a bit-for-bit copy on Commons. Unfortunately, there is no bit-for-bit copy on commons. It's distressing that the file was deleted, because I received no notice of any speedy delete. If you can point me to the same image on Commons, I would appreciate it. (I've searched under Cornelius Shea, Shea, Mader, and other words and phrases and come up with nothing.) - Tim1965 (talk) 03:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- It has been a while, so perhaps it had since been deleted. I have just uploaded it again. File:Cornelius P. Shea, John Miller, Fred Mader, and Tim Murphy sitting in a row in a courtroom.jpg Melesse (talk) 05:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- You'll notice that the deleted file on Wikipedia wasn't a bit-for-bit copy. The Commons file has writing all over it, making it a far less viable image. The Wikipedia file had no such writing, and was a pristine copy. - Tim1965 (talk) 01:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- It was a cropped version of what I uploaded to Commons yesterday. You can crop it and upload that as a derivative work of it if you like. Melesse (talk) 05:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- I'd like to request that, in the future as a courtesy to users, you provide notice to users who upload images you propose for deletion (even if proposed for speedy delete). In this particular case, I would have moved the image to Commons and tagged it as a restored version (since writing and scratches were removed, and cropping had occurred). Instead, the image was lost and the restored version had to be recreated. I had no notice, regarding either your deletion action on 19 August 2008 or your deletion action on 18 March 2010, about any proposed deletion (speedy or otherwise). Thank you! - Tim1965 (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- It was a cropped version of what I uploaded to Commons yesterday. You can crop it and upload that as a derivative work of it if you like. Melesse (talk) 05:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- You'll notice that the deleted file on Wikipedia wasn't a bit-for-bit copy. The Commons file has writing all over it, making it a far less viable image. The Wikipedia file had no such writing, and was a pristine copy. - Tim1965 (talk) 01:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for File:Green_lama_prize_comics_24.jpg
I updated the description of the image, if that will help. As I mentioned its a rare image of featuring the evolution of the Green Lama character, who is in the public domain. Is there anything I can do to ensure it won't be deleted? (Adamlancegarcia (talk) 13:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC))
- There are already two other non-free pictures in that article, so further explanation of why that image is also necessary would be good. Also, it needs a license. Melesse (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Replaceable fair use File:Arnold_Palmer_Hospital.jpg
In response to your concern, I am the representative from Orlando Health, parent company of Arnold Palmer Hospital, tasked with creating an encyclopedic, unbiased summary of the hospital and its history. I have the ability to post this file along with the hospital logo. How should I upload this picture so that I am not harassed by these messages? The photo is property of the hospital and used for promotions and may legally be used to summarize the hospital. ~~mjschmidt715~~
- Since the hospital is an existing public building, a photographer could take a picture of it and release it under a free license, therefore if the hospital wants to use that particular picture in their article, they should release it under one. See this page. Melesse (talk) 18:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
RE: Old STC logo
Oh yeah, I am almost forgot. Apologize me. The Junk Police (reports|works) 07:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
File:DinosaurBabyHolyHeroesPoster.jpg
The Dinosaur Baby Holy Heroes poster is actually a real poster of the series. But I do not know what is wrong with it. I don't know what to label it. I will give you the site of where I found the poster. Here is the site. http://www.sankakucomplex.com/2009/09/13/china-rips-off-naruto-pokemon-imitation-is-not-plagiarism Please answer for the problems. Thank you. - Monjiji —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monjiji (talk • contribs) 21:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- Since it's a non-free picture, you need to write a rationale for why it's necessary to the article it's in. Melesse (talk) 09:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I disagree with the deletion of 
. It seems to go against the spirit of CSD #F11, whose purpose is not to provide for deletion of images in which the copyright owner has consented to release of the image into the CC-BY-SA 3.0, as in this case. Nor is it implausible that the copyright owner would give permission; political campaigns are always wanting to increase public awareness of their candidate, and wide distribution of campaign photos is part of that effort. I am not sure why it would be necessary to forward the email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, when I have already provided the email via the talk page. Forwarding the email does not provide any extra assurance that the email is genuine, and it potentially destroys user anonymity. Under the principle of WP:AGF, I think that, as an established editor in good standing, I should be given the benefit of the doubt if I specifically claim that permission was obtained to redistribute the image pursuant to CC-BY-SA 3.0 , and I provide the contact info for the authorized person who gave that permission. Tisane (talk) 07:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, per Wikipedia's licensing policy, it is forbidden to post emails from other people on Wikipedia. Everything posted on Wikipedia is licensed under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license (you agree to it by clicking "save page" - read the fine print), and by posting an email, you're actually infringing the rights of the very person who gave you permission. At any rate, standard procedure dictates that you must send an email containing the permission(s) to "permissions-en@wikimedia.org" as per WP:OTRS and WP:PERMISSION. Now I don't mean to be sarcastic or curt, but if you don't like the rules, it's quite simple - consider not contributing here. -FASTILYsock(TALK) 19:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, couldn't forwarding the email also theoretically count as unauthorized distribution of copyrighted content? Granted, the magnitude isn't as great as if it's posted to the talk page, but it should be noted that J.D. Salinger sued to keep the contents of his old correspondence strictly private. But again, given that it's a political campaign, they are aware that every word they utter may be repeated publicly. As for rules, WP:IAR can be applied when a strict application of a rule interferes with encyclopedia-building. Copyright paranoia over images in particular is getting out of hand, and some more liberal application of IAR in that area would be beneficial. I don't think it's good to tell people to go away if they don't like the rules because, besides potentially being a slap in the face to an editor with many good contributions, it discourages the kind of open criticism that is needed to reform bad rules. Lastly, I sent another email to the person who provided permission asking him to submit the image through Wikipedia:Contact_us/Photo_submission, so hopefully this whole issue will be mooted. Further, I just sent it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, although the whole process was way more cumbersome than it should be and no doubt discourages a lot of people from bothering, detracting from the quality and quantity of images we have available. Tisane (talk) 08:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
- No, it wouldn't be infringing anyone's rights, because you're not releasing it under a public license for your corespondent - there's a strict difference; otherwise, we would post the letters publicly. Salinger's case was a fluke, as you may recall, he was secretive over anything and everything. At any rate, that point really carries no weight, as Salinger was never requesting permission from OTRS. Bear in mind that such posts on Wikipedia are subject to suppression per the oversight policy. As for WP:IAR, this is probably the worst possible place you could apply it. If we were to apply IAR in the field of image copyright, well, let's just say there wouldn't be a Wikipedia for you to edit today; it would have been sued to the ground a very long time ago. And seriously, just because you're a good editor with many good contributions doesn't mean you're above the law. At any rate, by your logic, since I'm a sysop, I could block you right here, right now, just because I'm a good contributor. Being a good editor doesn't justify anything when you're subject to the rules that govern this site. I'm glad to hear that you sent an email to OTRS. Cumbersome as it may be, it is still our accepted and standard procedure. -FASTILYsock(TALK) 20:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
- If we could find a jurisdiction that didn't enforce copyright and was otherwise suitable for moving our servers there, I would say go for it, and henceforth forget about all copyright restrictions, which are a prime nuisance and hindrance, besides being unethical for a government to enforce. Somalia, anyone? Tisane (talk) 02:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- No, it wouldn't be infringing anyone's rights, because you're not releasing it under a public license for your corespondent - there's a strict difference; otherwise, we would post the letters publicly. Salinger's case was a fluke, as you may recall, he was secretive over anything and everything. At any rate, that point really carries no weight, as Salinger was never requesting permission from OTRS. Bear in mind that such posts on Wikipedia are subject to suppression per the oversight policy. As for WP:IAR, this is probably the worst possible place you could apply it. If we were to apply IAR in the field of image copyright, well, let's just say there wouldn't be a Wikipedia for you to edit today; it would have been sued to the ground a very long time ago. And seriously, just because you're a good editor with many good contributions doesn't mean you're above the law. At any rate, by your logic, since I'm a sysop, I could block you right here, right now, just because I'm a good contributor. Being a good editor doesn't justify anything when you're subject to the rules that govern this site. I'm glad to hear that you sent an email to OTRS. Cumbersome as it may be, it is still our accepted and standard procedure. -FASTILYsock(TALK) 20:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, couldn't forwarding the email also theoretically count as unauthorized distribution of copyrighted content? Granted, the magnitude isn't as great as if it's posted to the talk page, but it should be noted that J.D. Salinger sued to keep the contents of his old correspondence strictly private. But again, given that it's a political campaign, they are aware that every word they utter may be repeated publicly. As for rules, WP:IAR can be applied when a strict application of a rule interferes with encyclopedia-building. Copyright paranoia over images in particular is getting out of hand, and some more liberal application of IAR in that area would be beneficial. I don't think it's good to tell people to go away if they don't like the rules because, besides potentially being a slap in the face to an editor with many good contributions, it discourages the kind of open criticism that is needed to reform bad rules. Lastly, I sent another email to the person who provided permission asking him to submit the image through Wikipedia:Contact_us/Photo_submission, so hopefully this whole issue will be mooted. Further, I just sent it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, although the whole process was way more cumbersome than it should be and no doubt discourages a lot of people from bothering, detracting from the quality and quantity of images we have available. Tisane (talk) 08:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
File Choqok-greenish.png
Hi, this was new version icon of an opensource application, how can I upload it again?,(and mark it gnu or gfdl). you can found it here if you want [1] , it was new version of [2], and if you want know more about that see it here[3]. thanks you very much Abraham (talk) 18:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
![[1]](https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%BE%D8%B1%D9%88%D9%86%D8%AF%D9%87:Choqok-greenish.png){kind=link}
![[2]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ChoqoK.png){kind=link}
- Yes, please re-upload it. You can do it just the same way you did the first time, but this time please add that link to the source information and include the GNU license. Melesse (talk) 05:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Oblivion image
Thanks for fixing the Fair Use Rationale for the Oblivion image. I'm still learning the intricacies of things like that. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 20:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
RE: uploaded orphan image
Hi, Melesse, and thank you for you comments. My upload of The Dolmen image was an experiment that apparently went wrong. Being still rather new to Wikipedia, I am searching my notes on the edit symbols that will allow me to delete that trial run, but knowing it will be deleted in seven days is just as well if I don't. Thank you again for the assistance. Ceitidh (talk) 13:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Melesse, I'm not sure why you deleted this nonfree image. It was in use at The Sword and the Rose. Thanks, Papa November (talk) 10:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Disney Image
Can u see this User_talk:Fastily#FOP Image and User_talk:Fastily/Archive_3#Image. Deror (talk) 16:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Melesse, I've just uploaded this TV screenshot of the Angle-Puder Incident, and have added the image on two related articles, Daniel Puder and Kurt Angle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregorynovella (talk • contribs) 06:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
okay, i removed the tag, sorry, i didn't know that i could do it myself, sorry... Gregorynovella (talk) 06:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
File:Chloe_sainte_marie.jpg
Melesse, Thank you for the message. Still a newbie at this. What would constitute an acceptable free image? I am in contact with the artist in question through her personal assistant; if they provide acceptance of the usage, is that permitted? Thank you for the time you spend on this. Ron McIntyre (talk) 14:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, have them send an email to the OTRS system that releases the image under an appropriate license. More on that here. Melesse (talk) 04:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you.Ron McIntyre (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
FYI
I started a thread about User:Edson Rosa link. Continuing to upload large quantities of images with significant quantities of missing information is disruptive IMNSHO. As you've been fixing a lot of these kinds of his problems, your opinion is welcome. — BQZip01 — talk 15:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
|
The Cleanup Barnstar | |
| for cleaning up the messes created by others (either intentionally or unintentionally/negligently). — BQZip01 — talk 15:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC) |
- On a related note, you've tagged these images as copyrighted when they are ineligible for copyright in the first place:
- Please tag them as {{pd-textlogo}} and {{trademark}}. — BQZip01 — talk 15:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- As an FYI I moved this to WP:ANI#Edson Rosa. –xenotalk 15:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, Xeno. — BQZip01 — talk 16:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- I went ahead and fixed the aforementioned nominations. PLEASE slow down and make proper changes with FurMe. Such logos aren't eligible for copyright. I've asked nicely in many places and I feel I am being ignored. I feel I have little choice: If you continue to do so, I will ask for administrator intervention. — BQZip01 — talk 06:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
- Same goes for other recent images that you nominated for deletion because they were "fair use" when in fact they were not. I'd be happy to help you. Just cut & paste onto my talk page anything made up of just letters and/or simple shapes. I'll be happy to filter through them so we don't duplicate/waste time & effort. — BQZip01 — talk 06:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
- I went ahead and fixed the aforementioned nominations. PLEASE slow down and make proper changes with FurMe. Such logos aren't eligible for copyright. I've asked nicely in many places and I feel I am being ignored. I feel I have little choice: If you continue to do so, I will ask for administrator intervention. — BQZip01 — talk 06:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, Xeno. — BQZip01 — talk 16:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)