User talk:TLSuda/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 13

File:Flag of Friuli-Venezeia Giulia.png

Hello. You have deleted this free image. Could you restore it? Friuli-Venezia Giulia has an official flag in its ordinances, so there is no free replacement for a Friuli-Venezia Giulia flag. One law describes the flag as a blue rectangle with the regional coat of arms centered on it. The law continues with more verbiage to indicate that the seal contains a gold eagle and a turret and so on and so forth. At the point of that law, a free replacement may have been possible. A later law provides a reference image of the coat of arms, which is the image that is supposed to appear on the flag by the flag's definition. Admittedly, the later law does not contain an image of a whole flag. It does graphically define (and display) the thing that the flag is defined to display. The flag with the reference coat of arms is free in the first place (in the United States) because it is PD-laws. All of the foregoing info has been discussed in the non-free content review opened for the file. There was no consensus on deleting the flag in the non-free content review opened for the image.

It seems to me that Wikipedia has designated files that are ineligible for US copyright by reason of being PD-laws as "free" files. When I submitted fair use rationales for the file, I retained the PD-laws template. The file ended up being categorized in 2 ways, both "free" and "fair use non-free" which of course is silly. My guess is that the servers have been configured to categorize PD-laws files as free, which I hope clears up the issue of whether the file is free if it comes from a public law. Whether PD-laws means "free" must have been settled in numerous old debates. VernoWhitney told me almost 2 years ago that the file could stay if it comes from a law. If somebody else links Friuli-Venezia Giulia to some other flag image, there is the possibility that the image will be non-free because Wikipedia relies on free license statements from uploaders that may be incorrect. I have been bothered with actually proving that the uploaded flag image is free. The scrutiny that has lately been placed on the flag began after stefan2 came along and deleted the PD-laws template, demanding that a non-free fair use rationale be provided, apparently because stefan2 has a problem with certain kinds of free content being used in Wikipedia. Thank you for taking a look. Italick (talk) 21:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I'm not going to respond to much of your blocks of text above. There was a discussion that you participated in. I closed the discussion based on the policy-backed consensus the discussion. It is archived at Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 55#File:Flag of Friuli-Venezeia Giulia.png. I assume most of the information is in your text blocks is the same as your argument there. If I remember the discussion correctly, you didn't actually get the flag from any law, but rather the coat of arms, and put it on a background. That does not show that the flag came from a law (quite the opposite actually). Even if I agreed with one side or the other (which I don't care) I am not going against consensus on any discussion. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 21:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Whatever. I don't care, except that I think my time working on supporting it is wasted. Wikimedia says it wants a free encyclopedia and I went to the length of proving that the item is free, which was no small amount of work, and it was done correctly. It not only had to be researched, but also discussed in many venues here at different times. I'll leave it to somebody else to change the article by linking it to some garbage from Commons, or something with an erroneous free license. At that point, it will be a non-free image, and something uncontroversial that everyone will agree on. Stefan2 is a spiteful wrecking-ball. Italick (talk) 22:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Nothing has been proven, and the consensus of the discussion does not agree with you. Also, you might have a read of WP:NPA as your last sentence is wholly unacceptable on my talkpage. I kindly ask that you refrain from making such comments about anyone. TLSuda (talk) 00:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes it has. But understanding the proof takes follow-up work and some knowledge of Italian. For that reason, I don't blame anybody for not wanting to engage in it. What good would the work do if the file was going to stay on stefan2's list of targets because it is PD-laws, and he would therefore reintroduce it months later into another tedious and useless deletion discussion? That would be a dead horse to kill over and over again. Everybody commenting there knows stefan2. Italick (talk) 01:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

There has been no proof that the flag (the very specific flag) is in the laws somewhere. You have to find it, and prove it. The burden of proof is on the ones who want to keep it. You said yourself that you made the flag image using the coat of arms on a background. That is not very official. It would be the same as me making an American flag with just putting reds whites and blues on some paper in approoximately the right fashion. It might look like an American flag, but the colors would surely be off (we have very specific colors for our flag not just plain red. See specifications and colors). You would need to find the exact legal document that either a) shows exactly what the flag is or b) describes the flag including the setting of the logo and the background color. Without this information, we have no proof that it would be allowed under PD-laws. Further, we have no proof that it is an official flag. Rather, we do have proof, from your own admission, that it was user created. Therefore, that information, coupled with the consensus of the discussion sticks. Unless you have new information, this discussion is moot. As for your continued comments on Stefan2, I would appreciate it if you discontinue discussing him in such manner. Stefan2 is extremely well versed in US and European copyright laws. He is very active both here and on Commons where is expertise is second to few. If you want to complain, my talk page is not the place for you, and I'd thank you to stop. TLSuda (talk) 10:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Where I agree with you is in the flag's want of authenticity if it is user created. I have found the exact legal document that does b (and not a). I did not include a reference to that document on the file's page because I was not of the belief that somebody would need to read it to conclude that the flag is exempt from US copyright. To conclude this, I think it is enough to know that it is a cut-and-paste revision of the image of the coat of arms in the law that I linked. The flag law is here [1]. The first paragraph of article 2 (beginning with "La bandiera della Regione") mentions that the center of the flag displays the regional coat of arms. Google's translation of it into English was very fluent when I tried it. That makes me think that when there is an official picture of the coat of arms, the official picture should be in the middle of the flag. Anyway, there could never be proof that any user generated image coming from Commons is really a free replacement. Even this one [2] has a statement in Spanish or Portuguese indicating that the elements have been adapted from other coats of arms at Commons. This whole thing really isn't a big deal to me and I am more than ready to drop it now that I have said enough to satisfy myself. If you want to put the image back and would need to ask me something else, I would respond at my talk page. Italick (talk) 11:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be misunderstanding what {{PD-laws}} means. The {{PD-laws}} tag does not seem to come from the U.S. copyright law, but from a conflict between the U.S. copyright law and the U.S. constitution, which demands that laws must be readily available for public inspection. As the U.S. constitution is above the U.S. copyright law, the constitution takes precedence whenever they conflict, and it seems that there were two court rulings in the 19th century which ruled that certain legal texts can't be copyrighted due to the constitution. There is some discussion about this at s:Wikisource:Possible copyright violations#Source of Law. When you read the 19th century court rulings, you should keep in mind that {{PD-USGov}} didn't exist until the copyright law was changed in 1909.

The tag {{PD-laws}} seems to mean that you are free to upload the text of a law, a court ruling or certain other legal documents (for example, the text on this page), but I don't think that there is anything which permits you to use other stuff which is merely affixed to the law. For example, this image is used affixed to the linked page, but I don't think that {{PD-laws}} would cover the image, as the image itself is no law. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The point about whether a graphic may included in an edict is debatable. The NFCR indicated that you are not the only editor here concerned that a graphic may not be a part of an edict. I think that graphics may be a part of an edict and that the US wouldn't copyright it. If the PD-laws template is not meant to indicate that a picture, video, or sound sample comes from laws, what is it doing here and why did it stay here for so long?

The US is a Common Law country, and if the supreme court found that enforcing copyright over laws is unconstitutional, the ruling itself became a law of the US. Law in the US may be uncodified, and passed essentially by courts instead of legislatures. A constitutionality decision retroacts to the first point in time that something has been unconstitutional. That is the date that the constitution or one of its amendments took effect. Italick (talk) 23:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I think that you are misunderstanding what a law is. A law is a piece of text. Any other things which are included for typographical reasons are not part of the law. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• The flag (in my opinion of course) is not replaceable then. It is omissible if a consensus forms to omit it, but I cannot think of a clearer way for the region to decide how its coat of arms looks than typesetting it into a law. The flag, on the other hand, does not have a visual in its own separate ordinance. The flag law just states that a flag has a coat of arms on it. The flag law refers to a coat of arms in a 1967 ordinance [3], and FVG's law website indicates that it has been superseded by the 2006 ordinance for the coat of arms. You would see at the NFCR that I leaned toward calling the flag non-free while keeping the PD-laws template and a reference to the coat of arms ordinance as a part of the support for Wikimedia's right to host it. Italick (talk) 15:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
• As to whether a picture can be a law, I would point out that it is manifestly a part of the record of a community's agreement through its legislative process. I am not aware of a precedent for considering pictures to be laws in the US. However common law in the US even encompasses unwritten law. In the US, the legal system is not a clean and tidy row of textbooks. Italick (talk) 16:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
• It doesn't seem right to me that Wikipedia is careful to accurately display commercial corporate logos, while treating governmental logos as merely heraldic and variable. There are some heraldic and variable government logos. They may exist because governments have old laws that are text-only, or because they are observing an old tradition of using blazons instead of reference images, or because the entity is not experiencing the same kind of branding need for uniform logos as a corporation usually does. If the entity legislates a certain logo, I think that it is the factual and encyclopedic version. Italick (talk) 18:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• Look, I understand that you are fighting for what you believe in, but unless you have new information, all we're doing is rehashing the same information over and over. This repetitious discussion is not going to change the results of the WP:NFCR discussion. If you have new information or something that hasn't been brought up already, I would suggest that you open a new WP:NFCR discussion about the file, invite past participants and see if the consensus changes with new information. If you don't have new information, I would focus your efforts on other projects/images/articles. The amount of effort and energy that you put into this could be used elsewhere on the project. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 18:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
• Just as I was about to walk away from this, Stefan2 started discussing here. Italick (talk) 18:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

File:MS-DOS 6 upgrade cover.jpg

Can you at least provide some rationale at the discussion page why you chose to ignore the only "Keep" vote? The nominator's reply was rather weak, but I decided not to respond to avoid futile discussions with that user. Thanks. — Keφr 17:22, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

There really isn't much to say. The rationale for deletion was policy backed: it fails at least two pieces of WP:NFCC and that was enough for deletion. Specifically it fails WP:NFCC#8 and it fails WP:NFCC#1 if its only used for identification purposes. Neither of those arguments (which are backed by policy, were disproved or shown to be incorrect. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Dawley Court

The point here was that the question over anonymity had been recognised and the file size was accordingly reduced under FAIR USEAGE consideration. So why then was it deleted?Rodolph (talk) 09:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

There are many issues with this image, and I don't think they have been particularly explained to you in one place. First, we don't have an original publication date, ie when it was published. You claim in one place that it was "made available to the public" in 1929. But then later you claim it was never made available to the public until now. Which is it? If it was made available to the public, How? Where? Second, we need to know if it was truly an anonymous work, or if you (and I) simply don't know who created it. There is a big difference in the two. To answer this question, we need to know where it was originally published. There we would be able to find out if there was an author stated. If we know where it came from, then we can find out these answers. Third, if you are claiming that it is non-free ("fair-usage") it fails multiple criteria WP:NFCC. As it fails this, it cannot be kept. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 14:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

it was published in 1929. But what do you mean by publish? Yes, it was'nt mass circulated; printed or made into a poster or postcard. But this concept of 'publish' is curious, how many paintings shown here were never 'published', i.e. shown to the public. What is a quorum of public? It would have been seen by at least 100 in 1929. The issue of copyright here was dealt with my someone making it very small, and allowed it to live on under Fair Use, but they changed their mind for some reason?Rodolph (talk) 09:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

See below an perspective given me by a respectable Wiki editor. If you want people to share their archives, including photographs taken at their request, i.e. estate photos, you are not going to get very far with this over-cautiousness. Compare with Wikipedia's lack of respect for the man who organised the photo of the monkey in the news this week?Rodolph (talk)

"Respected perspective.

Estate Archives. It was noted in an external item for the Wikipedia Library project newsletter for March 2014 [Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Library/Newsletter/March2014] the specific etxernal item being (http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2014/04/14/public-access-to-public-books-the-case-of-the-national-trust/) that the National Trust should consider developing an appropriate scholarly access program to works held in country house libraries (some of which can be extensive private collections). This made me wonder, if there were other 'private collections' in 'libraries' which contain public domain works, or archive materials that were not necessarily preserved in better known archives or collections, whilst still being relevant to scholarly and academic researchers. It is also noted that some "estates" (including those of the National Trust and English Heritage) hold historic works of art (and of craftmanship), which whilst significant may not be widely known to a wider academic community. Given that you have contributed archive material from your own families collection (some letters in particular, for which you are due thanks.), I felt it would be reasonable to ask if it was worth asking the wider Wikipedia community including yourself on how "family and estate archives" could be encouraged to contribute to "Gallery, Library and Museum (GLAM)" type projects? Given the issues you've experienced in respect of some material (to which the reviews on your talk page previously attest), there is also the consideration that some archives may be reluctant to contribute a project they feel is run by those lacking certain forms of credibility or integrity. This is something a consultation with the Wikipedia community could also consider. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

First and foremost, the image cannot be used as "fair use" regardless of how small it is because it fails multiple criteria of WP:NFCC. We cannot ascertain if the image is free or not because we do not have enough information. Published is defined at Wikipedia:Published. This photo hasn't been published until now based on your information. You claim that 100 people saw this photo in 1929, but where did you get this information? It sounds like you are guessing, and WP:OR is not acceptable. Claiming that other works have not been "shown to the public" is also a guess. You don't know what has and hasn't and just because something else is on Wikipedia does not mean it is allowed. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Unless you have new information that is backed by a WP:RS the point is moot and the file will not be undeleted by me. TLSuda (talk) 10:59, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I was not guessing, as I stated earlier. It was a home to 10 surviving children, two parents and staff, and cousins & uncles. All the children married and most had at least two children. It was in a family album. So that takes circulation to already nearly 50, and instantly to 20. As I said many things that 'you' waive through will never have been seen before, ergo should'nt be allowed on the site, there seems to be a variance of standard, yes other stuff exists, sure but. No, not a guess, because as I wrote with the original up-load the photo is in a family album and I took the photo of the photo and have the album in my possession and know its provenance.Rodolph (talk) 18:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

What I mean is that I, one, should'nt be made to argue the toss when one is trying to give something away in good faith? I don't like being treated like a petty criminal for doing the right-thing.Rodolph (talk) 18:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Pictures in family albums are usually unpublished. If it is indeed anonymous and created less than 120 years ago, then it is still copyrighted in the United States as it does not yet satisfy {{PD-US-unpublished}}. In that case, you will have to ask the heir of the anonymous photographer to follow the procedure at WP:CONSENT. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

thanks for taking time to explain some more, sorry that I still find it a fog. I think to locate the heir of someone anonymous might be impossible, yet I might be of someone who could have been the creator, or of the commissioner of the photo, as sometimes rights are handed over at the time rather than retained by the photographer. You also imply that many of those 1,000s of PD-Art old tags would be invalid, if the 'art', however old, had'nt been public before? For example, some 300 year old paintings may been seen by less people than the photo of Dawley Court (at least 100), yet be allowed on the site. Meanwhile, it seems a mess that Wikipedia is rather too careful over matters like this yet seemingly cavalier towards the man whose camera was borrowed by the monkey.Rodolph (talk) 20:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is a big problem with family photos. It is often impossible to identify the copyright holder, so it is often impossible to upload them, unless it can be shown that the photographs are at least 120 years old.

Unfortunately for you, the copyright term of unpublished stuff is often a lot longer than the term for published stuff in English-speaking countries. This is because of a stupid mistake made back in 1710. In the British Statute of Anne from 1710, the first copyright law in the world, works were given a copyright term of 14 years from publication, with the possibility of an extension for another 14 year. Unfortunately, the 18th century lawmakers overlooked the possibility that some works might not be published ever, and the lawmakers didn't provide any provisions for such works to ever enter the public domain. The United States copied the Statute of Anne almost verbatim in its Copyright Act of 1790, and in later times, Britain introduced its domestic copyright laws (or minor variations of them) in most or all of its colonies.

It was not until 1976 that the United States decided to solve the problem with unpublished works, by deciding that many ancient unpublished works would enter the public domain on 1 January 2003, if they were still unpublished on that date and satisfied the age restrictions in {{PD-US-unpublished}}. Other unpublished works which did not yet satisfy the terms in that template enter the public domain once they meet those terms. If a previously unpublished work became published between 1923 and 2002, it may still be copyrighted regardless of its age, and such works will normally enter the public domain 95 years from publication or on 1 January 2048. Although everything published before 1923 is in the public domain in the United States, a lot of unpublished stuff which is a lot older than 1923 is still copyrighted.

In the United Kingdom, this problem was solved in 1988, but differently than in the United States. In the United Kingdom, the standard term is 70 years from the death of the author, but a lot of stuff is subject to an extra restriction: to enter the public domain in the United Kingdom, it must usually also have been published more than 50 years ago, even if the author died several centuries ago. A couple of groups of material are exempted from this publication rule, most importantly photographs taken before 1 June 1957, which only need to be old but not published. The solution in the United Kingdom was that all of these ancient works enter the public domain on 1 January 1940 at the latest (sometimes earlier if they have been published somewhere in the 20th century).

In some Commonwealth countries, this problem has still not been solved. For example, take a look at India. The standard copyright term is life+60 years, but if something never becomes published during the lifetime of the author, the term is changed to 60 years from publication, even if it takes several centuries for it to become published. Some kinds of material, such as photographs, follow slightly different rules. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much again for your patience and time, (I must work out how to award, if I am entitled to do so, you a Legal-Eagle-Barn-Star). It is very good to know that unpublished intellectual capital is protected, and I agree wholeheartedly with the law. Yet on the other hand it could often be a Pyhrric victory for the anonymous and known dead as their muniments and ephemera are tossed unrecorded into the recycling bin/landfill/bonfire. For example, that photo of Dawley Court is in an unprotected album, at any moment a house-clearer, burglar, fire or water could come in and it be lost or ruined. So what is worse for the anonymous dead photographer, a small possible violation of possible copyright, or a risk that the work is lost for good?Rodolph (talk) 00:50, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Another issue might be that most people, non-artists and non-professional writers, would'nt have considered the copyright of their amateur photos, ditties, etc, things worth assigning to anyone in a will, if they wrote one (and if not to whom could the rights fall?), so in effect does that mean that their intellectual copyright become quasi-intestate, or does ephemera follow a set course?Rodolph (talk) 00:50, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

If not specified what is specifically done with with the copyright, it goes, like everything else (property, money, etc) to the executor of the will or the estate. I believe there are some cases where the estate goes perpetually unclaimed but that doesn't mean the copyright disappears. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 14:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

The photograph of Dawley Court, in 1929 or before, was a professional photo: written on back is: GAZETTE PHOTOGRAPH COPYRIGHT, King & Hutchings, LTD, Uxbridge, No. 2368. When would that be usable here, or is now clear? Rodolph (talk) 14:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

@Stefan2: probably can give you a better idea than I can. He's much more well versed in copyright. One hindrance, though, is that we don't know the date it was copyrighted. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 21:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. The photo was taken and distributed no later than mid 1929, as house was sold in 1929 and demolished soon after.Rodolph (talk) 23:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Unless you have hard evidence of the date the photo was snapped, you only have WP:OR. And the date it was taken could be completely different than the date it was published. It could have been published many years later. We simply do not have enough information about this image to ascertain the copyright of it and therefore we cannot host it. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 00:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

It had to be snapped no later than 1929, as house was demolished 1929/1930, which is hard evidence. As to when published, balance of probability would be 1929 as taken for the local newspaper. Ok I'll ask the Uxbridge Gazette. Rodolph (talk) 18:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• Some notes on copyright terms for British photos in the United States:

• Photograph taken in 1929 and first published before 1978: copyright expires 95 years from publication (for example, on 1 January 2025 if first published in 1929)
• Photograph taken in 1929 and first published after 1977: copyright expires on 1 January 2050 (120 years after it was taken)

This assumes that it was a "work for hire". If it was created by a professional photo studio, as suggested above, then it was a work for hire. If it wasn't a work for hire, then the term may change if the photographer is known. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Stefan, should'nt this image be deleted?Rodolph (talk) 21:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I've nominated it for deletion on Commons. TLSuda (talk) 14:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

OTRS

I noticed that you used the OTRS permission rather than the ConfirmationOTRS template when you edited Talk:TeamTO

You have a lot of experience as an agent, but we haven't interacted much, so I don't know whether this is just a one-off accidental use of the wrong template, or that you are unaware that text uses a different template.

There's over a thousand incorrect uses in this list, but most are older, and by names I do not recognize.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I probably have about 3-4 that I did wrong. That was back from April 2014 way before I was experienced and nearly right after I became a volunteer. Thanks for finding it for me. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 16:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Stuff

Hey TLSuda, File:3.Med Erotic.jpg and other files list at the discussion Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2014_July_29#Orshi_Drozdik has been uploaded again. Best, ///EuroCarGT 17:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

All four deleted, and user warned. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 18:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Best, ///EuroCarGT 18:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, do you have admin rights on Wikipedia? I know you're good at editing here or reversing vandal edits, and me indeed with the rollback tool, keep up the good work! :) --Allen ^talk 17:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I am an admin, but I generally don't approve rollback requests unless it is obvious to me that the user is experienced. Someone will review your request shortly. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 17:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

In honor of transparency

Today, on 20 August 2014 at approximately between 17:20 and 18:00 UTC, I was notified by Russavia in IRC chat (#wikipedia-en) that I had uploaded two images (File:Maya_Island_Air_logo.png and File:SAEREO_logo.png) from requests at WP:FFU. I honestly thought that the requests were made by unregistered IP editors. As it turns out Russavia through using multiple IPs, requested uploads of multiple images. As such, I have unintentionally assisted this user in contributing while evading his ban. I was also informed that I requested the removal of the protection of WP:FFU after it was protected due to his edits. I requested the removal of these protections because WP:FFU's whole purpose is for non-registered and non-autoconfirmed editors to request files be uploaded. I want to apologize for accidentally being a pawn in in an editor's ban evasion. Since the images meet all of the requirements of our image related policies, I have no plans to delete them (although if another admin wanted to I would not argue). TLSuda (talk) 21:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

At the same time, he admitted that the request at Wikipedia:FFU#Tropic_Air_logo.jpg was his and that he was "waiting for me to upload it". He was using the user name "belizeavia" as his Russavia username was also banned from that IRC room. TLSuda (talk) 21:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• For your information, WP:ANI#Russavia disruption, requesting multiple article protection contains some discussion about the protection of WP:FFU, at least in the beginning of the discussion. I agree that it is a very bad idea to protect WP:FFU since this is the way anonymous and recently registered users are supposed to upload files. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• That thread was why I asked for unprotection of WP:FFU. I don't think anything I did was specifically wrong and it was all for the benefit of the encyclopedia. But it was still done under a cloud of negativity, so I wanted to declare it. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 11:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Five World Trade Center

Hello TLSuda, I am a little concerned by the actions/edits of what appears to be a new editor CarlosChagall. They have restored an entry on the above article deleted by a BOT and then reverted deletions by myself and your good self. Further, they have not responded to my note on their Talk page and have added further text to the originally deleted section. I have no intention of edit warring, but believe that the text they keep restoring has no place in the article. Your thoughts please. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 13:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

He added text and added a verifiable source. There is nothing wrong with those edits. They were discussed in IRC with multiple admins and uninvoled editors. As long as the information is sourced and relevant it is acceptable. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 13:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 13:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 August 16#File:Hearts XP.png

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 August 16#File:Hearts XP.png. Thanks. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me. I commented at the close review and had all intentions of commenting at the new deletion discussion too, but I forgot. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin II, III, IV reissue images

If you restore File:Led Zeppelin II (Companion).png, File:Led Zeppelin III (Companion).png, File:Led Zeppelin IV (Companion).png, I will reduce them to 316 x 316, like what was done to LZ I and Houses of the Holy.—SPESH531Other 19:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

They were already resized. That isn't why they were deleted. They were deleted due to a discussion where the consensus found they failed WP:NFCC. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 19:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh okay. I find it interesting that 2 of 5 photos, probably under the same copyright were not deleted. Thank you for explaining why they were deleted.—SPESH531Other 19:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

That was what the discussion covered. All but the first cover failed that policy. The first cover was acceptable. I haven't seen the fifth item, and I don't believe it was discussed. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 19:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Help with non free photo, please.

We're working on Joan Robinson Hill and we need a photo of the music room of her home. She died in 1969-her husband was accused of her murder. He was having an affair with another woman and had spent a lot of money on making the room perfect. One of the couple's last arguments ended with Robinson Hill telling her husband he'd just lost her, his son and his music room. Five days later, she died in a local hospital under mysterious circumstances which will probably never be solved.

There's a lot of cited commentary in the article about the music room and it seems to need a photo for a better description and also for understanding as to why it was a possible motive for murder. All photos of the home I'm aware of would be in books, magazines and newspapers, and so on, which would be copyright-protected. When the home was offered for sale not long ago, the realtor posted photos of it. The music room has remained about the same as it was when the Hills owned the house. Realtor's listing photo we hope to use. Can we use this as a non-free photo for the article and if so, should it be classed as a promotional photo or a historic one? Thanks! We hope (talk) 23:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey @We hope:. I was looking over the article to see if this photo you want to use would actually meet the requirements of WP:NFCC (specifically #8). I've noted a few things. There is a quote in the John Hill section by Thomas Thompson that seems to be extremely long per WP:COPYQUOTE. That text is quite possibly copyrighted, and using that much material is against both WP:COPYQUOTE and WP:NFCC#3. That's a completely different matter, but I did want to point that out.

Second, as for the photo you want to use, I do not think the image would pass WP:NFCC#8 in this article. You are right that the music room is mentioned a few times in the article and you do have one source (used a couple of times). But, to pass WP:NFCC# the photo must do two things. 1) it must "increase readers' understanding of the article topic." In this case it might increase the understanding that a music room exists, but it doesn't, in my opinion, increase the understanding about Joan Robinson Hill. Even if that were met (which would be a stretch in my opinion) it has to meet a second requirement. 2) "Its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." We do not need to see an photo of the music room to understand that it existed, that it was fancy, how much it cost, what it was used for, or that John Hill lost it. Every bit of text is the article about the music room is understandable without the photo.

Overall, it is my opinion if you uploaded the photo and used it on that article, it would be taken to WP:FFD to be deleted. Alternatively, if the music room still exists in a form similar to that recent listing, the photo would immediately fail WP:NFCC#1 and would qualify for speedy deletion. However, you could reach out to the realtor and see if they would release the image under a free license (using WP:CONSENT) and they just might. I know that is not the answer you wanted, but I hope that helps. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 18:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! Will start working on paraphrasing the quote and will also try contacting the realtor to see if they will release just the one photo of the music room. AFAIK, the home is not on the market now, so it probably wouldn't be bad for their business to do so. Have found another website with interior photos of the house, claiming the present owners open it once a year as a Habitat for Humanity benefit, but the site leaves no way to contact the owner of it to try asking for use of photos he/she probably took during an Open House. :/ Thanks again! We hope (talk) 19:12, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Placement

Hey. How's life being an admin? {{Oldffdfull}} goes into talk page, not image description page. (That's why it implements {{tmbox}}). Cheers. Fleet Command (talk) 17:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey @FleetCommand: Being an admin is like being a janitor, all the work and none of the fun. As for your comment, if you read the instructions of the template documentation page, it says "If the talk page for the file already exists, add this template to the talk page. Otherwise, the template may be added to the file page itself under a heading such as ==Deletion discussions==." I haven't been adding the header because I think that it is silly, but I haven't been creating talk pages just to put a deletion banner. I haven't found any definitive required process either way, so I go by the template's documentation page. If there is documentation specifically somewhere, the template documentation page needs to be updated. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 17:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

{{oldpuffull}} has the same message in the documentation and I do the same thing for those discussions. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 17:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Wikipedia:Files for deletion/Administrator instructions and Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/Administrator instructions say otherwise. This conflict needs to be resolved somehow. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Template documentation pages often remain behind the time and everyone feels quite safe editing them. But those Wikipedia: namespace pages are closely monitored and are under discretionary sanctions. So, they pretty much override what's written in /doc pages. I'll just hop over to Template:Oldffdfull/doc and fix things up. Cheers. Fleet Command (talk) 17:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't completely agree with that. The template documentation has been around since October 2008, whereas the instruction guidelines have been around since June 2008 (and both included the respectable information since creation. I don't think, as it stood before you made the edits, that there was truly one right way over the other, but both should agree. If this is what is wanted, I have no problem doing it. I just didn't see any evidence that one way was preferential so I defaulted to the one that had been around longer. In the future, although I think it is silly, I will create a talk page just to put a deletion banner on it. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 17:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

The alternative would be to change the Wikipedia: namespace pages in admin capacity, fix those templates to use {{fmbox}} when put on image description page and ask Twinkle developers and bot operators to look for {{oldffdfull}} on image description pages as well. So, don't worry; creating a talk page just to put {{oldffdfull}} isn't stupid; it is according to KISS principle and the lesser of the two evils. Fleet Command (talk) 18:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Though to be fluid...

Is reverting outing not considered an exception to 3RR? Tutelary (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Not a direct exception as far as WP:3RRNO, no. It probably should be. Both of you back and forth reverting does not accomplish anything, and is still edit-warring. Someone else is obviously oversighting and they could help out, as could anyone else around, including myself. I just wanted to give you both a chance to calm down and step back, regardless of the situation. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 17:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Bogus claims of outing should definitely be an exception, yes. I'm sure that enough editors know the story to understand that I didn't out anyone. The editor outed himself, Tutelary advised him to remove the admission and requested revdel. Nothing else. Too bad that you as an admin didn't revert Tutelary's repeated removal of my perfectly acceptable reply to his statement about canvassing. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Sonicyouth86, you should be blocked for misunderstanding WP:OUTING and repeating oversighted material. If the previously posted information has been removed by oversight, then repeating it on Wikipedia is considered outing. Tutelary (talk) 17:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. I didn't repeat oversighted material. If blocks are handed out, then we should start with the one for (admitted) canvassing. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Look y'all, I left you both messages to give you the opportunity to calm down, not so you would bring it here. I'm not a party to the dispute. I don't know what happened; I don't care what happened. I just want y'all to clam down. Good luck, TLSuda (talk) 18:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

TLSuda, the correct channel to request an addition to WP:3RRNO would be an RFC at WT:EDITWAR, right? Tutelary (talk) 18:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

That would be a fine place to start, but you might cross post (not canvas) at WP:AN as this would be relevant to a good many administrators as well. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 20:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Indefinite blocking of IP

I am curious why you indefinitely blocked an IP address (99.104.7.1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) from editing. Aren't VAOs only blocked indefinitely and IPs temporarily? π♂101 (talk) 23:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Its being fixed. Huon (talk · contribs) is cleaning it up for me. I intended to block for 1 week, for persistent vandalism and after three tries failed. I'm gonna stay away from blocking until I figure out why I keep messing it up. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 23:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I thought that you believed that it was an open proxy. Dang mis-clicks! Happy editing! π♂101 (talk) 23:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it was part mis-clicks, part stupidity for me, and part a fight with my browser. Thanks for checking in so quick. Better to find these issues (even when they are simply human error) and fix them fast than to let them linger. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 00:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I think that some more cleaning may need done. The notice on the IP's talkpage says indefinitely blocked as a VOA. In response, the IP has requested a username change! And Huon even responded! Maybe the notice should be changed and the faulty name request should be explained. This way, we don't appear bitey. Just some suggestions. π♂101 (talk) 00:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm apparently having issues doing the most simple tasks today, but I will try! Wish me luck! TLSuda (talk) 00:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

@Piguy101: How's that? TLSuda (talk) 00:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks good. π♂101 (talk) 00:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 August newsletter

The final of the 2014 WikiCup begins in a few short minutes! Our eight finalists are listed below, along with their placement in Round 4:

1. Godot13 (submissions), a WikiCup newcomer, finished top of Pool A and was the round's highest scorer. Godot is a featured picture specialist, claiming large numbers of points due to high-quality scans of historical documents, especially banknotes.
2. Casliber (submissions) is a WikiCup veteran, having been a finalist every year since 2010. In the semi-final, he was Pool B's highest scorer. Cas's points primarily come from articles on the natural sciences.
3. Czar (submissions) was Pool A's runner-up. Czar's points come mostly from content related to independent video games, including both articles and topics.
4. Adam Cuerden (submissions) was Pool B's runner-up. Another featured picture specialist, many of Adam's points come from the restoration of historical media. He has been a WikiCup finalist twice before.
5. Cwmhiraeth (submissions) won the WikiCup in 2012 and 2013, and enters this final as the first wildcard. She focuses on biology-related articles, and has worked on several high-importance articles.
6. 12george1 (submissions) is the second wildcard. George's points come primarily from meteorology-related articles. This year and last year, George was the first person in the competition to score.
7. Sturmvogel 66 (submissions), the third wildcard, was the 2010 champion and a finalist last year. His writes mostly on military history, especially naval history.
8. Bloom6132 (submissions), the fourth and final wildcard, has participated in previous WikiCups, but not reached any finals. Bloom's points are mostly thanks to did you knows, featured lists and good articles related to sport and national symbols.

We say goodbye to this year's semi-finalists. Matty.007 (submissions), ThaddeusB (submissions), WikiRedactor (submissions), Figureskatingfan (submissions), Yellow Evan (submissions), Prism (submissions) and Cloudz679 (submissions) have all performed well to reach this stage of the competition, and we hope they will all be joining us again next year.

There are two upcoming competitions unrelated to the WikiCup which may be of interest to those who receive this newsletter. The Stub Contest will run through September, and revolves around expanding stub articles, especially high-importance or old stubs. In addition, a proposal has been made for a new competition, the GA Cup, which the organisers plan to run next year. This competition is based on the WikiCup and aims to reduce the good article review backlog.

There is now a thread for brainstorming on how next year's WikiCup competition should work. Please come along and share your thoughts- What works? What doesn't work? What needs changing? Signups for next year's competition will be open soon; we will be in touch. If, at this stage of the competition, you are keen to help the with the WikiCup, please do what you can to participate in review processes. Our finalists will find things much easier if the backlogs at good article candidates, featured article candidates, featured picture candidates and the rest are kept at a minimum. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 22:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

relist “I’m too sad to tell you”?

I wonder if you could relist the deletion discussion for file:I’m too sad to tell you The original deletion request was made before the article I'm too sad to tell you was created. This article discusses the art work and was the only use of the image. The only vote after this article was created was for “keep”. Further discussion is warranted.--Nowa (talk) 15:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@Nowa: A few things to note. You added the comment after the file was deleted. Second, the issue of WP:NFCC#8 is not magically resolved by moving the image to a different article. Unless and until an editor adds content to any article that not only supports but also requires the image to be seen to understood (more than just be seen as a visual representation or identification) the image won't be undeleted. If you want to take that task on yourself, that's fine. I would recommend finding third-party, reliable sources that discuss things about the photo that need to be seen (more than it just exists) like the composure, the lighting, why he framed it like he did, etc. The article needs this information before the image can be added. As a side not the article also does not have a WP:NPOV and seems to be WP:OR. If you want to work on these things, get the article cleaned up and ensure that the article meets the requirements of WP:NFCC#8 (and the other criteria), I will happily restore the image without relisting the discussion. Otherwise, even if you were to find someone to relist it, or take it to deletion review, it would likely not be restored. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I agree my “keep” vote was late and can be disregarded. To be honest, however, I’ve already done my best to accurately summarize the content of the references. If you genuinely feel the article has POV or OR, I invite you to point it out and I will correct it.--Nowa (talk) 21:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@Nowa: I want to start by saying this subject has the potential to be a great article. In the following assessment, I am not criticizing the work that you've done, rather showing how it could be improved. The lead and first sentence are not very encyclopedic. "I'm Too Sad to Tell You (1970–71) is the most popular work by conceptual artist Bas Jan Ader." It should be something like: "I'm Too Sad to Tell You (1970–71) is a mixed-media conceptual artwork by Bas Jan Ader." Because that is what it is. As far as I can tell, only one person says its the most popular work, which is fine to include that information, but you need to include the attribution and it should not be the first sentence.

The second paragraph is simply just re-wording of Frieze Magazine source. That article is an opinion piece that you've summarized. You're giving someone else's opinion as fact, without stating anything like "so-and-so art critic says...." Opinion is not fact, so summarizing opinion in an article reads like WP:OR. The criticism section does a better job of this, but doesn't even mention the work, its a quote about the artist. In the interpretation section you use words like may and might. These are either unconfirmed (so possibly untrue) or someone's opinion. For all we know the tears may be made of alcohol and the artist might be drunk. The second sentence of this section is a summary of an interview, not facts. So basically the entire article is summary of various persons opinions (without mentioning the person or why their opinion is important) with very little based in fact and loads of fluff. It needs serious work. My recommendation would be to look at Good Articles (or even Featured Articles) about artwork to see how they are written and stay neutral while factual and attribute opinions. A good place to start would be the Art section of Wikipedia:Good_articles/Art_and_architecture. Let me know if there is anything further I can help you with. Cheers, and good luck. TLSuda (talk) 23:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

TLsuda: This is very helpful feedback. I appreciate the effort you put into it. What I hear you say is: more facts; attribute opinions; and use other good articles as models. Thank you. I’ll let you know how it goes.--Nowa (talk) 12:11, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I think you are on the right track, Nowa. Keep me updated. Like I said before, if we can get the article to where it needs to be (with relation to WP:NFCC) I'll happily restore the image. If there is something else I can do, please let me know. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 20:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

How's this? (candid feedback appreciated)--Nowa (talk) 14:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I've given some notes over at Talk:I'm_too_sad_to_tell_you#Notes_for_article_(requested). Let's keep the discussion on the talkpage from here on out. I've got it watchlisted so we can continue growing the article. I think we have the ability to make this meet the Good Article criteria. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 22:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good.--Nowa (talk) 23:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Souther California portal

Thanks for taking the time to delete this portal. I wish more people had commented, but really, what can be said? if people want to work on a portal for this, perhaps they need to first work on the task force for socal. I am about to list another portal for possible deletion: Portal:California Central Valley. this one had about 30 articles linking to it (i was bold and changed them to the california portal), is completely moribund, and doesnt even have a task force associated with it. I know i shouldnt canvass, but i really like the idea that IF we have portals, that they serve some useful purpose and dont make WP look bad. projects are different: they arent directly observed by readers, so can be as messy as the members allow, but a portal should be at LEAST as well done as a B class article, in my opinion, to deserve so many links from articles.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Help 2

Hi, sorry, I've no idea how this stuff works, but I was cheking out this article --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_earthquakes_in_California --> and I noticed that the photo could use some editing (levels, etc.). So I did it myself, then uploaded it here: s21.postimg.org/idktmwozr/image.jpg ; unfortunately, I've no idea (nor the time to learn) how to update the original file! If you can help, and if you think it's be worth it, I'll say thanks. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.76.253.186 (talk) 12:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, TLSuda. You have new messages at Joseph A. Spadaro's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, TLSuda. You have new messages at Joseph A. Spadaro's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, TLSuda. You have new messages at Joseph A. Spadaro's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, TLSuda. You have new messages at Joseph A. Spadaro's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Don't reply back. It's clear that you simply want to be confrontational about a non-issue. Thanks. Bye. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, TLSuda. You have new messages at Joseph A. Spadaro's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 September 1

You closed several sections after only one day instead of seven days. Was there an error? In one of the discussions, you used a speedy deletion criterion, but the other two discussions should probably have been running for a whole week. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

That was a mistake on my part. Should've have done it, now I'm reverting it. Thanks for catching that. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 14:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Revert your deletion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Michelle_Chang_(Tekken).png

Snd disable this horrible bot turning pics into pixelated crap. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 11:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kratos_God_of_War_III.png too. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 11:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The new image revisions meet the requirements of WP:NFCC for size. Also non-free images are not supposed to be high quality. I can, though, understand why we would not want the ugly pixelization. If you can find/create an image that is not pixelated that is the same or smaller size, and upload it, that would be acceptable. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 11:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

OTRS N archive

I cannot see a section I am working on at Archive 3. The problem appears to be that you added an archive top template, but not a bottom.

I would simply fix it rather than bother you, but I do not see what should be the top or bottom. Can you fix it so I can get back to work on the errors?--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: That's odd. It got moved from the section above (where the random {{cob}} was left behind) to the bottom of the section. It has been fixed (I think), sorry about that. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 12:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. No big deal, Like I said, I was going to fix it myself, but I guess some glitch messed something up. Glad to see I wasn't blind,--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Contoocook Depot and Pullman Coach.jpg

File permission was sent a week ago. All the information requested, sent to the email provided. Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 19:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I checked but did not find an email in our system about this image. Can you give me any information about the email? Or re-send it? As soon as it shows up and is processed the image will be undeleted. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 19:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The original email has been forwarded to permissions-commons@wikipedia.org. Please let me know when you receive it so I can have confirmation. Thank you Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 19:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you by chance know what the subject of the email was? This would give me an additional parameter to search. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 19:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The email I just forwarded has File:Contoocook Depot and Pullman Coach.jpg as the subject line. Apparently the one before that just said "Permissions" Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 19:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I found the new email and restored the image. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 19:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your help! Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 20:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I know you've only just tagged this file with permission and I've transferred it to Commons. However when I was trying to clean it up, I couldn't find the image at the source given in the file but there is an online copy at NERail.org which credits David Salzberg. Could I ask for confirmation of the authors name because on the file summary it says Dane Malcolm. Thanks in advance. Green Giant (talk) 20:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

@Steve Lux, Jr.: The image was released by the VP of your organization, but the above editor has found a copy that is sourced to someone else. Can you specific who took the photo? TLSuda (talk) 20:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

• Looks like it actually was David Salzberg. We were under the impression we were using a different image. I will have to look into this. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

• I've re-deleted it for now until this situation is figured out. @Steve Lux, Jr.: one suggestion would be to find a photo that you or a member of your organization took and have them release it. Or if a photo was taken for your organization and the photographer gave the rights to the group, that could be released as well. @Green Giant: I've removed the local copy, but you'll have to request deletion on Commons. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 23:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I've requested speedy deletion on Commons. Green Giant (talk) 23:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Logos

Thanks for helping transition those logos to the commons. I appreciate any help I can get. SantiLak (talk) 23:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Glenn Cooper

Hello and sorry to bother you again. On 22 August you add the permission for File:Glenn Cooper Profile Picture.jpg. I've transferred it to Commons and whilst cleaning up the summary I linked the authors name to his Wikipedia article, someone I've heard of. However when I read the article I realized that that person passed away on February 26, 2010. Soooo, I was hoping you could confirm whether the OTRS permission was from his heirs or something similar like Bachrach Studios? Thanks in advance. Green Giant (talk) 09:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it seems to be from his grandson (same name, probably the 3rd) who is also a photographer. Grandson's website is: http://www.lfbachrach.com/ and I verified the email address at http://www.lfbachrach.com/Contact%20me.htm. So I think everything is fine. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 11:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah that makes sense. Thanks for the details and the local deletion. Green Giant (talk) 13:35, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

File:30 Great Piano Classics Album Cover.jpg

Please could you reinstate this file. It was the only image for the album "30 Great Piano Classics" (not a redundant cover). I was also an updated version with the GPS data removed. It appears my reply on the files for deletion talk page were ignored. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SurreyJohn (talk • contribs) 07:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Lennox Cato

Hi, you have just deleted the image uploaded with this article. I actually sent three copies of the email giving permission for its use to Permissions two weeks ago. How can this be checked and the image reinstated? Thanks. Jack1956 (talk) 20:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I checked prior to deleted and did not find an email relating to this image. Could you give me any information about the email? Is this the same email that you've sent to me? TLSuda (talk) 23:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I've searched some of the terms in the email you forwarded me. It looks like there isn't enough information. I've sent a request for more specific permission. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 23:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

MC Opi

It is clear on MC Opi's page that their are valid citations, please explain in detail you reinstating claims of not enough citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.216.94.51 (talk) 20:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

@83.216.94.51: At least one of the citations is from the subject's website. Multiple are from non-reliable websites, see WP:RS. The only section that even has a reference is the lead. Nothing else in the entire article is sourced. WP:BLP all content that is unsourced should be removed. Originally I was going to remove the content, but since you're active, I thought that I'd give you a chance to clean it up first. Lastly, both the subject and at least one editor have admitted that there is at least one editor with a conflict of interest editing the page. Therefore the tags are all legitimate and should stay in place until the issues are resolved. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The ARIA and APRA content is valid sources, and all the links. Strange it seems you are really intent on destroying the content of this performers biography. There are valid citations in this article. It is incorrect about the beginning only having citations. Can I ask why you have singled this entertainer out, a lot of people are aware in the Australian hip hop scene that Iggy and Opi in a competitive situation, hope there is no foul play going on, because I have looked at other biographies with less citations yet they don't have all these notices. Apologies if I am mistaken but it's just odd. We follow MC Opi on twitter and this issue coincided with a tweet today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.216.94.51 (talk) 20:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC) There have been a few editors on this, no doubt from the hip hop community, not sure what I can add or delete. If you could be more detailed that would help. MC Opi has a lot of followers on twitter, we read what is on there and her facebook account. I am not sure if she has tweeted about this wikipedia situation. Before we delete anything have you contacted her directly about this citation issue because this must be an issue to her, it is her career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.216.94.51 (talk) 20:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC) I am happy to cite reference but this will take some time, I will need to know the exact sections and text because I can see citations. Does the subject know about these deletions? Is it possible because you have the authority, that you delete sources you see as not eligible? I have looked at Iggy Azalea wikipedia page to undérstand how to edits MC Opi's and some of the citations might be invalid, there are websites references and blogs. Could you steer me in the right direction, apologies for my confusion.

First, I have no agenda whatsoever. I am a volunteer just like everyone else. I spend countless hours doing tasks on Wikipedia that no one notices, so why would I spend my time to try to "attack" someone? For someone who is allegedly so famous, MC Opi and fans are real quick to think that everyone is against them, when this just isn't true.

Second MC Opi does not own their Wikipedia article. Our policies dictate that subjects are not to be used as source and that nothing has to be done to their approval. We are an encyclopedia just like the old-fashioned print ones that are hidden away in your local library. We publish sourced, facts with strong references. Wikipedia is not here to help MC Opi's career. It is solely here to include information about people who meet our notability guidelines.

Third I don't know what text you are reading. None of the sections below the lead have only one or no inline citations. Look for the little numbers following the sentences. The information plainly isn't sourced. It needs to be sourced from third party reliable sources. No blogs, no websites that are owned by MC Opi. We need sourced content from places that have editorial oversight like news media outlets, magazines, television stations, books, etc.

Good luck. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 22:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:KingArthurFlourLogo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:KingArthurFlourLogo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Jffner (talk) 13:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Two FFU sections

Hi! Do you have an opinion on what to do with WP:FFU#Surface.PM request 1 and WP:FFU#Surface.PM request 2? I'm not sure if Flickrwashing should be assumed or not. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@Stefan2: I don't think that it is Flickrwashing in the traditional sense, but I also don't think that the requester completely understand what they are releasing. I would be happier if they went through WP:CONSENT or if the files were kept non-free (if they meet WP:NFCC). Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 22:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

OTRS confirmation

Hey TLSuda! Could you verify the permission tickets on File:Neon Jungle.jpg & File:WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE.jpg. The uploader stated it was 'free', did a web search on the album and media turns out to be copyrighted by RCA (according to iTunes and Amazon). I also seen some DMCA web takedown notices at the bottom of the search page. Best, ///EuroCarGT 19:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey @EuroCarGT: as far as I can tell, there are absolutely no emails into OTRS from anyone relating to or talking about Neon Jungle. But note they haven't been uploaded for long. I'll check again tomorrow, but they very likely may need to be deleted. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 19:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Alrighty then. Thanks for the quick reply. Best, ///EuroCarGT 19:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Have you (or the team) received it yet? ///EuroCarGT 20:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

No, we haven't. Thanks for reminding me; I completely forgot in the madness that is real life. If you want to tag them as no-permission, we don't need to wait around forever for something that likely may not show up. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 20:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done also several more from the uploader. Best, ///EuroCarGT 21:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Quick update: All of the files were deleted under F9, one file was overwrite as a non-free file. Best, ///EuroCarGT 16:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

FYI

There is a script to closed WP:PUF discussions, User:Armbrust/closepuf.js. Regards, Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks, I've added it to my monobook. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 14:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Beneful

You pitched in a while back regarding my COI submisssions on BabyFirst (Now GA). I was wondering if you had time to take a look at Talk:Beneful#Draft. CorporateM (Talk) 15:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry @CorporateM: I've been extremely busy recently and haven't had the time to take care of anything. It looks like it is being taken care of. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 14:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

No problem! Yuppers - Guy Macon picked it up. CorporateM (Talk) 14:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

UserGogo212121

Hello TLSuda my ip is blocked in wikipedia commons i not upload image in wikipedia --Gogo212121 (talk) 17:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

@Gogo212121: but you can upload here, even free images and then tag them with {{copy to commons}}. Why is your IP blocked at Commons? TLSuda (talk) 21:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

UserGogo212121 Hello TLSuda reason vandalism i not vandalism

this  ip    was  a   blocked  by admin denisss   reason  vandalism 

blocked infinite --91.134.65.79 (talk) 12:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:SimilarWeb logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:SimilarWeb logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

No longer orphaned?

This logo might no longer be an orphan, see Commons deletion discussion here. Maybe it should be restored? Cheers,  Mr.choppers | ✎  20:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Permission for Bas Jan Ader portrait

Is this not permission for File:Bas Jan Ader.jpg?--Nowa (talk) 19:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@Nowa: Its not enough permission. That is simply an image hosted at a hosting website. I could make the same image saying that the person claimed differently and host it elsewhere. Even if we are to WP:AGF about that source, it doesn't actually give the right sort of permission. It is missing a few crucial pieces of information. First who took the photograph? The image says "Tjark Tijdens" but in the email from "Tjark Tijdens" it says "Erik Ader had no objection to the release of the photo of Bas Jan..." (roughly translated). So who actually took the photo Erik or Tjark? If it was Tjark, then Tjark needs to release the image under a specific free license. He gets to choose, not the uploader. If Erik is the photographer, and he wants the image released, then he needs to release it under a specific free license. Either way, whomever owns the copyright to the image needs to follow the instructions at WP:CONSENT. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 21:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifiation. I was just curious since the uploader felt permission had been obtained.--Nowa (talk) 21:49, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

See that's what I am completely confused about. Permission had been obtained for what? Unless there is a vastly different translation that I am completely missing, the only thing the uploader was told was that there was no objection from a third party that the image could be released. Nowhere does it say that the copyright holder gives permission to release the file under a free license. If they were to follow the instructions at WP:CONSENT this will all be easily cleared up. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 23:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, Erik Ader is Bas Jan's younger brother. Tjark Tijdens, the attributed photographer, was a friend of Bas Jan's when they were young. Nonetheless, you are right. The consent form should be used.--Nowa (talk) 00:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Close as delete?

File:Rick-Perry.Mug-Shot.81914.jpg ??? How did you arrive to that decision? Where can I contest that deletion? - Cwobeel (talk) 14:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, can you please explain how you determined consensus? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Same question here. The discussion wasn't closed and there is clearly no consensus at this point.- MrX 14:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So here's the crazy thing, I clicked delete right after I submitted the close, but apparently it didn't load as quick. My close hadn't had the chance to show and everyone comes to dogpile. It hadn't even been 10 minutes, and even one of you came here after it was closed. Good job guys. TLSuda (talk) 14:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

(ec) You are yet to answer my question. There was no consensus to delete, so please explain. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The answer in is in the discussion close. It doesn't meet the points of WP:NFCC. TLSuda (talk) 15:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

"These two points were not shown to be met by any of the keep rationales" - This is plainly incorrect. Do you have a pointer on how to contest? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

@TLSuda: Did you even consider the comments in the duplicate discussion? I argued specifically that criteria 1 and 8 are met.("There is only one mug shot of the Governor thus NFCC#1 does not apply."; " This specific image is unique in that the photo itself has been the subject of significant media coverage in the context of the recent indictment, giving it contextual significance as required by NFCC#8."; and " We need the image to identify the mug shot in the indictment article that discusses the mug shot"). Are you willing to reconsider your close, or would you prefer that we take this to WP:DRV?- MrX 17:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I considered both. Your argument for WP:NFCC#8 is simply that you need the photo for identification purposes. That does not mean that it is necessary to understanding. As identification purposes, it is replaceable by any free photo of the man. You can say "there is a mugshot of so-n-so and he smiled and it was used on t-shirts...etc". That entire statement can be understood without actually seeing the image. Also, if you read the last part of the close (my personal opinion) is that the image could meet WP:NFCC with some work to the article. If you feel I'm wrong take it to DRV. You aren't going to hurt my feelings. TLSuda (talk) 20:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Never mind. It's the standard Wikipedia:Deletion review. Can you please explain how my keep rationale did not address NFCC 8? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Show me where it was shown that the file meets all points of WP:NFCC? WP:DRV is that away (you should know that by now, NeilN). TLSuda (talk) 15:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

You didn't talk one bit about how the text of the article requires the image to be seen for the text to be understood (the second part of WP:NFCC). Plain and simple. TLSuda (talk) 15:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I asserted that the image was needed because "...the photo itself has been the subject of significant media coverage in the context of the recent indictment." The assertion was not refuted by anyone. TParis went on to say "The indictment is iconic as the first indictment of a Texas Governor in nearly 100 years. He has a pretty good public campaign going on right now dismissing the indictment and this mugshot photo is an important aspect of his perspective. There are an overwhelming number of sources connecting his mugshot to his feelings about the indictment and his mugshot is unique. To try to explain in words his appearance and how it represents his feelings would be inadequate." That comment directly supports policy criteria 8 ("its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic").- MrX 17:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I think this was a problem when there were two separate discussions going on, the older NFCR and the newer FFD. At the NFCR, while I completely started with the agreement thta NFCC#1/NFCC#8 failed, the discussion there showed me sources that would have to be incorporated into the article to support it as the idea of this being Perry's "smugshot" (showing his attitudes towards being charged), and thus I would have thought it possible to be kept, as long as more from those articles were included. There was the question of it being public domain or not (answered to be "non-free"), but that was resolved. I howver had no idea of the FFD going on, and would have added my voice there if that was the case. We probably need to push ourselves on the NFCR page to offload the case of single image/single use to FFD so that we don't get double, contradictory discussions, unless it is only an issue about the possible free-ness of the image. --MASEM (t) 14:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The duplicate discussion is somewhat my fault. I started the FFD before I knew the NFCR was already going. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Arguably, we should have shut down the NFCR once it was recognized as a single image-single use situation in which deletion would have been a possible outcome (NFCR should be non-admin allowed closures save extreme cases). --MASEM (t) 17:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• @TLSuda: The biggest problem with that FfD is that the nom didn't make a deletion statement. What were those arguing to keep supposed to argue against?--v/r - TP 17:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

TParis I will freely admit my nomination could have been better written, but it did specifically say "non free file", therefore those arguing to keep would need to show that the criteria that allow us to keep a non free file are met. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Non free file isn't a deletion rationale. We can have non free files. I'd need to know which criteria of WP:NFCC you disputed.--v/r - TP 18:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The onus is on the uploader and proponents to prove that a non-free file meets our criteria, not for others to prove it doesn't. The default is that not free files are not allowed, unless... Gaijin42 (talk) 18:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I never asked you to prove it doesn't. All I asked is that you point out which part you doubt. FfD isn't a free for all where you can put up any file you want without saying something about why you want it deleted. All you had to say was "Fails NFCC #8" and I could argue against that. You didn't put up a rationale at all. It would be like you noming an article and saying "It's a BLP article." The question is, "so what?" What is your concern so it can be addressed. Asking for you to lay out your problem with the image is not the same as asking you to prove it fails the criteria.--v/r - TP 21:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• @TParis: While that is true that the discussion was not started well (which I mentioned in my close) that does not mean that valid points aren't brought up. When closing, as you know, you have to look at the whole discussion. I looked at this discussion and made the close that I felt had policy backed consensus. Too often in any discussion the start of the discussion may be broken, or it may be about one thing, when the discussion turns to another. Just because the outcome, or desired outcome, is different, or that the best process wasn't followed doesn't mean that we should just throw something out that has appropriate consensus. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 20:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

  • In this case, it should've been thrown out. It's one thing to start an RFC off with a point of view. It's a completely other thing to not make an arguement at all. How are the opponents supposed to argue against something that doesn't exist? Besides, MrX has quoted comments from me specifically that irrefutable proves NFCC #8 is met that were made before your close.--v/r - TP 21:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I respectfully disagree. So there wasn't an argument to start. Someone could've come by and closed it as not being a deletion discussion. No one did. Two very valid deletion points were later made and never refuted. The whole thing was a cluster from the beginning. There should never have been two discussions, but there was. I read them both fully and made the close based on all of the available discussion. The FFD discussion should have been closed quickly, but it wasn't, instead there were valid deletion points made. These points shouldn't be thrown out just because the discussion was started wrong. The discussion ran over a week longer than it should've. There was plenty of time for further comment, but none came. I read it, came to my decision based on what I felt was consensus. I stand behind that. I also gave my opinion, on all of the information including the close, stating that it could meet the requirements of WP:NFCC, but based on the discussions alone, it didn't. If you don't like that, I'm sorry. Take it to WP:DRV or find an uninvolved admin to reverse my closure. I've always stood by that as an acceptable process. You have plenty of admin friends who you can get to take an uninvolved look at this closure and the discussion and reverse it. Whatever you chose, it won't hurt my feelings. I believe in my closure to be true, and I'm going to stand by it, regardless of how much text is dropped on my talkpage. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 22:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

just to get technical

We didn't remove the bottom tag, you never added it ;) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2014_September_11&diff=prev&oldid=627163198 Gaijin42 (talk) 15:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. It looked like it was removed with all of the additional comments on there. Everyone involved in this whole process really needs to learn to keep discussions in one place. TLSuda (talk) 22:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)