Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:35, 1 June 2008

Archives
March 2008 April 2008 May 2008

Image:Small_bunyapine.jpg

Done. I never personally uploaded it to Commons, some transclusion dude/bot/process did it. Peter1968 (talk) 05:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Audrey Munson statue photos

I updated the lince for you.Wikiwikimoore (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Giano II

Hi. Can I suggest that the enemies vs. allies dichotomy that you seem to be espousing on Giano's talk page is decidedly unhelpful. Sam Korn 18:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Betsy tag

I saw the Betsy tag. I appreciate the query, I'm definite in supporting copyright. If this is a tropical cyclone image, copyright may be difficult to ascertain. They are certainly downloaded only from U.S. government websites, NWS, NOAA or NHC. I will supply exact URLs when possible. For some images, it's certain that the only way the image was originally created was by government agencies with U.S. satellites, the images lack any other copyrightable content and are fair use. I know we want the source to make it certain. The images present extremely low liklihood of copyright claim and I hope can be left in place until verified. DavidH (talk) 19:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Kristen Bell

well she is hot isnt she? no? or are you jealous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.171.6.248 (talk) 03:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Double-tagging commonsised stuff

Hello Kelly. I don't think it serves any useful purpose to double tag images moved to commons with {{db}} as well as {{ncd}}. They'll be deleted eventually. The only reason I could see for bumping things to the top of the queue would be if there is a name clash. Hope this makes sense. Best regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Angus. I've talked with a few other admins about this, and it does no harm to nominate the occasional MetsBot false negative for deletion manually. Kelly 11:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Padma Seshadri Bala Bhavan

Removed advert (tag) from the article after editing the contents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.193.128.92 (talk) 01:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Robert_Livingston_(1708-1790).jpg

I have a message from you indicating that this image may be deleted due to lack of a source. I have searched in vain for a source; back when I uploaded this, I was unaware that sources were required. Consider, though, that the subject died in 1790 and was sufficiently famous that it is exceedingly unlikely that it was not, in fact, published before 1923. Consider also, in the unlikely event that this is a copyrighted image, the likelihood that the copyright holder could claim any real damages-- Britney Spears he ain't; what would happen is that we'd receive a take-down notice and we'd take it down: fini. Note too that it's been up for three years without a problem.

Anyway, if you have to destroy it, so be it. I have been unable to find a replacement image, though. -- Mwanner | Talk 17:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

wrestler pics

Am I to understand OTRS never got the releases on these? Misplaced Pages:Possibly_unfree_images/2008_May_23#Image:Daizee.jpg Gwen Gale (talk) 20:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Apparently not - there are no ticket numbers on the images, and the uploader was made aware of this some time ago without the issue being resolved. The likely scenario (just guessing here) is that the permission e-mail was submitted but the licensing details were not acceptable for Misplaced Pages, this happens a lot. Kelly 20:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, they're gone :) Gwen Gale (talk) 20:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Kochi India.jpg

I appreciate your enthusiasm in keeping copyrighted images off Misplaced Pages. However, regarding this particular image, you tagged it as a speedy only a few days ago. It was apparent that you did not read whatever was written in the license section, or you would have requested me for an OTRS verification rather than paste the boilerplate speedy message on my talk page. Again, you have put the image up for deletion with "OTRS permission claimed, but no ticket #". Well, its hardly been two days since I sent the email. I'd give at least a weeks time before putting up an image that claims OTRS unless you are particularly sure that OTRS has denied permission (which I doubt is the case).--thunderboltz 18:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

No worries - images listed at WP:IFD are not processed until at least a week after being listed. You should be fine. Kelly 18:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and be more careful with such cases in the future. Most people consider it very disturbing to be bothered with boilerplate deletion messages.--thunderboltz 18:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

No assumption of bad faith here - other people find it very disturbing to see one of the five pillars threatened by unverified copyright claims. Kelly 18:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, I appreciate the work you do no less. My point is only reiterated by your above statement, as you gave me hardly a few days to prove my claim. Please let's avoid any further arguments. Have a good day. Thank you!--thunderboltz 18:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand - thought it has been a little more than a few days, the image was uploaded in December of last year. If you have any other uploaded images with similar claims, please forward the permissions. I'll take a look at your other uploaded images to see if there are related problems. But I agree with the above - best wishes to you also. Kelly 18:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm doing that right now. Thank you!--thunderboltz 18:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Iowa80.png

Howdy. You recently asserted that Image:Iowa80.png was identical to Image:Iowa 80 truck stop.jpg of the Wikimedia Commons, moving for deletion of the former. This is false; I made several (rather minor) adjustments to the image, as indicated in the image description. Therefore I have removed the deletion request template (the request was rejected anyways) and reverted the relevant links. No hard feelings, though; the images are quite similar, and I understand the confusion. You may wish to replace the Commons image with my version, as I've tweaked the contrast and color balance to improve its quality. --Xiaphias (talk) 01:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for the note. Kelly 01:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Redirect deletions

Hmm... I was doing housekeeping, deleting redirects with one revision and no incoming links. I'm a bit torn as to whether to restore those redirects or not. On the one hand, they're kind of silly – users can simply click the (breadcrumb) link back to the main template page and then click the template talk page link (like they do for almost every template). On the other hand, it wasn't really harmful to have redirects there... Thoughts? --MZMcBride (talk) 01:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

One more thing. I just took a look at the page views for the specific /doc page you mentioned. It hasn't had one page view in the last four months according to this. Using other example pages, I checked to ensure that it wasn't simply because it was a Template_talk page or a redirect. Turns out that according to those stats, not a single person has been redirected through that redirect in four months. Strange, eh? --MZMcBride (talk) 01:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)