User talk:Nv8200p

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Requested deletion of Article: Richmond Hill(Band) 2 Image:Sudan map narrow.jpg 3 Image Tagging Image:Deadmarsh la.jpg 4 AfD for Alejandro Silva 5 Image:GeorgeMason.jpg 6 Image:Tianamen beating.jpg 7 Image:Llama_sex.jpeg 8 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Hurley 9 Regarding Image on Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar 10 "Its use on Wikipedia does not compete with the copyright holder" 11 Image:VirtualDub 1.7.0.png 12 IfD discusions 13 IfD on mock station name plates 14 Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 March 19 15 Grr bots drive me mad 16 Image:Clooney directing.jpg 17 gngl 18 Josie Maran image 19 Twinkie 20 Image talk page deleted

[edit] Requested deletion of Article: Richmond Hill(Band)

Hello, Nv8200p. I don't see why this article would be deleted. The band has been on several large scale tours, won a major national contest, had multiple interviews on CBC radio, and is scheduled to record at one of the best studios in the country as a result (West49/Much Music Battle Of The Bands: http://megawattstudios.com/ the studio has recorded Canadian bands Sloan, The Trews, etc etc.) and they even played the Canadian Open Skateboarding kick off party ( http://www.west49music.com/news.jsp?newsId=3114 or http://www.punknews.org/article/19726 or http://www.punkmusic.com/home.cfm?iNewsID=16087 ). They are by no means huge, but have a strong independent following in Canada.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.224.249.72 (talk) 13:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Image:Sudan map narrow.jpg

Hello, Nv8200p. I see you removed the {{IFD}} tag from Image:Sudan map narrow.jpg, but I don't see any explanation in the edit summary or at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 February 23#Image:Sudan map narrow.jpg. What was your reason for removing the IFD tag? If it was because the image is no longer orphaned, then can I replace all uses of this image with Image:Su-map.png and renominate it for deletion, or would that violate some guideline? —Bkell (talk) 05:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I just thought to look at the talk page, and I see your explanation there. So my first question is answered. My second question still stands: Would it be improper for me to nominate it for deletion a second time? —Bkell (talk) 05:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Deadmarsh la.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Deadmarsh la.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Image legality questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 15:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I already explained why this image was acceptable under fair use guidelines. May need to review that explanation next time. Bsharkey 04:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD for Alejandro Silva

I added some references to Alejandro Silva. You might want to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alejandro Silva. --Eastmain 17:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:GeorgeMason.jpg

Hi, Nv8200p. About this non-deletion, do we have some reason to believe this image "is known to have come from a press kit or similar source, for the purpose of reuse by the media."? Note that many of those images are intended to be used on the copyright holder's website only, or in selected sites under special deals (like tv.yahoo.com or imdb).

Without information on where this image was released, we can't really assert that "no loss of income for the copyright owner can reasonably be expected by using the promotional photo". --Abu badali ^(talk) 20:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --Abu badali ^(talk) 21:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Tianamen beating.jpg

This image has been relisted at WP:PUI after you already adjudicated it once. Could you leave a note on the image talk page and the deletion discussion? Thanks. Nardman1 16:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Llama_sex.jpeg

Why was this picture deleted? I'm just curious and not the owner / author. --BlindEagle^talk 21:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Hurley

Hi, far be it for me to make criticisms but I'm not sure your comments on this AfD are really helping your case. Responding to each and every comment makes you look as though you are trying very hard to get the article deleted, perhaps a bit too hard. If you want to make further comments of course you're at liberty to do so but perhaps wrapping up your individual comments into one would serve you better. At the moment it appears to be a scattershot attack on any who disagrees with you, and that you are determined to get the article deleted by hook or by crook. I'm sure you don't mean it to appear this way and I hope you take my comments in the spirit in which they are intended, as constructive criticism. Thanks. Mallanox 12:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Image on Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar

Hi! I saw that you removed the image. As far as I know, the image was blurred to the level that it was no more recognisable. It happened after discussion with User:Abu badali. I am now unable to find a talk page or any other page where the discussion for removal of page happened. Please guide me.--Scheibenzahl 17:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC) (also please reply on my talk page)

Thanks for the link. I also agree to the decision.--Scheibenzahl 19:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Its use on Wikipedia does not compete with the copyright holder"

Hi, Nv8200p. About this non-deletion, you said the image was kept because it "is tagged as fair use". I believe that the "fair use" tagging and rationale is not enough to keep this image, because we don't have enough verifiable source information to claim that "its use on Wikipedia does not compete with the copyright holder".

The only source information currently on the image is "© 2002, Lucasfilm Ltd.", but we still need to know where and why the copyright holder released this image and what's the intended use for this image before we can claim it can be posted in a webpage about a starwars character without competing with the copyright holder. How do we know, for instance, that this image wasn't released to be used exclusively by movies.yahoo.com (or to any limited set of Lucasfilm's customers) by Lucasfilm under a special deal, either under a fee or under some other kind of commercial benefits?

That is more or less the same case with this image, that was though in good faith to be promotional, but came out to be an image intended only to be used by FX Network's clients, or the case of images whose only know source information is imdb.

(As a side notice, congrats to you guys for cleaning up the ifd backlog. I feel somewhat ashamed to come here only for complaining :) (what makes this compliment to sound as "brownosing")).

Best regards, --Abu badali ^(talk) 00:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Where does this quote come from? I cannot find which policy contains it. Thanks -Nv8200p talk 01:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It comes from the image's fair use rationale. I believe this was added to the rationale to address item #2 of our fair use policy. --Abu badali ^(talk) 01:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. Someone just made up that statement so it really does not mean anything. I removed it from the fair use rationale. I suggest renominating the image for deletion with your reasons that the image does not qualify as fair use. -Regards Nv8200p talk 01:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

But my reasons are the same from the 1st nomination: Without knowing the terms under which the copyright holder released this image, we can't claim fair use. Do you still believe that the fact the the image is "tagged as fair use" is enough for it not to be deleted now that you're aware of the existence of a conflicting statement in the fair use rationale? --Abu badali ^(talk) 02:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I should not make a unilateral deletion without discussion of the merits of your argument with the community. I would still suggest renominating for deletion or you can request a deletion review. -Nv8200p talk 03:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I would not feel comfortable in re-nominating an image for deletion with the exact same reasons from the 1st nomination immediatly after this 1st nomination being closed as "keep". I'm not asking you to take a unilateral decision based on new reasons. I'm asking you to reconsider the reason you gave for non-deleting ("Image is tagged as fair use") in the light of the fact the you (as of my understanding of what happened) overlooked an important contradiction on the image's fair use rationale (the very reason for keeping the image). --Abu badali ^(talk) 03:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It was a badly written fair use rationale. That does not mean the image is not useable under fair use. You should have no qualms about renominating it. The reason is not the same. You first reason was that the image did not qualify as promotional. To resolve the issue, the tag was changed to fair use. If you don't buy this tag either then renominate on those merits. -Regards Nv8200p talk 03:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I'll follow your advice. I'll make sure that I make myself clearer in the nomination that the tag itself is not the main problem, but the WP:FUC#2 violation is. Thanks, and sorry for taking your time. --Abu badali ^(talk) 03:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:VirtualDub 1.7.0.png

After the image was listed on WP:PUI I reuploaded it without the violating part. Thus I'd say that it was unnecessary to delete the whole image instead of only the older revision. --Nyp 14:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IfD discusions

Hi. You are receiving this message because you participated in the IfD discusion for either Image:42650801_planelong_ap416.jpg, Image:Adam_Air_Flight_172.jpg, or both. I felt you might be interested in participating in the discusion regarding two similar images that have recently been nominted for deletion, here and here. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IfD on mock station name plates

Can you please clarify your interpretation of the consensus on here? Specifically why an image adding no encyclopaedic value is outweighed by a couple of people chiming in saying "It looks good"? One keeper specifically raised the issue that the relevant font was not available - which is entirely irrelevant. Thanks, Chris cheese whine 00:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you clarify why this overrides the "no encyclopaedic value" criterion? Chris cheese whine 01:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no community consensus for using them, which was why they were removed in the first place. Unless there's some discussion I'm unaware of where Wikipedia suddenly decided that purely-cosmetic images with no encyclopaedic value were acceptable. Last time I checked, we use text for text, and images for images, and not vice versa. Chris cheese whine 01:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

What "overwhelming support" would that be? The titles in the infoboxes should be text - last time I checked, we don't need a policy to tell us that the sky is blue. Take a look at WP:IUP and WP:MOS. None of the keep reasons were anything more than WP:ILIKEIT, whereas the delete reason was sound (i.e. the images served no purpose other than to make the infobox look good, which is not why we use images). Chris cheese whine 01:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is not about numbers, consensus is about reasoning. 500 people saying the sky is bright red against one person with a photograph of a blue sky does not make a consensus that the sky is bright red. The delete recommendation was that the images were purely cosmetic, and therefore unencyclopaedic (a valid reason). The keep recommendations were that they're nice, look good, and use a particular font (not valid reasons). You have decided to summarily ignore the valid reason in favour of six comments that were little more than votes. Can you clarify why you have done this? Chris cheese whine 02:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Nv8200p, the above user reverted your decision on the IfD [1]. I have restored this, and Doc has blocked him for 12 hours, but you may wish to take further action. Regards, ProhibitOnions ^(T) 23:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 March 19

Nv8200p, some images listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 March 19 have not been deleted but do not have an indication that the final decision is "keep". I assumed they were per the date and because the IfD process is, in some regards, different than the AfD process, so I removed the ifd tags but was challenged to back up my actions with evidence. If you reply here, I can provide the diff as evidence that the images were kept. Thanks, Iamunknown 21:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Nv8200p, I uploaded a corrected version of a map on the White Pass and Yukon Route article. The original was put up by User:Kelisi. I posted a message on Kelisi's talk page asking him to look into it as I don't know where he got the map or if he drew it himself. So far, Kelisi has not responded, and in fact, his last contribution to Wikipedia is November 2006. What can we do about this? The map currently on the article has Whitehorse in a woefully incorrect location. GBC 21:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grr bots drive me mad

Someone has deleted my yield curve image. You'd have to be pretty daft to think it might not be home-created (or, at least, operating a bot with no human thought intervening at any point). There is even another very similar image on the SAME PAGE that did get tagged properly. I don't know who deleted it, but you were the one to auto-bot me on my user page. Please get the image from a mirror, re-upload it and tag it as created by me. Pcb21 Pete 22:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. What does "no source" mean? I just told you that I created the image. Pcb21 Pete 07:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Clooney directing.jpg

Hi, Nv8200p. What's the role of Image:Clooney directing.jpg in Good Night, and Good Luck? Do you believe we need such an unfree image? Best regards, --Abu badali ^(talk) 02:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

He directed the film and received an Academy Award nomination for it. -Nv8200p talk 02:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you believe this makes the inclusion of an unfree image of Clooney posing with a movie camera necessary? --Abu badali ^(talk) 02:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Not really. I deleted it. -Regards Nv8200p talk 02:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Btw, I have to say I wish all Wikipedians were capable of reconsidering their positions (specially image-related positions) just as you did in this case. Congrats! The averagecausal user on my talk page would have called me a copyright paranoid stalker who wishes to destroy other peoples works. --Abu badali ^(talk) 02:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] gngl

looks like a better quality image. feel free to replace it. Savidan 02:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Josie Maran image

(Remove image per WP:IFD) I'm wondering why this was deleted? Shiyan 20:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

cool, thanks for the explanation :) Shiyan 23:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Twinkie

Is this page protected correctly? The tag states that unregistered and newly registered users can't edit the page. I should be able to edit the page, but I can't. Seems like the protection is actually for admin only edits -- which is fine, but the tag doesn't reflect that.

..or am I missing something? Betaeleven 13:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image talk page deleted

Hello. I noticed that you deleted Image talk:Delaware.jpg when you deleted the corresponding image. I was wondering if this talk page should be retained as a history of the deletion discussion which it included. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. Unfortunately, the discussion at WP:PUI#March 23 says very little and refers to the talk page which contained an email from the copyright holder. I really think that it would be helpful to restore it. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Do I need to copy the info to PUI so that it can be redeleted? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, great. I have now done that. Thanks for understanding. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)