| Revision as of 05:37, 10 April 2008 editCheeser1 (talk | contribs)7,317 edits →Stop your tagging-spree.← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:05, 10 April 2008 edit undoSdrtirs (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers19,685 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 59: | Line 59: | ||
| Was there anything specific you have in mind when placing the "expert" tag on ]? What I see is a meticulously-sourced article, much better so than hundreds of others on Misplaced Pages. Why did you tag this one? ] (]) 19:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC) | Was there anything specific you have in mind when placing the "expert" tag on ]? What I see is a meticulously-sourced article, much better so than hundreds of others on Misplaced Pages. Why did you tag this one? ] (]) 19:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :Ah, I see you're tagging ] for "Expert" too... nevermind. ] (]) 19:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC) | :Ah, I see you're tagging ] for "Expert" too... nevermind. ] (]) 19:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ==CSD I7== | |||
| Can you explain why you've been tagging images with CSD I7 tags? I am not seeing what part of the fair use criteria they fail sufficiently to justify speedy deletion. The "unlikely to consent to free image" argument seems a plausible one on the face of it. I would think that IFD would be more appropriate. ] ] 22:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| And stop re-adding speedies that are removed appropriately. It's not appropriate. You need to figure out CSD I7 a little better - NFCC1 does ''not'' apply to this CSD. --] (]) 22:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Invalid fair-use claim''' for images of living people as per ]. That's why! --] (]) 22:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::It also says: "However, for some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career." I think this would apply here. If there is doubt, and here I think there is, CSD tags are not appropriate and IFD then becomes the right venue. ] ] 22:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Furthermore, that is '''example number 12''' which highlights '''criterion 1''' which is '''not valid in CSD I7''' like I said. Please ''read'' things before applying them, especially re-adding tags that you ''aren't'' supposed to re-add (especially when you're wrong). --] (]) 22:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::So instead of CSD I7 tags i should put CSD G12 tags, rigth? --] (]) 22:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::NO. Please '''read carefully what I am saying'''. You are pointing to '''example 12''' which is an '''example''' of '''CSD I1'''. It is not G12 - that's for "blatant copyright infringement" - anything with a good-faith fair-use rationale could not be G12'd. You are pointing to a numbered list but it is '''not a part of policy and does not list speedy deletion criteria'''. It is simply a list of examples that happen to have numbers. The item you cite is under the heading ''Guideline Examples'' - it is not a criterion of any sort. You are citing "free replacement" - that is your rationale. But it does not apply to this Criterion for Speedy Deletion - you are incorrect, and clearly unfamiliar with what you're talking about - why argue (and even ''re-add speedy tags'', something that's really never allowed)? --] (]) 01:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Speedy deletion of ]== | |||
| It's fine to move the NE and Asia maps over to WikiMEDIA now. Please leave the primary East-Hem maps here on Misplaced Pages, at least until someone figures out a way to transfer the entire file (including previous versions of the file). The reason is because these maps on Misplaced Pages show a unique progression of the maps, from their first drafts, corrections, and current versions. Those file histories are important when making the point that these maps have changed over time as knowledge of certain areas becomes more available. ALSO it is important in case changes have been made and are later found to be incorrect. | |||
| If I read your message correctly, I need to email certain Admins and they can email the entire file, including previous file versions, to me? If so, that's exactly what I need! ] (]) 02:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Speedy deletion of ]== | |||
| *What's the link for that image on wikicommons then? I would appreciate if you could ] and replace it with that one. Thanks. ] 04:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Stop your tagging-spree. == | |||
| It's clear that you have issues with NFCC and the CSD - in particular, refer to the text of CSD I7, which states that NFCC 1 is '''not''' a part of that CSD: | |||
| :7. '''''Invalid fair-use claim.''' Non-free images or media that are used in at least one article and that fail any part of the non-free content criteria (except ]) may be deleted'' | |||
| That is the criterion "replaceable fair use" that you keep citing in some of these unsubstantiated speedy deletion request. Please stop the tagging spree until you've worked out your misunderstandings of these two pieces of fair-use policy. Please also refrain from continuing to re-add any speedy tags - it's not appropriate. Especially when even if you were right (although you're not), there is still a clause you're ignoring in this "example" you keep confusing for CSD G12. Here's the whole item 12 from the examples, in case you haven't read it in its entirety (emphasis added): | |||
| :''12. Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. '''However, for some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career.''''' | |||
| Please consider laying off, reading up, and trying to to go on sprees like this if you're stepping all over people's toes. And please don't ever mark deletion requests, prods, etc. as minor - that's just ridiculous. --] (]) 05:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 11:05, 10 April 2008
Welcome to Misplaced Pages! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.
Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...
Finding your way around:
|
|
Need help?
|
|
How you can help:
|
|
Additional tips...
|
|
AfD nomination of Jaclyn Case
An editor has nominated Jaclyn Case, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jaclyn Case and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 14:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Infobox conversion
I see you've been slowly converting the various infoboxes over to use the generic Adult one. Could you be so kind as to do me a favour and tackle the one in the Ron Jeremy article next? Tabercil (talk) 19:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Hitomi Kobayashi
Was there anything specific you have in mind when placing the "expert" tag on Hitomi Kobayashi? What I see is a meticulously-sourced article, much better so than hundreds of others on Misplaced Pages. Why did you tag this one? Dekkappai (talk) 19:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, I see you're tagging Featured Articles for "Expert" too... nevermind. Dekkappai (talk) 19:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)