Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:05, 15 April 2014

Attention TLSuda, this template is appearing because there is currently 1 image with a tag requesting to be renamed (help out).

Archives

Archive 1: Pre-2007 - April 2012 Archive 2: April 2012 - September 2013 Archive 3: September 2013 - November 2013 Archive 4: November 2013 - March 2014 Archive 5: March 2014 - March 2014 Archive 6: March 2014 - Present

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

Pictures You Deleted on April, 5

I was wondering how the pictures I added of File:Rob Smith and Senator Thune.jpg and File:Jack Fitzgerald Calls on Ways and Means.jpg violated the non-free content criterion number 1 rule. It doesn't seem to me like adding these pictures would violate that rule since there is no free equivalent to these pictures that could be found or created that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. If you could explain to me how these two images violated this rule I would greatly appreciate it. Also, if the pictures do in fact violate this policy, is there any way I could upload these images anyways, as they are essential to the Misplaced Pages entry on Americans Standing for the Simplification of the Estate Tax, which I have submitted and is currently under review. The image of Jack Fitzgerald is also necessary for disambiguation purposes since there is an existing Misplaced Pages article for a different Jack Fitzgerald, which is not relevant here. Please get back to me when you get a chance. Thanks so much. Best, HIST406-13jlsilver (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Basically they fail WP:NFCC#1 because they can be replaced. They are not required to the understanding of the article and are just used to make the article look good. All of the people in the photos are still alive so new photos could be made. Also, since some of them are government related, the US government might have free photos of the same people. In addition to failing WP:NFCC#1, they also fail WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#10c. Therefore they cannot be used on Misplaced Pages for any reason. Also, for the time being, the one article they were used in is in the AFC space. Non-free files are only allowed in the article space. As a side note, using an image for disambiguation purposes is not acceptable (especially as a non-free file) but there is a disambiguation page for people named John or Jack Fitzgerald: John_Fitzgerald_(disambiguation). I hope that helps. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 21:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

O alright I guess I did not fully understand the policy then, thanks so much for clearing this up for me I really appreciate it. Best, HIST406-13jlsilver (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of File:Kate Lambert.jpg and File:Kato post apocalyptic steampunk.jpg

You just deleted File:Kate Lambert.jpg and File:Kato post apocalyptic steampunk.jpg, stating, "No evidence of permission for more than 7 days." However, permission was sent by Kate Lambert herself on April 2nd to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. I know, because I asked Kate to CC me, and I also forwarded my CC to permissions-en@wikimedia.org on the same day, just to make sure it was received promptly.

"I am the copyright owner of the images on Misplaced Pages named "Kate_Lambert.jpg" and "Kato_post_apocalyptic_steampunk.jpg", and I give permission for it to be used under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. ~ Kato."

Can we please rectify this immediately? Thank you in advance. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 23:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

As an OTRS volunteer, I have seen both emails, and there is currently not enough information. I have responded to "Kato's" email on the request. If adequate permission comes in, I am more than happy to reinstate both files. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 23:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Martin Carlos Alarcon.jpg

Just a heads-up (I now see you weren't notified earlier) – there was a request about File:Martin Carlos Alarcon.jpg posted at ANI, and I've restored it, seeing as the problem appeared to be the pure formality of having left out a routine non-free content tag. I assumed you wouldn't object. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Yep. Thanks, I would've done the same if I had been notified. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 23:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Joey DeFrancesco on Oran.jpg

Wondering if you can restore this file. I notified the copyright holder and they informed me that a permission email was sent. Not sure if there is anything additional needed to restore the file. If so, please let me know. Thanks. --MartinEllroy (talk) 00:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

When the file was deleted, no permission had been received, but it looks like permission has just come in, so I will restore it momentarily. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 00:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Velvet Rope Tour photos

Hello, I've noticed a few images of Janet Jackson's "You" music video depicting tour footage on The Velvet Rope Tour article were deleted. There's many images of the tour available, however, none seem to be free or have a CC license available, leaving the only replaceable alternatives to be images from the music video. There were five images, each critically discussed within the article and meeting the guidelines of acceptable NFC under 'Video Screenshots'. In this particular case, could the images be reuploaded and used within the article? User5482 (talk) 08:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

In this case, consensus determined that the files you are talking about did not meet all of the criteria of WP:NFCC. The discussion was at Misplaced Pages:Non-free_content_review/Archive_50#:The_Velvet_Rope_World_Tour. Therefore, as the images were in violation of WP:NFCC they were deleted. Unless they can meet all points of WP:NFCC, they will be deleted if they are reuploaded. If you feel that you can change the article in a way that would make some (but certainly not all of the images) necessary to the understanding of the article (WP:NFCC#8), you should do that first. Then I can work with you to make sure the images are necessary and undelete them. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 12:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

On the talk page, it says the photos were only removed as they would be replaceable by images taken by concert-goers, but no free alternatives seem to exist. Based on the guidelines of WP:NFCC, each photo fit the criteria as there are no free equivalents, they were minimal usage, had contextual significance (each performance photo from the video was critically discussed within the article), and are video screenshots, which meet the acceptable image use policy. I'd like to restore the five of them if possible, looking at several recent pop concert articles there's been up to ten to twelve tour photos in comparison. I think in this case five would still be minimal as each image was discussed within the article's critical reception, synopsis, and influence sections. Regards, User5482 (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Just because you haven't found any free images does not mean that they do not exist or that no free alternatives could be found. It also doesn't mean that you cannot approach someone who has a non-free image and ask them to release it under a free file. It looks as if there are a lot of images on Flickr for the tour that you could see if someone would change to a free CC-by-SA license. Many editors have had great success for that. Also, the discussion noted that the images were from a music video and would be appropriate about the music video, because then they really could not be replaced. There were many concerts within the tour, but only certain shots were used in the video. As a final note, 5 non-free screenshots is way beyond what is necessary to the understanding of the article and frankly, in my opinion, fails WP:NFCC#3. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 22:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The images on Flickr are of her two most recent tours and not this one in specific. I've attempted to contact a few websites with tour images who refused to allow their usage, that's why I'd like to use the music video images as an acceptable substitute, as they seem to be non-replaceable. I do understand the rules of WP:NFCC#3, but as mentioned there's several pop concert articles with ten to twelve tour photos on them, which is excessive though remain untouched. Would at least three-four be able to be placed back on the page? User5482 (talk) 17:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Commons help

Hey I was wondering if you can tell me if this image is eligible for Commons as it is. I was previously notified by another user that it might be, but I'm not quite sure. —KirtZ 15:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Its not. The Flickr photo is copyright all rights reserved and the image itself is an advertisement which usually has its own copyright owned by the creator or the company that the advertisement is for. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 22:36, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Appreciate it. —KirtZ 15:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

All Monsters Attack

Hi I noticed you tagged the https://en.wikipedia.org/File:Allmonsters.jpg asking for a smaller file. I uploaded a smaller file just now. Does it suffice or should I use a smaller one?Giantdevilfish (talk) 17:00, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

That is probably acceptable per WP:NFCC policy. Personally, I like smaller, but I'm not going to complain. A general rule of thumb is non-free images should not be any larger than necessary. Often, in articles, the image is no larger than 300 pixels and that is generally enough to see all of the detail necessary to have an understanding of the image. I personally cannot see a good reason to have non-free images much larger than that, since that would be enough for usage. So in this case, you're good. I've gone ahead and tagged it so the old version will be deleted. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 22:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Maxime Chaya receives Guiness World Record

Hello, I just would like to know how can i get this picture back "File:Maxime Chaya receives Guiness World Record.jpg" , and i sent a message to permissions-en@wikimedia.org but no reply.Thank you. Stendek008 (talk) 17:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

When there is a deletion tag for an image not having the appropriate permission, admins generally delete unless they see an {{OTRS pending}} template showing that permission has been sent. I have found the permission for this image and reinstated it. Also note that often times, including right now, OTRS is swamped and we are over 30 days behind in responding to emails and handling requests. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 22:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I obtained the required permission/license from the owner and uploaded Carrie Newcomer In India Monsoon.jpg / with the required permission. Then on April 3 I received notice that evidence of permission/license was also required. I contacted the owner and this was sent to the proper email address by the owner of the image on April 4th. (I have a copy of the email) I wrote on the notice, the image page and the image talk page that evidence of permission/license had been sent. Then you deleted the image on April 10th. I assume that the image deletion has been running on too short of a cycle not in sync in the lead time for processing permissions. Can you restore the image? I'm hoping that the permissions people don't toss the permission during the gap because there is no image to attach it to. Thanx. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

A few answers to your questions. First, I'm an OTRS volunteer, so when I saw the tag that permission had been sent, I searched for it. There is currently over a 30 day backlog, but even through the updated tickets that had not been answered I could not find an email releasing permission. If you could tell me what the subject was or what address the email came from, I can try to find it again. Second, like I said there is a backlog, and sometimes that means photos are deleted, but whenever permission does come in, or eventually gets processed, the file can and will be restored. We don't throw away permissions for images, as that would not help the project in any way. So, if you can help point me in the direction of finding the email that was sent in, I would be more than happy to restore the image. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 16:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. It was (sending time) 9:52 AM April 4th, and the subject line was one word "Permissions". (distinctive! :-) ) I can give you more details (or a copy of it) by email if you wish. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I will look for it, but if you want to send me a copy using the Email user feature that could help. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Will do. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I've found the email, but we need permission from the photographer, not the subject. I've replied and requested more information. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

It should be from the owner of the image. And, in fact, if the photographer is not the owner they are unable to grant permission. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Fdizile (developer) 20:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Image you have deleted File:FM at Crewe 26th July 2009 245 003.jpg

Re your deletion of the above file ("Editor's summary: No evidence of permission for more than 7 days"): The required email from the image creator/owner was sent to permissions-en@wikimedia.org on 30 April 2010. Another copy was forwarded on 6 April 2014. Please rectify. Dreamweaver38 (talk) 01:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Permission seems to never have been received from 2010, and since there was no {{OTRS pending}} to let administrators know that permission has been sent so we can look for it. In the future, follow the instructions on the deletion tag to ensure that the file isn't deleted. I will see if permission has been received (I'm also an OTRS volunteer). If we have it I will restore the image. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 14:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I've found the permissions email releasing the image. I've restored the image and tagged it appropriately. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 14:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for reversing your deletion. The licensing section on the file page said "Unless a link to a webpage with an explicit permission is provided, or an email from the copyright owner is sent or forwarded to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, the image will be deleted after Sunday, 13 April 2014." So I re-sent the original copyright email from the owner. The section also quoted "Please remove this template if a link to a webpage with an explicit permission is provided, or a tag with a volunteer response team ticket number has been added." There was no specific instruction to create a {{OTRS pending}}. So as far as I am concerned I had followed the instruction. Thank you again. Dreamweaver38 (talk) 18:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I was talking about the template on your talk page which you responded to. "If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion." I'm just glad we have the image, its extremely encyclopedic and makes a good addition to the article. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 20:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Question on permission for video at File:Francisco_David_Mercado_Interview.ogv

Hi TLSuda,

Here is copy of email I just sent today to: permissions-en@wikimedia.org as you requested. Thanks, Dave Mercado

I've seen to the permissions sent to the OTRS and I've responded via email. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 00:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Cannabis drug close

This is a completely non-serious close. What were the guidelines arguments and how did they stack up? What was the actual basis of your call? And what is wrong with trying to get the title of the article right? I'm asking that you undo your close and leave it to someone who take it seriously. Otherwise, I am certainly going request a review. Msnicki (talk) 03:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)