Misplaced Pages

Article - Philobiblon- Transylvanian Journal of Multidisciplinary Research in Humanities

I hereby affirm that I, Istvan Kiraly V. the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of PHILOBIBLON -Transylvanian Journal of Multidisciplinary Research in Humanities (www.philobiblon.eu and/or www.philobiblon.ro

I AM THE CHIEF EDITOR OF THIS SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL !!!

I agree to STANDARD CHOICE; SEE BELOW FOR MORE INFORMATION ON TYPE OF LICENSE: I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Misplaced Pages or related sites. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me. I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

[ISTVAN KIRALY V., THE Chief Editor of the Philobiblon – Transylvanian Jornal of Multidisciplicary Research in Humanities, email and official contact address: philobib@bcucluj.ro http://www.philobiblon.eu/index.php?option=com_contact&view=contact&id=2&Itemid=56&lang=en

--K. Istvan (talk) 12:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC) Istvan Kiraly V.

Send an email to the OTRS team, telling them exactly what you told me. For instructions on how to do this, go to WP:PERMISSION -FASTILY 20:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Woops, did it again. Please Undelete User:Schweiwikist/subpage/test3--didn’t wrap a g7 in a noinclude

Hi, due to my repeating an error I committed a year ago with Portal:Current_events/Calendar/2010/335, my transclusion of Portal:Current_events/Calendar/2011/335 without a noinclude wrapper mistagged my list page as a speedy delete candidate. Please recheck the deletion log. This exchange with your deletion precessor will be a help: Been here, done this.

Thanks in advance. Schweiwikist (talk) 12:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again! Schweiwikist (talk) 19:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but could you specify which page you want returned? -FASTILY 20:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Precisely—no page to undelete (currently). ’Twas already undeleted by Courcelles, thanks, I assumed it was you who did so. See this log entry you (inadvertently) generated. ---Schweiwikist (talk) 21:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

non free discussion

Hi, as this was quite a lengthy discussion would you please expand on your rationale for closing as keep in regard to policy and guidelines. Youreallycan (talk) 13:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

There was a pretty obvious consensus to keep the file. I really don't know how else to put it other than say that the !votes to keep adequately refuted or resolved the concerns brought up by the few delete !votes. -FASTILY 20:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I was a little concerned that the WP:NFCC#2 issue was glossed over or ignored in favor of "I like it", but not enough to take it to DRV. Probably best to revisit the issue after all the Occupy clones have gone away. Kelly 20:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Meh, as much as I would have liked to delete that, consensus is consensus, and frankly, I don't plan on committing political suicide anytime soon. -FASTILY 20:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Enough said then. I don't see as it can be kept using policy and guidelines but on a head count of the users that commented there is a keep consensus. Lets hope a commons comparable picture turns up in the near future. - there were a couple of hundred people there with photographic capability. Thanks - Youreallycan (talk) 20:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk subpages with redirect parent

Because that page is only limited to 2000 results, you'll have to keep going through it as new entries come up replacing those you deleted. Thanks! — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Philip smart

Thank you for deleting "Philip smart". I had accidentally forgot to capitalize the 's' in Philip Smart and could find no way to fix it other than to start a new entry and blank the old one.(Observation Station (talk) 21:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)).

Sure thing. Next time, try WP:MOVE? -FASTILY 21:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Neat! Thanks again! (Observation Station (talk) 05:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC))

Recent deletion

As the admin who deleted Texas Services for people with disabilities in Bexar County, would you mind chiming in here when you can, if only to say that due to the promotional nature of the article it can't be userfied? Thanks, Nolelover 21:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Please review deletion and provide me a copy of the deleted article

Fastily - the article posted and recommended for speedy deletion was information about how to access services for people with disabilities. Nolelover made the recommendation for G11 reasons. I am having difficulty understanding how it could be considered promotion or advertisement. HELP!! me understand.

Also, please send me a copy of the article so I may take your input and that of Nolelover and improve both the article and my skills.

Thank you. Ahill1225 (talk) 22:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC) AHill1225

Please see User:Fastily/E#G11. Also, given your creation of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Texas - Services for persons with disabilities in Bexar County, which is identical to Texas Services for people with disabilities in Bexar County, you don't need the article text to be returned. -FASTILY 22:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Fastily - The two articles are not identical which I am certain you will see upon closer reading. I used the Template:Wiki talk: Articles for creation draft to practice and ensure I was using the formatting guidelines appropriately and accurately. The article I posted today as a new article is the result of days of work to ensure compliance. During the preview process I made significant additions to the article and do not have those. While I am sure you get many of these requests, your kind return of the deleted version of the page would be appreciated. I will read your reference with great interest. Thanks for considering my request.

Ahill1225 (talk) 22:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC) AHill1225

Are you serious???????????

Why did you delete that photo?????? Please restore. No bot or other user ever gave me a warning on needing something on that photo. This was so inappropriate.--JOJ 22:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Link the file in question. It's unclear what you're referring to. -FASTILY 22:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Deleted images

Can you restore these?

File:Lunar eclipse chart, 28 August 2007 (with labels).png, File:Lunar eclipse chart, 28 August 2007 (without labels).png

I uploaded one version, overwrote with a second. Someone else liked the first better, and renamed both, and now they're both deleted for reasons I can't see besides "Deleted because "F4: File without a source for more than 7 days", so apparently the other person didn't copy the PD source from my original?! Tom Ruen (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind. I uploaded the original name back, this time on Commons. Note: It looks like you did deleted the original also, after the rename! Tom Ruen (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Fastily - Thank you for your first note back. I am waiting to hear back on the second note about reconsidering my request for a copy of the deleted article Texas Services for people with disabilities in Bexar County. In the meantime, I have read your talk page and your editing comments. Were the external links to state websites the reason it was considered advertisement/promotional? I am truly interested in understanding your rationale. As I explained to Nolelover, every state implements federal programming for people with disabilities differently. The article was describing how the state of Texas and Bexar county were implementing supports and services. Your help is very appreciated. Please answer. Ahill1225 (talk) 23:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC) AHill1225

I already answered those questions. See above. -FASTILY 23:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Thank you! Glad to have been able to help. Cheers, FASTILY 00:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Image restorations

Fastily, can you please restore the following images?

• File:I'mBreathless.jpg
• File:Madonna - Like a Prayer.jpg
• File:Madonna - Bedtime Stories.jpg

They were removed by a sockpuppet of image-vandal ElPilotoDi (talk · contribs) yesterday SadiquaP (talk · contribs), and hence were orphaned. I don't think they were even orphaned for more than seven days to warranty a deletion. Please do the needful. In the meantime I'm raising a checkuser. — Legolas 02:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done -FASTILY 04:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thakns a lot Fastily. I have restored these images to the origina articles to which they belonged to. If possible could you please delete the sock's uploads? Better would be to indef the sock, but CU will take care of it I suppose. Thanks again. — Legolas 05:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Deleted, and all blocked and tagged. Regards, FASTILY 06:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

HiGear

Hi. Please could you re-check your recent deletion of HiGear. I do not think it was unambiguous advertizing; it included a reference to this, this and this - and the article structure didn't look like spam, to be; hence, I don't think it should have been processed as a speedy deletion.  Chzz  ►  02:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Would you be willing to help clean it up if restored? -FASTILY 04:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure, we could try. Or failing that, no problem with PROD/AfD.

The reason I ask is, the user who tagged it was on ANI yesterday for excessive CSD-tagging of many articles; xe agreed to be more cautious, but then almost immediately after, tagged that one. It could help slightly to see it restored, if it's not actually CSD-able - and from what I gather, it wasn't. Chzz  ►  15:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Much appriciated

Thanks a ton for clearing the massive backlog of protection requests at the WP:RFPP. It seems like everyday it gets bigger. See you around. -- Luke (Talk) 04:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure thing. Happy to have been able to help. Cheers, FASTILY 06:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Oberliga Niedersachsen/Bremen

I'm a bit surprised by your deletion of the talk page of the Oberliga Niedersachsen/Bremen article. What is the reason behind that? How would G6 apply here? Calistemon (talk) 07:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, that wasn't supposed to happen. -FASTILY 07:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

You must be overworked! Thanks for the quick fix. Calistemon (talk) 07:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Following up - a photo you recently deleted (File:Nelson Denis.jpg)

Dear Fastily,

I posted the following message on your talk page on 03:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC). I didn’t see any response from you. Could you please provide some feedback, even one line, so that I might know how to proceed? I appreciate it, thank you.

What follows now, after my signature, is the earlier message I left.

Nelsondenis248 (talk) 07:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

You recently deleted this photo:

The photo was deleted pursuant to this (unfortunately long) PUF discussion:

Your deletion notice said that, to perhaps straighten this out, the following information should be provided:

02:31, 2 December 2011 Fastily (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Nelson Denis.jpg" ‎ (G4: Recreation of deleted material: Misplaced Pages:Possibly_unfree_files/2011_June_9#File:NDENIS_FOTO_-1.jpg - copyright is owned by the photographer. Get the photographer to release rights via WP:OTRS and file can be restored)

Accordingly, though I did not not upload the photo, I am the subject and the owner of the copyright. I am not the owner by virtue of being the subject, but because I also took the photo. The manner in which I did this, is detailed in the OTRS Permission which I sent on Nov. 17, 2011, and again on Nov. 18, 2011.

In other words, as both subject and photographer, I did release rights via WP:OTRS.

In addition, since I own the photo and its copyright, I placed the photo on my Facebook page , my LinkedIn page , and my FLICKR page . I am a practicing attorney, and would not endanger my law license by violating someone's copyright. It's simply not worth it.

Below is the text of that Permission which I e-mailed to OTRS.

Please let me know if this helps to resolve this. Thank you, Nelsondenis248 (talk) 03:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

PERMISSION SENT TO OTRS:

From: Nelson Denis

To: permissions-en <permissions-en@wikimedia.org>

Sent: Thu, Nov 17, 2011 11:32 pm

Subject: Permission to use File:Nelson Denis.jpg

Permission to use File:Nelson Denis.jpg

I, NELSON DENIS, as the copyright holder of the image attached in http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Nelson_Denis.jpg , agree to release it under the terms of CC-BY-SA . I understand that this allows anyone to use the image for any purpose, including commercial use, as long as the constraints in the license, such as attribution, are respected.

Since I own the photo and the copyright, I already use this photo in my own Facebook page:

http://www.facebook.com/#!/profile.php?id=697113257

I also use this photo in my own LinkedIn page:

http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=22505001&locale=en_US&trk=tab_pro

To avoid any confusion, there is no other "photographer" involved, since I used a timed remote shutter release on my camera. This enables me to set the camera on a tripod, walk away from it, and take many photos. I then select the photo with the best focus, framing, etc.

It's a handy way to get great photos!

It doesn't cost much, either. Here is an example of a timed shutter release, and what it can do. I highly recommend it:

http://www.amazon.com/Neewer-Timer-Remote-Shutter-Release/dp/B003LYKLCO

Finally -- I am an amateur photographer but I am a practicing attorney, and aware of copyright issues. I grant this license to Misplaced Pages freely and with no underlying conflicts or concerns.

Sincerely,

Nelson A. Denis, Esq.

Tagging

Much as I appreciate your zeal in copyright matters, please could you explain what is wrong at File:Pecoraro.ogg?--♦IanMacM♦ 09:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Same at File:Model Kraftwerk.ogg etc. Please explain why this fails to come up to scratch.--♦IanMacM♦ 09:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Model Kraftwerk.ogg is missing fair-use rationale. I have fixed the issue with File:Pecoraro.ogg -FASTILY 09:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

There is a rationale right there. It's not a template form (which is not required but it discusses the key points per NFCC. --MASEM (t) 13:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Model Kraftwerk.ogg certainly has a fair use rationale, and the rationale does mention the name of the article. There is no requirement that the rationale has to use the words "non-free", "use", or "rationale", nor that it has to be formatted in any particular way. The only technical requirement is that the name of the article must be mentioned. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Back to the first one. File:Pecoraro.ogg certainly had a FUR before it was jumped on today. Here it is:

The aforementioned sample is considered fair use because:

• The experience of the subject of the interview is directly relevant to the article concerned.
• Because this sample is sourced from copyrighted work, a free alternative would not be obtainable.
• The sample is of an historic nature given the events mentioned in the article, and the subsequent media coverage thereof.

Right, a sample is not a use, fair or otherwise. So all you needed to do was a very little rewording. For example: Use of this file within the article The Amityville Horror is fair because: -- Hoary (talk) 13:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

File:KE VI sch logo.jpg & File:BEOCE logo.jpg

Hi Fastily. What do you mean, there is no FUR? Please let me know, as far as I can see the description includes one. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm on File:BEOCE logo.jpg and issues with File:KE VI sch logo.jpg resolved. Regards, FASTILY 09:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Minamata Chisso Industrial Waste.jpg

Why this addition of a template demanding a FUR? There'd been one on that page since 2008; is it somehow defective? -- Hoary (talk) 10:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed -FASTILY 11:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Tagging

Please explain the current spate of subst:Nrd tags. Many of them seem to have adequate FURs, even if they are written in text. Please also bear in mind that large batches of tagging risk getting longstanding images deleted. The subst:Nrd tag on its own is not clear on why the FUR is being demanded.--♦IanMacM♦ 11:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what you're looking at, but the files I tagged either have incomplete fair-use rationale, or no fair-use rationale at all. Under Misplaced Pages Non-free content criterion 10c, non-free files must include fair-use rationale justifying their use on Misplaced Pages and storage on Wikimedia servers, without the permission of their respective copyright holders. For the record, copyright is no joking matter. I also agree that long-standing images could be lost this way. That is why whenever I do anything on a large scale, I set aside time and make plans to go back, re-check everything for accuracy, and fix what issues I can. -FASTILY 11:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Does this mean that you prefer a table rather than a text based explanation? This was why Hoary reverted here, as there did not seem to be much wrong with the summary as it stood. The problem with one week deletion tagging in cases like this is that it makes a mountain out of a molehill. Deletion tagging should be reserved for obvious copyvios.--♦IanMacM♦ 12:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

No preference to templates; you'll notice that the fair use rationale for the majority of my own non-free uploads are in text. And uh....{{di-no fair use rationale}} is not a speedy deletion tag. A file tagged with it will be deleted in 8 days from time of tagging if the concerns are not addressed by then. I plan on reviewing all my tags in the next few days. If you find it irresistible to help, knock yourself out, less work for me. -FASTILY 12:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Could you clarify what you did not like about File:Minamata Chisso Industrial Waste.jpg? Hoary was puzzled, and so was I.--♦IanMacM♦ 12:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Pulling back section from archive that hasn't been adequately addressed- Size reduction bot and Fbot wording

== Query about Size Reduction Bot ==

At least three of the eight image files just tagged by User:FBot for size reduction seem to have been tagged slightly inappropriately (though understandably so). (And in all 8 copesi the article copy is much smaller than the file copy). File:2001Satellite.jpg‎ is a high-res reproduction of a very very low-res original. To further reduce would downgrade the image unacceptably. The files File:MoneyPennyMontage.JPG and File:BondChase.JPG are both montages of which the individual elements are already at fairly low resolution, even if as a collectivity they seem to be at higher resolution. With all of these three, I would petition removal of the tag. The other 5 I would be glad to upload smaller resolution copies.--WickerGuy (talk) 06:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

See section above. Someone else asked the exact same question. -FASTILY 06:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

My question is how do I contest the resolution of the three I mentioned?? I don't see that addressed elsewhere here? (Glad to know the others will be auto-reduced.)--WickerGuy (talk) 06:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, before you try something like that, I think it's fair to warn you that you'll be fighting a total uphill battle, as long-standing consensus is against you: Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/Fbot 9, Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/DASHBot 9, Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/NeuRobot 2, Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/ImageResizeBot. Also, see WP:NFCC#3, Misplaced Pages:NFC#Image_resolution. In case tl;dr, non-free files are reduced in resolution, especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement (i.e. copyright violators will continue to violate copyright, but Misplaced Pages is not going to assist them in doing so). Furthermore, non-free files are permissible on the Wikimedia Foundation's servers on the premises of Fair use, that is, inferior versions of copyrighted works may be used solely to educate, nothing more. I have reviewed the images myself and I see nothing that necessitates such high resolution. In the end, the size reduction will only be about ~80% of the original (reduction of 50 pixels on both length and width). Of course, if your heart is still firmly set on contesting this tag and 'saving' 50 pixels, I'll list the files at FFD for you, but you can expect someone to reduce the images, speedy the old versions, and speedy close the discussion. I'm only taking the time to explain this to you because you seem like a decent editor and because your time would be better spent on other things. Your call. -FASTILY 07:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I've had quite a few tagged as well, and I have one question. While I'm certainly not looking for any sort of medals for the images I've uploaded, I'm proud that I uploaded them and I would like to preserve the credit of me as the original uploader. The bot will preserve this after it reduces the images, right? Cheers :> Doc talk 07:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

You should put "uploaded by Doc9871" in the file description page. There is a way to revdel the thumbnail without revdeling the authorship information or the timestamp, but it's rarely done because as I understand it, it requires a great deal more effort. What this means is that your work will be preserved in the Show History tab readout, but not on the file description page itself. Sorry, but as I am not an admin, I can't control how this is done. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that won't be necessary Doc, you'll still be credited as page creator when you go click the history tab. -FASTILY 18:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Well. I may as well join in here as start a new section. I have just had a bot place a request for me to modify 53 files on my user page. I totally support the need to stay with in the law. When these 53 shots were first put up, I erroneously had them tied into a list page (We are talking industrial archeology here), and they and the elaborate text descriptions were deleted- I read the conditions of Fair use and image size very carefully, I have written the the accompanying articles so e- verything complies- it was water tight. Take for example File:Mars_Mill,_Castleton_Rochdale_0016.png‎ (549 × 390 pixels, file size: 163 KB, MIME type: image/png). The guidelines now say that:

As a general rule of thumb, images where one dimension exceeds 1,000 pixels, or where the image size approaches 1.0 megapixels or more, will likely require a closer review to assure that the image needs that level of resolution. This is not a discouragement to use such images, but editors should assure that rationales fully explain the need for such level of detail.

The rationale says the image was taken from a scan- so it is obvious that thre would be a danger of moiré patterns. I am perfectly happy with the image being edited by User:ANOther and being re-saved at a lowerres- but I create text, write articles, comply with WP legislation etc within the limited time I have available. I take it as a compliment that someone has seen fit to c&P all the text of the 53 articles using these images and publish them on paper as a book. I don't however see why I should have by agenda dictated by a bot, that has not correctly interpreted policy. I would be happy if the image had, as in policy, 'received' a closer review- and as a result an administrator had corrected any error- but it hasn,t- I would be exceedingly grateful if an administrator would set up a bot to

• remove ally these erroneous tags
• add a tag saying

As a general rule of thumb, images where one dimension exceeds 1,000 pixels, or where the image size approaches 1.0 megapixels or more, will likely require a closer review to assure that the image needs that level of resolution. This is not a discouragement to use such images, but editors should assure that rationales fully explain the need for such level of detail. Would an administrator look at this image

• automatically reduce the resolution OR
• enter in discussion on the talk page as to a better way forward OR
• actively attempt to get a OTRS statement from the copyright holder
• tag it has been reviewed

I get more than vaguely irritated when rules drawn up for the POP music industry are applied where they are not relevant With 10000 edits under my belt, I really can understand why experienced editors leave WP — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClemRutter (talk • contribs) 12:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Without a response I am left hanging- what is your thinking? --ClemRutter (talk) 11:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

This was archived before the above points have been addressed-- I still need an explanation as to your thinking about the wording of the tag and how it complies with policy.--ClemRutter (talk) 11:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I actually have no opinion on this matter at the moment. I'm waiting for consensus to emerge at Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Requests_for_approval#Fbot_9. Whatever is decided there is what I plan on adhering to. -FASTILY 11:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Good. That gives me direction.--ClemRutter (talk) 12:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Removed images under fair use for Patrick Swift

Hi, I see a bot has removed two images: File:Patrick Swift trees with curved roof.jpg ; File:Patrick Swift Self-portrait with Bird.jpg. As far as I am ware I followed guidelines(the images are historically significant work by the artist -his work on his page - needed to illustrate his work and are freely available on the internet etc). Is there something else that needs to be done? Also, is it not customary to contact the user who uploaded the images before? Best, TisTRU (talk) 11:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Went back and fixed both images for you. You're good. -FASTILY 11:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

deletions

Err, I restored a few Good Article Nomination subpages that got deleted with a whole bunch of stuff you just did, such as Talk:Red-backed Fairy-wren/GA1. If you do accidentally see you've deleted one with "/GA1" in the future, could you please restore it? Some other mainspace talk subpages might have been valid too but I didn't check. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm.... Thanks for letting me know. -FASTILY 11:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Tagging

FSII tagged File:PAMS.jpg as not having a rationale. The editing seemed to be at an extremely high rate, perhaps too fast to manually review the image pages to actually see if there is a rationale. But the text "Non-free use rationale" is a giveaway. That particular image complies with NFCC as it has a rationale and links directly to the article where the image is being used.

Separately, I noticed some other images were tagged that have rationales except they did not know to include a link to the article, for example File:Plouhar.jpg has a paragraph-long rationale, and does mention the name of the article in the rationale. On second look that seems to be an NFCC-compliant rationale, since WP:NFUR doesn't require a link to the article, just a mention of its name. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Before going to knock myself out, I would recommend that no more of these tags are added when a) the image is of low resolution, b) used in an article where it is clearly relevant and c) has a passable FUR written in good faith.--♦IanMacM♦ 12:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Another example, File:Plover ship badge.jpg, had a rationale but someone messed up the wikisyntax. A manual review of the page made the broken template pretty obvious old version. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I am very concerned that this tagging is being done without checking the actual images. I'm seeing several cases where a non-template rational is in place. It may not be the best rationale, but it is not a reason to tag an image for deletion because it is lacking one. Is this a bot? Is this a script? Either case, you need to be very explicit of what the criteria is for marking images for failing to have a rationale. --MASEM (t) 13:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed a comment by Fastily, "I plan on reviewing all my tags in the next few days.". I think that explains why other people might think the error rate is so high, if the intention was just to tag everything and then go back and look later. But at the same time, it must be obvious that other people will interpret the addition of a "no rationale" template as an implicit claim that there is, in fact, no rationale. If you would like to tag things for your own review, why not use a template in your user space, which you can replace with the "no rationale" template after manual review. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

another deletion

• Talk:Sepulveda/Expo (Los Angeles Metro station) (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

What's up with deleting this? tedder (talk) 12:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hallows AG (talk) 12:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Mentmore towers dining room.jpg

And again. I don't understand this edit of yours: there already was a fair use rationale. -- Hoary (talk) 13:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Please stop right now

Since I posted the message above I've seen similar bot-generated warnings about two files at Talk:Minamata disease. For both, you had for some reason (sleepiness?) ignored the fair-use rationales that were already present, and claimed that there was no fair-use rationale.

If a fair-use rationale is poorly or insufficiently worded but its import is clear, reword it. If you want it within some special-purpose template, then put it into the template. Don't just gallop from one file to another, slapping on speedy deletion templates because you happen not to like the wording of, or not to see, the FUR that's already there. -- Hoary (talk) 13:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I think this may explain it: . — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Semi protection, did I do it wrong?

I haven't been active in Page Protection, but saw some concerns about backlogs, and thought I would pitch in. I think I semi'd Elle and Blair Fowler. The logs says it has been protected, but I don't see the gray padlock, so I'm worried I didn't do it right. Can you take a peek, and see what I'm missing?--SPhilbrickT 14:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Is this what you're looking for? Nolelover 15:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but it wasn't there. I wonder if I had to purge? I reloaded the page several times, and even tried a non-secure version, no padlock. Oh, well it is there now, but I'm still wondering why it took so long. Thanks.--SPhilbrickT 15:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You purged and reloaded before or after I added the template? Before my (and then User:Ianmacm's) edit, it wouldn't have shown because the template wasn't there. Nolelover 15:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for File:Centpacrr

An editor has asked for a deletion review of File:Centpacrr. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Mackensen (talk) 15:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

quality of the arguments

Hello Fastility, in ref. to "When determining consensus, the closing administrator will assess the strength and quality of the arguments." I'd like to ask you how you have assessed the strength and quality of following arguments:

• that the accusation of me for edit warring just because I corrected the delete which was based on clearly false claim "it isn't in the body, and so does not belong in the lead" is clearly wrong; Considering he is no longer edit warring and is following his mentors advice I see no reason for drastic measures such as a topic ban.
• that the references to my editing activities happening before my previous block were irrelevant to the current incident titled as "User:Stephfo, disruptive editing after unblock"
• let alone the claim by user:Dominus Vobisdu that I was allegedly editing article on Intelligent Design before my previous block is clearly false
• argument that rather than enforce this unreasonable topic ban, Dispute Resolution regarding the matter should take place, where a neutral user can mediate between the two parties
• that no disruptive edits has been identified
• Thanks a lot for your kind explanation, I apologize I have not find these arguments addressed. --Stephfo (talk) 16:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)