This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Elen of the Roads (talk | contribs) at 17:49, 10 November 2010 (→No-source tags: ??). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 17:49, 10 November 2010 by Elen of the Roads (talk | contribs) (→No-source tags: ??)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure
You are invited to participate in the Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure which is expected to close in a little over a week. If you have received this message, it is because it appears that you participated in the 2009 AC RfC, and your contributions indicate that you are currently active on Misplaced Pages. Ncmvocalist (talk) 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Adding time stamp. -FASTILY 02:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/StartrekismylifeJadzia
Hi Fastily, User:StartrekismylifeJadzia created an RfA (Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/StartrekismylifeJadzia), and I added User:Fastily/RfA Notice to their talk page. However, an MfD was started for the page (Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/StartrekismylifeJadzia) and the consensus of the discussion was keep. Since a week has passed since I added the RfA notice to the user's talk page and they have not responded (or edited, for that matter), what do you think I should do? Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- I was thinking of starting a thread on ťhe question of whether RfA's like this should be deleted as Fastily and I and a few other admins have been doing. Do you think Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy) is the best place, or should I go to WT:RFA or somewhere else? I would have no objection to not deleting them, except that I imagine there's probably a maximum of some sort beyond which the switch statement in the Tally template will start malfunctioning. (Imagine if that were just a whole flood of un-transcluded 0/0/0 RfA's). —Soap— 22:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- IMHO, I don't think it's necessary to bring this up at this time. The deletion of new users' RfAs accompanied with a notification falls well within the scope of CSD G6 (and sometimes G2) and IAR. Unless some editor (or a group of editors for that matter) is tenaciously objecting to the cleanup of premature RfAs, we can continue with what we've been doing. But of course, those are just my thoughts; Soap, feel free to act as you believe necessary. Eagles247, after reading through the MfD, I think it should be safe to delete the page, considering that you have notified the user, and they have made no visible objections. !voters at the MfD agreed that while StartrekismylifeJadzia is entitled to create an RfA, a deletion following a notification or some attempt at discussion would be acceptable. Mentioning this in the deletion summary might be a good idea. Of course, that's just my take; I'm not the one with the tools after all ;) Cheers, FASTILY 05:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, I have deleted it with a deletion summary. Thanks, Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- IMHO, I don't think it's necessary to bring this up at this time. The deletion of new users' RfAs accompanied with a notification falls well within the scope of CSD G6 (and sometimes G2) and IAR. Unless some editor (or a group of editors for that matter) is tenaciously objecting to the cleanup of premature RfAs, we can continue with what we've been doing. But of course, those are just my thoughts; Soap, feel free to act as you believe necessary. Eagles247, after reading through the MfD, I think it should be safe to delete the page, considering that you have notified the user, and they have made no visible objections. !voters at the MfD agreed that while StartrekismylifeJadzia is entitled to create an RfA, a deletion following a notification or some attempt at discussion would be acceptable. Mentioning this in the deletion summary might be a good idea. Of course, that's just my take; I'm not the one with the tools after all ;) Cheers, FASTILY 05:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
No-source tags
None of them were blatant copyvios, and those to which you object as possibly unfree still had sources. No-source tagging is not a valid way for an image to be deleted unless it has no source. Nyttend (talk) 21:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- You should know, by the way, that every time I go through a future day's no-source taggings, I open every single image. If I had been editing too fast to care, I would have detagged many more. Nyttend (talk) 21:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- F9. Unambiguous copyright infringement. Obviously non-free images (or other media files) that are not claimed by the uploader to be fair use? Just saying. Just because someone puts PD-self on an image does not necessarily mean they took the photograph. for example - meta data indicates a photograph taken in 2006, but the image is (a) plainly much older and (b) plainly a professional photograph printed as a postcard at some time in the past when colour photography was not the norm. I'll leave it up while you offer an explanation, then I'll delete it under F9 as it is a fairly unambiguous copyright violation. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed. It's one thing to AGF, but it's completely different when one ignores a copyright violation. -FASTILY 21:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- It's possible for people to produce such images as the Tilly-and-Bush photo and later release them. One photo I've taken (but not uploaded) is of a professionally-staged wedding photo; I was nearby and was permitted by the photographer to take a picture while sitting under his camera's tripod. If that image were uploaded, and if you found it, would you tag it as no-source because it was obviously professionally posed? As far as the Kandy image, how do we know that we don't have an old image taken on film by the uploader, developed and captioned by the photographer, and later uploaded here? For this reason, they're not blatant, and thus these images mustn't be deleted under F4. Your concerns for the authorship are quite valid, and "could be" isn't a good enough reason for "keep" at FFD, but it's enough to prevent speedy deletion. Nyttend (talk) 22:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- What in particular causes you to ask this question? Or are you simply saying this as something in general? Nyttend (talk) 04:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- Per your edit summary — unless you're talking in relation to Mvincec's link removal question, I see no good reason for your latest comment to be in that section. I'll leave it there, since you obviously disagree with its move, but please understand that I didn't refactor anything. And thanks for the answer to my question. Nyttend (talk) 04:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- What in particular causes you to ask this question? Or are you simply saying this as something in general? Nyttend (talk) 04:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- It's possible for people to produce such images as the Tilly-and-Bush photo and later release them. One photo I've taken (but not uploaded) is of a professionally-staged wedding photo; I was nearby and was permitted by the photographer to take a picture while sitting under his camera's tripod. If that image were uploaded, and if you found it, would you tag it as no-source because it was obviously professionally posed? As far as the Kandy image, how do we know that we don't have an old image taken on film by the uploader, developed and captioned by the photographer, and later uploaded here? For this reason, they're not blatant, and thus these images mustn't be deleted under F4. Your concerns for the authorship are quite valid, and "could be" isn't a good enough reason for "keep" at FFD, but it's enough to prevent speedy deletion. Nyttend (talk) 22:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed. It's one thing to AGF, but it's completely different when one ignores a copyright violation. -FASTILY 21:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- F9. Unambiguous copyright infringement. Obviously non-free images (or other media files) that are not claimed by the uploader to be fair use? Just saying. Just because someone puts PD-self on an image does not necessarily mean they took the photograph. for example - meta data indicates a photograph taken in 2006, but the image is (a) plainly much older and (b) plainly a professional photograph printed as a postcard at some time in the past when colour photography was not the norm. I'll leave it up while you offer an explanation, then I'll delete it under F9 as it is a fairly unambiguous copyright violation. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I know this discussion has pretty much run its course, but ???. The whole point with that file is that the uploader probably owns the image, he just doesn't own the copyright. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
RfA page
Response here: User talk:Sphilbrick#Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Sphilbrick -- Avi (talk) 04:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- (responded at my page first, adding here to make sure) My apologies for some miscommunication. Avi had indicated his willingness to nominate me, and I indicated my willingness to run. However, immediately after doing that, I realized I had selected a time that was not convenient for Avi, so I posted somewhere that waiting until January was acceptable. I didn't realize that Avi had found the time and written a nomination. Unfortunately, I'm in the middle of an intense three day workshop, so now is not the right time to transclude it. Workshop ends Thursday, I will look at it then.--SPhilbrickT 13:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Excellent, thanks for the prompt reply. I've been working on cleaning out old RfAs lately, and I just wanted to be sure you still wanted to run. Regards, FASTILY 02:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
WP:V
Hi Fastily, would you consider restoring your indefinite semi-protection of the above? You added it on August 5, but on October 23 the page was fully protected for a few days, and when that ended, the page lapsed to no protection. We've had a fair bit of unhelpful IP editing since then. SlimVirgin 06:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- I suppose I would, but I resigned the bit upon retiring :( Of course, you're more than welcome to protect the page if you feel it necessary. Best, FASTILY 06:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)