User talk:Blurred Lines/Archives/2013/Oct

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Move of Shediac-Cap-Pelé to Shediac-Beaubassin-Cap-Pelé

Actually, if you will check the edit summary from my move, you'll see that I did give a reason - the electoral district was renamed from Shediac-Cap-Pelé to Shediac-Beaubassin-Cap-Pelé. For source please see [1] or the article on it New Brunswick electoral redistribution, 2013. Can you please move the article back to Shediac-Beaubassin-Cap-Pelé where it belongs? - Nbpolitico (talk) 01:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The move I made has been reverted, thank you for providing information, convincing be to bring it back the was it was. --Blurred Lines 01:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
If you're in the mood for moving pages, would you mind moving Moncton West to Moncton South? It used to be Moncton South, before being renamed Moncton West, and has now been renamed Moncton South again. Thanks! - Nbpolitico (talk) 01:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
You're gonna have to provide me a source that it was changed back to its regular name before I can do that. --Blurred Lines 02:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Same links as above, but you can see [2] and [3] for clarity. - Nbpolitico (talk) 14:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Since the page was already moved by request to WP:RM, this discussion is now over. --Blurred Lines 19:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Non-free Photo

Greetings. You left a message on my talk page about a photo that I uploaded. I uploaded that by mistake, I later uploaded a better version. Please delete this File:SpiderScribe Logo.jpg Jacob Pabst (talk) 16:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The file is already planned for deletion, as you may recall looking at the file. --Blurred Lines 19:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Misapplication of CSD

Please note that at least a few of your CSDs on images are not appropriate, and you probably need to review what NFCC allows and what CSD requires before application:

  • [4] has an appropriate license, PD-textlogo. So the CSD is patently false.
  • [5], which you used CSD F7 on which claims the image comes from a Commercial Source, is wrongly applied. We consider a Commercial Source to be a commercial entity that sells images for their livelihood, eg AP, Getty Images. Other images that may come from commercial entities but as part of their product are not considered coming from a commercial source. So this tag is wrong.

Some of your more recent CSDs are correctly applied, but these two stood out immediately on the your latest contributions. --MASEM (t) 18:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

First link you gave me, the CSD is not false. The file has a non free rationale, so that means that if the file has a rationale, and a non copyright license, it is considered for CSD.
Also for the second link, you currently have the video game cover license when you described that the image is a logo. A video game cover license on a logo is invalid. If you get a chance, replace the license with the logo license, so it won't be deleted. --Blurred Lines 19:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
A file is non-free if it has a non-free copyright tag. {{PD-textlogo}} is not a non-free copyright tag, so File:HSBC new logo.jpg is not a non-free file. Free files should not have fair use rationales, but that is a separate matter. If a free file has a fair use rationale, then this should be converted to an {{Information}} template instead. This takes time, so it is not always done when a file has been mistagged and since corrected.
F3 means that the file is available under a licence which is non-commercial, non-derivative or only allows Wikipedia but no one else to use the image. It also says that the speedy deletion tag can be used for files which only are licensed under GFDL 1.2, but I don't think I have seen the tag used for such files. The file File:HSBC new logo.jpg does not have any such copyright tag, so the tagging is patently false.
WP:CSD#F7 tells that F7 may be used for "images or media with a clearly invalid fair-use tag (such as a {{Non-free logo}} tag on a photograph of a mascot)". The copyright tag claims that the image shows cover art although it clearly shows a logo, so the image seems to have a clearly invalid fair use tag per the formulation at WP:CSD#F7, so {{db-f7}} might technically be correct, but I would recommend correcting the tag instead as logos typically are allowed in cases like this. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Now see WT:CSD#F7. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:46, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Raymond L.S. Patriarca Rhode Island State Police I.D. photo

Please explain to me in the case of

how a Rhode Island State Police photo, which is a public record until Rhode Island Title 38, which furthermore lacks a copyright symbol and was made prior to 1989 (Patriarca died in 1984) and thus was not copyrighted is NOT public domain. I am a legal editor by profession. I would really like to know. Rhode Island has no copyright law, per se, since 1783, and its statutes pertaining to copyright are minimal, to say the least.Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 00:32, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound snide -- I'd like to know! That way, I won't waste any one's time in the future. P.S. I have no idea when the son's photo was made so you see I'm not contesting that.Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 00:38, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, the tag you putted was "This file is in the public domain, because State of Rhode Island photo" which did not show completely how was the photo in the public domain, that's why it was elected for "no evidence of permission". The second tag you later putted said this at the bottom, "This template is not a valid license tag alone. Please accompany it with an appropriate license."; That means that the license is invalid, and you may have to add a valid copyright license. --Blurred Lines 02:25, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Keep up the good work! Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 00:38, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: File:2013 NRL Grand Final logo.jpg

Hello Blurred Lines. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of File:2013 NRL Grand Final logo.jpg, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Nothing wrong with fair-use tag. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 15:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

On the file, the user describes the photo being a logo, but on the license tag, it says "This is a representation of a government, military, regimental, family, or other symbol such as a flag, seal, emblem, coat of arms or crest." --Blurred Lines 15:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
An invalid license type isn't covered by WP:F7. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 15:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
So, what do I do when I see a non free photo with the wrong copyright license? --Blurred Lines 16:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
In some limited cases, WP:F3 allows the speedy deletion of files with invalid licenses. Otherwise, if you want to delete a file because of its license, try WP:Files for deletion. Or you could just fix it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 16:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Untitled

Hi Blurred Lines

you deleted the following yesterday, or someone did, and I DO have permission to use it! A tag has been placed on File:Penelope Rowlands at a book party for Paris Was Ours, Idlewild Books, NYC, January 28,2013.jpg requesting that it be ...

Can you please help me upload it correctly. I've never tried to do such a thing before and I wanted to use it to illustrate an article. (Penelope Rowlands). I have permission from Algonquin Books's publicity department to upload it but I couldn't see where to put this information in the form

Thanks for any help you can offer!

Biographer1 (talk) 12:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not the one in charge of deleting files, the admin RHaworth is, so if you would like to work something out with the administrator, please contact it. Also, if you had permission to use the file, you should of followed the directions on the deletion tag telling you what to do so it won't be deleted too quickly. --Blurred Lines 14:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the note, I'll head on to the admin, now
Biographer1 (talk) 15:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I've never tried to post a photo on Wikipedia before. Clearly, as you point out, I made a wrong move -- I'd to correct it. I have permission from the photo taker to use the photo.
I cannot contact RHAworth -- just tried but it seems to be closed to comments. Can you please steer me somewhere where I can resolve this problem?
I'd so appreciate it! Thank you!
Biographer1 (talk) 15:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, there is nothing I can do. By me looking at you contributions, you saying that you "tried" doesn't make sense to me, because obviously you didn't contact the user at all. I'm not the admin here, RHaworth is, so you have to contact the administrator if you want the photo you uploaded restored. --Blurred Lines 15:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

File speedies

I see above a speedy nomination that you did being declined and I think "Untitled" relates to another. If you look at my talk page you will see three image deletion nominations of yours being declined: Lionel Fanthorpe 2013.jpg, New Zealand national rugby league team logo.svg and 2013ALCS.png. Note my comment re Lionel Fanthorpe - I do not want to see any of these massive Google URLs such as appear in this nomination. All I want to see is: "copyvio of [explict image URL] as used in [explicit page link]". Please be more careful about speedy nominations in future. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Sir/Madam, if you don't want to see a Google website as proof of a copyright infringement, please don't bother judging it, because previously, other administrators just looks at the link, and deletes it, doesn't even go to my talk page and make a unnecessary complaint. As you may not know, I have been doing this for months now with Google and other sources, and never received a complaint about it. You being the only one is ridiculous, which means that your being unsupportive of what I do, and that's just sad. --Blurred Lines 14:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
  • This is the kind of feedback you should listen to, particularly that about slowing down with the nominations. You said you wanted to help; people are trying to point you the right way. As for the links: not required, but definitely a courtesy to the persons looking. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
You created this account at the end of July 2013, so the statement,
"I have been doing this for months now with Google and other sources, and never received a complaint about it"
...is a little misleading. It sounds like you've been on Wikipedia for a long time but unless you had a previous account, it's just been 2 1/2 months. Because of this, I think it wouldn't hurt if you listened to more experienced Editors and Admins like RHaworth who has been editing since 2005. They've seen everything and have developed good judgment. Liz Read! Talk! 21:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Cheers!

Thanks for the barnstar! GSK ● ✉ ✓ 04:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Welcome, and by the way, you did a awesome job on your templates, great work. --Blurred Lines 04:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion IPhone_5S_BSOD.jpg

Sorry, i know i get this from the web, but wikipedia guidelines are too "heavy" for a beginner like me, i didn't even know what kind of licenses i should give when uploading the images, so i set it to unknown or something. and pardon my english, i am not a native speaker. AldeyWahyuPutra (talk) 14:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)AldeyWahyuPutra

Sir/Madam, you copied this image from a other source, and marked it as your own work, making it a copyright infringement. If you upload a image that doesn't belong to you, please mark it fair use, and put a valid copyright license tag that's related to the image. --Blurred Lines 14:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Signature

Please change your signature. White text on yellow is very hard to read. Fram (talk) 14:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me about it, it has been changed. --Blurred Lines 14:39, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello Blurred Lines. By my calculation your signature takes up 943 characters of the edit window. See the advice at WP:SIGLEN which recommends that signatures not exceed 255 characters. Please consider shortening your signature. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 21:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm guessing his signature is just substituting User:Blurred Lines/Signature as it should be unable to fit in the signature box under Preferences. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 22:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

File added back

Thanks for notifying me the status of File:Rajjo poster.jpg. It was uploaded with an intention to be used in the infobox of the article Rajjo since the image is the poster of the movie. However I found from the article history that someone (possibly a spammer) removed it from the article.I would like to inform you that the file is added back to the respective article and the orphaned tag is removed by myself. I am very much aware about the Wikipedia image polices and I am sure that the file is totally compatible with the rules. Thank you . User:Abyjohn1991 22:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome, and please, keep contributing on Wikipedia for as long as you can. --Blurred Lines 17:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Here are some links

Hi Blurred Lines. If I am doing deletions and I see a non-free logo and someone is claiming it as their own work, I don't delete it - I decline the deletion and add the fair use rationale. I think it's more appropriate to do that than to delete the image. We can't assume that all people creating articles and uploading images know what they are doing; in fact the opposite is true - people will often come here and create an article about their own company or organisation, upload the logo, and never come back. It's not fair to those users to delete their image simply because they didn't know how to template it properly themselves. The same goes for non-free movie posters, album covers, book covers, etc. As long as we have an article in main space where the image can be correctly used, and as long as the uploader has provided a source for the image or I can locate one myself, my preference is to keep the image and fix the licensing. That's why you will see so many of this kind of template in my collection.

Here's the stuff I have in my "Templates" folder (these are in alphabetical order, not sorted by function):

Here are some handy links you can bookmark to quickly locate policy pages on this wiki:

As you know, the Commons is our main repository for free-use files. There's also a wealth of information over there about both United States and international copyright law:

Please take the time to examine the contents of these links - not necessarily read them all through right away, but if you at least have an idea what information is available and where it's located, you can do a better job working with images. And you will then become more knowledgeable in-depth as cases arise where you need to study the material more thoroughly. Initially it's a good idea for you to become really familiar with the contents of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion and Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria please. Please feel free to post on my talk page. I don't have all the answers, but I will help you get them if I can. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

thanks for

considering moving my Eli Harvey, Eaton Family maunsoleum picture to Commons. I tried to do it, got all tangled up in the "paperwork" and could not get it to work. Life is suppo0sed to be interesting. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 16:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Evidence regarding File:Voice Mate screenshot.png

Hi regarding the evidence, i patterned the reduced size of the image from File:S Voice screenshot.png. Further reducing the image would be difficult for the users to recognize the app. JeromesandilanicoJSD (talk) 16:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

You said to me that the wiki requirements accepted your image to not be reduced, you will have to show me that so I can accept that it won't be needed reducing. --Blurred Lines 16:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Give me a day or two as I left the file in my home and im in work right now, I would immediately link the original unreduced size of the image to you as soon as I arrive from work.JeromesandilanicoJSD (talk) 16:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Here is the original image link i uploaded in flickr [6] the image has been resized already due to wikipedia rules regarding such pictures. JeromesandilanicoJSD (talk) 05:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion

Perhaps you can help. Not sure where to turn to. I received a Speedy Deletion message for File:Accupoll-embedded-computer.jpg. In that message there are instructions to click a button labeled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". No such button exists on the image page or, if it does, it is well hidden. By the way, an email was sent yesterday to permissions-en@.... from the same URL as hosting the original image. Rackmount-guy (talk) 13:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me that you send a notice to the OTRS, for some reason. Obviously, I wasn't the one who putted the no permission tag on the file. You may have to talk to the ogre who tagged it to see if he can help you. --Blurred Lines 13:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Wikipedia Template editor icon (1).svg

Technically, you have a point, I guess. It's not used in any articles either, nor is it ever likely to be, and it has no rationale... There are a lot of these at Commons that shouldn't be there either... I certainly haven't the slightest interest in arguing about it - but fascinating, huh? Begoon talk 13:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Contesting deletion of File:Mangroves on the shore of Lake Bacalar.jpg

Hi there! Not sure why you deleted File:Mangroves on the shore of Lake Bacalar.jpg Or why it was tagged for "speedy deletion" so I didn't have time to reply or discuss this matter. This was a digital photograph I took myself and which I was very happy to release under the license I specified during upload. It's also the first time I've uploaded an image to wikipedia, so maybe I did something wrong. If so let me know. Otherwise I'd like an explanation of why this was flagged as a 'gross copyright infringement' -- when this was clearly not the case.

Canton (talk) 13:52, 19 October 2013 (UTC)canton

American Dad

You never did explain your reason for using the alternative image in the first place. Even after I mentioned that you didn't explain, you just called me inmature. Grapesoda22 (talk) 03:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

1) That update was not a "alternative version", it was the latest version of the characters of American Dad.
2) I did not call you immature, I called your comment that you made immature AND uncivil because you were talking about my edits instead of a valid reason why for the 2 reverts you made.
3) Why exactly do I need to explain my update? Unless I'm reverting an edit, I explain why civilly. --Blurred Lines 03:24, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The original image seems like a better fit. Mainly because the new image seems less refined for poster use. Also The it would be better to have the main image of Roger depicted in his "default" appearance with out a disguise, to avoid throwing off readers to familiar with the series, who might assume thats how he usally appears. Just because an image is newer doesn't mean its better. The old image works better. Grapesoda22 (talk) 05:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I really don't mind trying to find a new version without Roger in costume, but that original image was probably made of the characters in 2005 when the series first started. I really think that the readers should know that their looks are not that old anymore, like the one that I uploaded. See, those are the kinds of reasons like you just described, that you need to explain when trying to revert a file back to it's old version. --Blurred Lines 13:16, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The image you added is better. However I'd recommend looking into finding another family image with Jeff included if he ever returns to the main cast for good. Grapesoda22 (talk) 20:48, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, FOX hasn't released a main cast photo with Jeff yet, so we might have to wait until it releases. --Blurred Lines 20:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Well whatever he might not even return. Grapesoda22 (talk) 20:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

You have a point on that one. --Blurred Lines 20:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Even if he did Fox/TBS would likely release a new image anyways. Grapesoda22 (talk) 20:58, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, probably they would. --Blurred Lines 21:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


about: File:MPC-HC 1.7.xx 64bit.jpg

Ich hoffe Du sprichst Deutsch. Es geht um den Screenshot der freien Software Media Player Classic - Home Cinema.

In dem entsprechenden Artikel dazu sind andere Screenshots des Players, die nicht bemängelt wurden. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Media_Player_Classic_6.4.9.0_Deutsch.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Media_Player_Classic_-_Home_Cinema.png

Was mache ich falsch. Was muss ich ändern, damit mein Screenshot keine Probleme bereitet. Thx, Richard Richard Huber (talk) 15:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Family Guy

[7] I noticed that you have reverted my disambiguation hatnote edit. However, the spelling is off by one letter (u vs. a), so it's bound to be confused. If you have any comment, please respond here (not on my own talk page). Thanks. Epicgenius(give him tirade • check out damage) 20:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, yes I do have a comment. There was no reason for you adding a disambiguation on the article. The Family Gay episode is really not important to be a notice to most viewers looking at the Family Guy article. --Blurred Lines 20:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
(Comment from uninvolved editor) Family Gay, Family Guy, and Family Goy differ in only one letter, so there is justification for including a hatnote in these articles. GSK ✉ ✓ 20:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. However, I didn't know about Family Goy, so that's new. Epicgenius(give him tirade • check out damage) 23:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Actually, WP:Notability is another subject altogether—and Family Gay with the 'a' is notable (otherwise, how would it have become a good article?). Also, no matter how specific the article is in relation to another article, if it exists and can be confused with the other article, a disambiguation hatnote should be there, in case someone was looking for 'Family Gay' instead of 'Family Guy' or 'Family Goy'. Epicgenius(give him tirade • check out damage) 23:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Half Barnstar
Actually this is the one we should give each other. Was busy with an SPI! Sohambanerjee1998 17:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

TV infoboxes

I don't agree with a lot of StewieBaby05's edits (he's a serial episode list splitter who doesn't split properly and for no other reason than "because") but the first part of this edit was actually reasonable. {{Infobox television season}} automatically italicises the series name when the season name is in the format "Series name (season no.)" without the need for additional formatting that you need when you use the "Series name season no." format. I believe the latter format is a carry-over from the old days, but it's simply not necessary now. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:58, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, the edit that he did to the {{Infobox television season}} I didn't really agree with, I think the user did it because he wanted some attention. He only did it on that article, and not one of the other seasons of Family Guy. I highly recommend that it should stay like the way it is now, like it has been. It was obviously not bothering anyone, except that user for some reason. Blurred Lines 15:13, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree that it should have been done to every season, so your reversion was appropriate for consistency purposes. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:17, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank You, also the template you added here, I removed it because it was messing with my display title. Blurred Lines 15:21, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

iPad

Ok, thanks for making yourself clearer. I mostly initially reverted your edit because you said there was "no reason". There was some reason, but the question is whether there is enough reason. Trinitresque (talk) 02:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Family Guy (season 12)

So, why do you feel so strongly towards keeping an unnecessary 0? Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 20:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved editor) Just a passing talk page stalker of Taylor's, but I was surprised by this warning message, too, when I looked at the edit you were referring to. If nothing else, DTTR, no? Cheers and enjoy the day, -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
The edit that Davejohnsan made by removing the zero's, all he said was that the leading zeros were unnecessary. What was unnecessary about it?
Sorry Khazar2, I don't believe in the WP:DTTR, so "thank you" for the uninvolved comment you made. Blurred Lines 20:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
You probably should start to "believe" in DTTR if you don't want people thinking of you as a nuisance. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 22:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Reply

Per WP:NFCC the images should be as small as possible without tarnishing the image. 300 x 300 is ideal for this. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 00:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Fine, the file has been reverted back to 300 x 300. Blurred Lines 00:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Re: Question

Your question is not simply answered as each of the Main page sections (Today's featured article, In the news, Did you know, Selected anniversaries, Today's featured list (currently appears on Mondays), and Picture of the day) operate independently and have their own selection criteria. There are some common rules however. Images used on the Main page must be freely licensed. Most sections also require the image to be illustrative of an associated article/list, Picture of the day being the exception, and also expect the image to be attractive at the available resolution (e.g. maps and other illustrations with lots of fine detail are very difficult understand at the small resolution available for use in most sections). For further details I recommend you read the rules/selection criteria used by the various sections to find a more detailed answer to your question. --Allen3 talk 16:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Danny Kallis

I have removed your speedy deletion tag. The article makes a credible claim of importance - that he's a writer for many notable TV shows. Why did you decide to nominate this in the first place? Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 22:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The reason I nominated it was because that the article was a stub since the first time it was created, and it has not gotten any better. So, why should it stay alive? Blurred Lines 22:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Feel free to nominate it for deletion. It just makes a credible claim of significance. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 22:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Blurred_Lines/Archives/2013/Oct&oldid=1077322646"