User:Feydey/Talk archive 12

Why you have deleted my image???
CherHOSlive-10.jpg, from Heart of Stone Tour User:Kekkomereq4 (talk) 22:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:United Nations
Can you please take another look at this portal and reassess? Thank you, Cirt (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of my images?
Why are you deleting my images? Wilson Palacios is a player of Tottenhama and I worked really heard on everything so what's up with you deleting everything? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reyrod19 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

PLEASE... DO NOT REPLACE IT AGAIN
Please do not replace the image showing the church Of Korca again. All necessary permission is taken. I have taken the picture. And I have been in touch with the first uploader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebesterrefan (talk • contribs) 18:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Speedy tags
Hi, I just came across this edit of yours by chance and I'm a bit confused. What's the logic behind de-tagging that? If it's a Reuters picture it's a copyvio no matter what the tags say, it's got to go as fast as possible. Am I missing something? Cheers, Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As I wrote in the edit summary: "cannot be a copyvio if there's no licence" -- it's like saying "do not open the door" - when there is no door. feydey (talk) 02:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Uhm no, I don't agree. Of course an untagged image can be a copyvio. There objectively is a "door": the image. It's there. And it objectively is a copyvio. No matter what the tags are or aren't claiming about it. The seven-day waiting period for untagged images is only for cases where there is at least a realistic chance that the tagging might bring with it a satisfactory source/license declaration. With an image already known to be from Reuter, that chance is zero right from the beginning, so it's no use waiting. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As I see the uploader needs to be informed that the image has no license, in this case it is still possible to use f. ex. Non-free fair use in -- so the chance is not zero. So we would be jumping the gun here. In 95% of the cases the image is probably deleted, but we still have to give the uploader the benefit of the doubt. feydey (talk) 11:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Besides nowhere in CSD#F9 it says: "The seven-day waiting period for untagged images is only for cases where there is at least a realistic chance that the tagging might bring with it a satisfactory source/license declaration". feydey (talk) 11:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * With a commercial news agency photo, the chances of a successful FU case are close enough to zero so as to be negligible. In the extremely rare cases where such a claim can legitimately be made, we should expect of the uploader to make their case from the outset, or indeed for it to be apparent from the actual use of the image. When such images are uploaded by an obviously careless or irresponsible uploader, like in that case, waiting for further information is just not realistically useful. As for the other part, the waiting time is indeed for images that "lack the necessary information". It doesn't matter whether the information is present in the form of a standard tag, or whether it was provided by the uploader or by somebody else. In the present case, all the necessary information was there: the speedy-tagger had actually done the research and provided it.
 * I guess it doesn't really matter much as long as the image does in the end get deleted, and as long as a really blatant commercial case isn't displayed in an article during those seven days. I was really more concerned about the signal this gives to the guy who speedy-tagged it. De-tagging in such a case could come across as devaluating his efforts, which I'd be careful to avoid. Just a thought. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree images/2009 February 4
Since you judged it as public domain despite my explanation (and provision of a link) of why it is copyrighted, perhaps you can enlighten us here. Jappalang (talk) 01:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Language skill
I have been told by other metapedians (for example)that I undersold my language abilities, for what it is worth. -- Avi (talk) 12:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you are interested:

-- Avi (talk) 06:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAvraham&diff=271960066&oldid=271956411
 * http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stewards%2Felections_2009%2Fstatements%2FAvraham&diff=1400680&oldid=1400447

Public Domain Image File:Plague -bubos.jpg

 * The image is in the public domain, as it is an image from the CDC. I have added the relevant copyright tag to the image(I had forgotten when I uploaded it). Thanks.


 * However, it was noted in the description that the image was from a United States Government website(specifically the CDC). I just thought I would let you know that.WackoJacko (talk) 14:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

TfD nomination of CIA attribution templates
Nine CIA attribution templates have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. -- Eastlaw  talk ⁄ contribs 22:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC) I think this editor just does not know what they are doing and should be deleted themsleves from wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.180.60 (talk) 07:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The 404
Can you please put the "The404" page back. Your reason is that ‎ (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion). Well, on Wikipedia, two other podcasts from Cnet (the same company) are present, Buzz Out Loud and the Buzz Report. About being "not important", "http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/26/apple-throws-another-curveball-approves-podcaster-for-the-app-s/" shows that it is important to be on their iPhone app. With many guest hosts (look on the deleted Wikipedia page for list), the 404 should be on the podcast, also, the many fans WILL CONTINUE to make this page until "the indication that the article MEETS guidelines for inclusion". At lease let us work on it for a month we (as fans) need time to work on is as not everyone knows Wiki code. If it is not worthy, take action. But please wait for us (as fans) to start it. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lugnut64 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The notability of this podcast wasn't defined. On the link You gave the 404 isn't mentioned. So at this stage the podcast isn't encyclopedic. Best, feydey (talk) 10:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Your recent deletion of the Wiki page "The404"
Hello Feyday,

We just noticed that you had deleted "The404' wikipedia page and was wondering what is needed keep it on. The 404 is a show broadcasting from reputable company CBS/CNET and not just a show from someone's garage. There are a few other podcast shows that are on Wikipedia.

Is there anything we can do to keep this on?

Thanks, Mike —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikenopolis (talk • contribs) 01:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

the404
I understand the A7 rational for speedy deletion, but can you provide the source for the page to me before it was deleted, so I can come back and along with the other coordinators I have been editing it with and re create it with further refrence. Can you provide any tips to create a better page? Frebel93 (talk) 15:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Why did you remove The404 page?
Hello, The404 is very popular, well known, professional podcast. It's referenced in other communities (ie. Buzz Out Loud), have good guests and content. I see no reason to have it removed. Also The404 is listed on CNET Networks Podcast list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcellus2070 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The 404
Hello there. I was listening to the 404, along with the thousands of others that listen daily, and they had mentioned that you may be the one of the users at the forefront of shutting down The 404 Podcast wikipedia. I think they are totally deserving of a place in there. Please let me know what is going on and why they cant seem to stay up. Thanks for reading and i hope to hear from you soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.78.117.22 (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey hey there. First, thank You for Your attention and concern. I was also listening to the 404 podcast as I do every fortnight and it occurred to me that I might be the one at the forefront of shutting down The 404 Podcast wikipedia. At first that made no sense, but after actually reading, that Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, and not a simple directory or a collection of indiscriminate information I deleted the article. I hope that the podcast gets some recognition outside the core fans, like an award, so it can be included in Wikipedia in the future. Best wishes, feydey (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * P.S. I read somewhere that there are only 5 or maybe 6 people who actually get the 404 'cast. Bummer. feydey (talk) 17:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of the 404 page
G'Day,

Why did you delete the 404 page? I listen to this podcast every weekday. I enjoy the show and I listen to many CNET podcasts. These people work for CBS. A large and established company.

Any explanation would be much appreciated.

thanks,

Paul Burbridge —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.10.168 (talk) 03:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The404
The podcast is completely notable, they have had some huge guests on the show, and are at 200+ episodes. They're also part of the Cnet network; I fail to see how they are not notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.19.232 (talk) 20:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

New talk
Hi I'm the owner of all the photo's I uploaded but I can't find how to edit the copyright section on the images I already uploaded. Do i have to re upload them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acred99 (talk • contribs) 11:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm lost here. Obviously I want to keep my options open with my own site images but the files I have uploaded to you i will comply with your rules. ie they are GFDL. Tell me what to do so I can help but don't make it too hard for me I'm only trying to help. And I'm giving you the full size image not a cut down version. I have many other photo's i can give you also. matthew —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acred99 (talk • contribs) 12:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Feydey I'm the owner of the website;

>>> Last update of whois database: 2009/02/26 04:08:24 PST <<< Acred99 (talk) 12:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

"Bad tag"
In this, you remove a tag claiming that it was a "bad tag". Why did you feel this way?  hmwith  τ   19:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, the F7 invalid fair use claim tag, since the image is replaceable.  hmwith  τ   19:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This sounds way more serious than I meant it to be! I'm just curious. :)  hmwith  τ   19:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I certainly do. I figured that I made mistake in tagging it somehow. It's been so long since I tagged images, so I'm glad I did that rather than just deleting it. This proves that they really do need 2 sets of eyes. Thanks for catching my mistake, & happy deleting! :)  hmwith  τ   19:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

WHY
How come you know the details that I provide is wrong? I am old boy and I get all the details from proper source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.241.30.5 (talk) 16:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

More bad tag
They claim to have permission, but no evidence of permission is given, so how is this tag invalid? Photos of statues are not allowed unless the copyright holder approves it. ~  JohnnyMrNinja  17:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Blast! I thought that was the tag! I have grown so accustomed to Twinkle doing everything for me... ~  JohnnyMrNinja  18:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! ~  JohnnyMrNinja  18:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Removing tags
The file is identical, and should be deleted.  miranda   23:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi I still don't know whats going on with my photos I submitted. I don't want to waste my time if your not going to use them. Matthew Acred99 (talk) 11:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Zamil Steel
I noticed you deleted this page where I declined speedy deletion earlier. Please remember to check the history first for previous declines and don't delete if it was declined before. You will encourage a bad practice of admin-shopping otherwise. Regards  So Why  22:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

submitted photos
Hi Feydey You have been very slow to respond to my questions. Additionally my last comments have been deleted. I'm only trying to help here and have submitted photos with the copy right as free. I don't understand what is going on. Will you use the images I have up loaded. I'd like to clarify whats happening before i submit any more. I wasn't expecting this kind of delay it said 48 hours its been over a week and you still haven't answered any of my queries. I tried to do things a few years ago and gave up. Can you please let me know whats going on and what I need to do. matthew Acred99 (talk) 06:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

why did you delete my page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scafer (talk • contribs) 21:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you. That was very kind. How did you come across my work? kilbad (talk) 22:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I replied to your comment on the project portal, listing some example articles that could be within the scope of the project. Also, categorization of articles and improving image content would also be goals of the project. kilbad (talk) 23:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

RE:
Stay off the Peter Elleray article. Mind your own business please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs) 11:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean there is no lisence for the picture? . —Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs) 16:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad I'm not the only one who is irked by this editor who thinks it knows it all and likes to stick it's 2 cents into topics it has no clue about. Dude is probably from China and thinks he's a pro in knowing what happens in communities on the east coast of the United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.180.60 (talk) 07:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

EBDVI deletion
Hello, as I understand it, the article for "Edith Bunker's Demonized Vomit Insurance" was deleted on the grounds that it did not indicate notability. If you could help me as to allow the article to better qualify, could you let me know? Much appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Replambe (talk • contribs) 22:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

re: EBDVI deletion
Hello, I believe the EBDVI article is in deference to criteria 1, 6, and 10 of WP:BAND. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Replambe (talk • contribs) 22:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

re: EBDVI deletion
The article included links to verify criteria 1 and 10, and info that met criteria #6. Thanks. Replambe (talk) 23:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

EBDVI
Hi, I re-submitted and added references. Hope this helps. I'm still rusty with this stuff, but learning. Thanks. Replambe (talk) 23:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

WHO ARE YOU to say my page should be deleted? Maybe we should delete you since you are not "notable"???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.180.60 (talk) 06:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

MELANIE SCALERA IS NOTABLE/// STOP ASKING FOR DELETION.. You do not know everything! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.180.60 (talk) 07:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Melanie Scalera
Um, I think I know who I am and have been in films, major and local and am pretty much well known in my state. It is really rude and predjuced for you to assume that I an a nobody you are probably from some other country, how could you possibly know what goes on about Rhode Island. Edit things and put in your 2 cents about things you actually know about! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.180.60 (talk) 07:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Why are you always trying to start trouble, Melanie? Please stop trying to hurt people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.180.60 (talk) 07:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Melanie Scalera
Um, I think I know who I am and have been in films, major and local and am pretty much well known in my state. It is really rude and predjuced for you to assume that I an a nobody you are probably from some other country, how could you possibly know what goes on about Rhode Island. Edit things and put in your 2 cents about things you actually know about! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.180.60 (talk) 07:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I can get over 1,000 people on here to sign a petition verifying that Miss Melanie Scalera is pretty well known around here in this community! There is just no reason why these so called 'editors' should act like they know things they do not. If you don't know, then leave it alone!--Mellrocks (talk) 07:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Merging Queen of Myspace
I do not think that the merging of Queen of Myspace with Myspace is necessary. See here. -- User:Tarheelz123 (talk) 17:32 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of article
It was unfair that you deleted that article, you should have registered it under Articles for deletion. Tarheelz123 (talk) 21:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the article, as it was, qualified for speedy deletion as web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. Sorry. feydey (talk) 21:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

File:1963 just before demolision (redeveloped).jpg
This is not my image. I was just following the edits of a newbie who used it on an interesting page relating to industrial archaeology.Wood Mill, Woodley‎ Can you give some indication of why it is F3. As an image of a building taken in 1963 just before its demolition thus not replaceable, I would have thought that a Non free content- fair use case could be made- but I haven't the access now to the history to check. Could you check for me so we don't scare him off. (WP:BITE) etc. ClemRutter (talk) 08:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I am just messaging him, with a template to use. He has uploaded some more images, he is all over the place at the moment- give him 24 hours and he'll be sorted- (optimism here). Thanks for the response. ClemRutter (talk) 09:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Magellan references
The references that you recently added to Magellan appear to be have been added indiscriminately. Rather than just alternating adding and removing references, please comply with the proper Wikipedia procedures when edits are disputed by discussing the relevance of the references on the Magellan discussion page. --Professor Johnson (talk) 11:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Restore Esoko
Feydey, can you please restore the article 'Esoko' that i created yesterday and you deleted? I understand the issue is about copyrights on images. So i will delete all those images and make sure that as i upload them again, I will assign the approriate rights and attribution (I do 'own' all three and made two of them). I was trying to get it right yesterday but am new to this, and will take more care on uploading and attribution. I do own those images, and I'm still not sure how to assign them properly, but will only upload when i'm sure i have it right.

The Esoko article is notable as it is relevant to several emerging attempts in africa to develop mobile based market services for rural communities. We have been featured in the economist and on CNN. The UN's FAO asked me to help with the 'agricultural market services' page on wikipedia, and to include information about our own initiative which is a partnership with several institutions. I tried to make the article as factual as i could, and i included a list of comparable projects in India and around the world for people to help understand what options there are out there.

Please advise. Markgdavies (talk) 13:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The Esoko logo is my own work. I indicated in the article why this article is important, but i can redit that to make it more appropriate. I'm sure that you agree the biggest initiative in Africa to deliver services over mobile phones to rural farmers is something notable and worthy of inclusion. I note MTN and ZAIN are online. Having spent 4 years working in this space and being written about in the economist and featured on CNN surely indicates that this subject is notable to some degree? Esoko was previously known as 'TradeNet' but we've changed the name recently which is why there are no links. Please search on tradenet to find links. I can remove any blatant advertising from the article if you can help me understand which areas you felt were not appropriate.. I was trying to be factual and informative. Markgdavies (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I've just rewritten the Esoko article, your feedback appreciated if you feel it is still not meeting criteria. I presume others will contribute but hope this is a good starting point and helps educate people about the different agric market services that are being pioneered in Africa. I'm still confused about putting up images, but i'll try again with an example of what a screen of market prices looks like. I took this photo, and intend to give it CC limited use rights. Markgdavies (talk) 14:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Why did you remove the summary of other similar projects? one of the difficulties is for people to know what different kinds of servcies are out there and available.. and was one of the most useful pieces that i had contributed on this article. please explain? Markgdavies (talk) 15:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The article is about Esoko, so the Ext. links should be about it not about other stuff. At worst it is just advertising. Best, feydey (talk) 15:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I have corrected the copyright information on the Esoko Logo. Markgdavies (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Cook Bank
Thank you so much for moving Image:Rhyolite Cook Bank.jpg to the Commons. I tried but failed to move it myself last evening, and I was steeling myself for another try today when I noticed that you had done it. Finetooth (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry
I should have realized dircting Dublin pride to a user space was a bad idea. Clearly my meds hadn't kicked in. -- Banj e b oi   13:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Block of User:Rumpelstinkin
Hi... I fear that many more if not most of this editor's uploads are copyright violations improperly tagged as self-created. Some are certainly PD-USGov; others had bad licenses claiming self-creation but the images were actually still free (I changed the licenses). Nevertheless, I think there's reason to wonder about several more. For example, he claims File:Gov. Fortuno's Inauguration.jpg and File:Luis Fortuno inauguration2.jpg are both entirely his own work, but they were taken almost simultaneously from different vantage points. That's quite a trick, being in two places at once. The image File:Pierluisi & Omaba.jpg also appears on http://www.pierluisi2008.com/videos_home.asp?pagina=7, but this site also includes user-added content, so it's possible the editor created it himself -- though, considering the previous copyvios that seems improbable.

Sometimes new users appear to believe that if they adapt an image -- say, by cropping it -- that it becomes their own. Odd, but occasionally true. The fact that he removed the copyvio / no license notices from his talk page tends to suggest a less charitable interpretation. So I'm going to AGF and place an explanatory note on the editor's talk page, ask him to review his uploads to make sure that the ones he tagged as self-created he really did create himself and to tag any copyright violations for deletion. --Rrburke(talk) 17:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio image
How is this ? It is a clear copyright violation. The copyright symbol is on the picture itself. Kevin (talk) 22:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Arden St Oval images
Hi. Sorry about not refrncing the images properly.

I have done the work now, please check it out and take them off the deletion.

ThanksNimChief (talk) 10:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Transferring SVG images to Commons
Hi, I recently uploaded several SVG images (created by me) to Commons and marked them as on en.wikipedia. Most of them were uploaded with CommonsHelper which, as I understand it, is supposed to pass along all the necessary information on revisions and such.

Recently, you untagged one of the images which I had tagged with, noting that "All past revisions of this file and the original upload history, have NOT been copied to Commons." This particular image had been previously uploaded to Commons by someone else WITHOUT preserving the history or notifying me, so I'm not sure what to do about that.

I was wondering if you could clarify the policy on requiring "all past revisions" to be preserved when moving to Commons. Since there's no automated tool to do this, it seems very onerous and a huge impediment to moving free images to Commons. My main motivation for moving these images is that many of them may be useful to other language wikipedias, and I'd hate to have multiple copies getting out of sync with one another. Is there any way to get the en.wikipedia copies deleted without uploaded each of the individual revisions? Thanks. Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 20:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the clarification! I hadn't used CommonsHelper for that one because it had already been uploaded, but will do so.  So you're saying that if I keep the revision history log, it won't be necessary to actually upload the individual revisions of the file itself?  (Which are pretty irrelevant, they're just me tweaking the fonts and such for MediaWiki compatibility, mostly.)  Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 21:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Cool, thanks. I have the "Original upload log" correctly moved to Commons now for these images, so hopefully that will be enough to get them deleted from en.wikipedia.  Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 21:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and what did the bot get wrong? I don't see the problem there, but must be missing it.  I thought the anonymous upload bot wasn't allowed to upload files anymore, at least that's what the CommonsHelper docs say.  *confused* :-p Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 21:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Got it now, thanks! I hope that bug has been fixed.  :-) Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 21:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Please reopen the discussion on that "list of movies" AFD
I was trying to vote delete when you closed it. There are significant arguments to be made on both sides, and circumstances have changed since one of the sources has been shut down. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, already closed. feydey (talk) 22:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It was not open for the standard interval, and several users beside me were making relevant arguments that did not have a chance to be evaluated. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The result was clear, but if You want then take it to Deletion review. Best, feydey (talk) 22:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck"
An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck". Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi there,

I just created a short overview of locazU, which you deleted within a few minutes of creation. To my knowledge, the information was accurate and not infringing on any wikipedia policies. So that I understand, can you tell me the reasoning. Many thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tchen2188 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

New image project
Hi. This little form letter is just a courtesy notice to let you know that a proposal to merge the projects WikiProject Free images, WikiProject Fair use, WikiProject Moving free images to Wikimedia Commons and WikiProject Illustration into the newly formed WikiProject Images and Media has met with general support at WikiProject Council/Proposals/Files. Since you're on the rosters of membership in at least one of those projects, I thought you might be interested. Conversation about redirecting those projects is located here. Please participate in that discussion if you have any interest, and if you still have interest in achieving the goals of the original project, we'd love to have you join in. If you aren't interested in either the conversation or the project, please pardon the interruption. :) Thanks. Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Countofmontecristorelations.png
You deleted this image under CSD F3... but it's simply a PNG version of File:Countofmontecristorelations.jpg which claims to be in the public domain. Could please you check what was wrong with the license and either delete the original or restore the better format? Cheers, Bigbluefish (talk) 23:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll restate that... the .jpg version was uploaded by in 2007 using PD-self. I'm pretty sure the .png was an identical picture in the new format. Is there reason to believe that the PD license is invalid? Bigbluefish (talk) 00:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, so it was modified. That's all I needed to know. Did you contact the uploader asking if they would relicense it, or if not can I? Bigbluefish (talk) 16:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Portal:Formula One
Hi. You commented at this portal's peer review, and I was wondering if you wouldn't mind also comment at its FPOC. If this seems like inappropriate canvassing, you can ignore this, but the page has been up for more than six weeks and I'd to like to resolve it. ;) Thanks, Aptery  gial  02:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Re:Csd
Ok, thanks. What template should I put on the image in that case rather than CSD? Acebulf (talk) 19:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Gene Haas
I have mixed feelings about excision of reference to Gene's tax fraud convictions from his Wikipedia biography. That he was so treated seems a significant fact, and as the Wikipedia biography for Dennis Kozlowski includes scant content other than his conviction story, suggests that one having more notability (in my view, Haas has more notability, owing to his sporting interests, and his founding and sole ownership of the largest machine tool manufacturer in the Western world) should have included within their Wikipedia article those more distasteful life experiences. Still, I worked for Gene, and am therefore mindful of potential conflict of interest. Tell me please, why you have excised the text respecting Gene's conviction? William R. Buckley (talk) 16:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The revert was made as noted in the Articles history: unsourced claim. feydey (talk) 16:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the quick reply. To continue, were you to review the history of the biography, you would note that previous revisions included many references to published media, particularly newspaper accounts, regarding the legal travails of Gene Haas.  Clearly, these were earlier excised from the article proper, and so you may not have been previously aware.  Cheers!  William R. Buckley (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Portal:Arts
Would you be interested in joining me on this? Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 17:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll do what I can, I guess. You are still welcome to re-use the articles I added to the portal in the rotation :). feydey (talk) 17:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As there are hundreds of FPs, FAs to pick, I'd take only 5-10 from each field i.e. photography, literature etc. for the rotation to make things easier in the beginning. feydey (talk) 17:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Still a decent amount of selection required, though. And there's a LOT of fields to consider - engravings, theatre, paintings, music, non-fiction, illustration, etc, etc, etc.

Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Finger Lakes
Thank you for your comment at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Finger Lakes. I have taken your points into consideration and responded at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Finger Lakes. Perhaps you could reassess? Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * and I have put a lot of work and time into improving the quality of this portal, and Mitchazenia and others have also worked hard on the articles that make up the content of the portal. All selected entries deal with the Finger Lakes region, itself a term used to refer to the region of the Finger Lakes, see and . Cirt (talk) 19:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you please provide some suggested wording to the Portal's intro that would address your concerns? Cirt (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have responded to your points, and made some changes to the intro text of the portal, and the images displayed in the intro. Cirt (talk) 21:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, good suggestion, I have responded to this additional point as well, thank you. Cirt (talk) 21:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Care to take another look? Cirt (talk) 04:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Here Why the Argentina HDI's is Wrong
Here is the province of Buenos Aires's HDI from 2001: http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/nationalreports/latinamericathecaribbean/argentina/Argentina_Buenos%20Aires_2004_2005_sp.pdf In the page 293 says that in the year 2001 the HDI is 0,854. In the Wikipedia article says that the Buenos Aires province HDI in the years of 2000 and 2002 are 0,7816 and 0,7656. The source is the UN itself. I Think we shoud remove these wrong data. The two links sources of this page don't work. Please stop to threaten of block and see the discussion in the page in English and in Spanish. Thank's.--Italodal (talk) 20:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Helmut Heißenbüttel
Dear Feydey, I'm a german from-time-to-time Wikipedia user, and I edited this article here, although my english is not the best. Would you be so kind and have a look on it? I surely made a mistake (or more). Thank you and best regards, --85.178.137.29 (talk) 16:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Argentina HDI
Hello TownDown how are you ? Here is the source why we can't use the data from Argentina: '''¿Se puede comparar el IDHP entre diferentes países?A diferencia del IDH, el IDHP sólo se elaboró para estimar discrepancias regionales en nuestro país. Distintos países han construidos distintas versiones del IDH, adaptándolas a las peculiaridades de los distintos contextos.''' http://www.undp.org.ar/desarrollohumano/preguntas_frecuentes.html. In English : '''Can you compare different of IDHP between countries? Unlike the HDI, the IDHP was only developed to estimate regional discrepancies in our country. Different countries have different versions of the HDI constructed, adapted to the peculiarities of different contexts.''' The UN global report, and the reports of the other countries (except Argentina and Chile) use the GDP per capita (PPP). In other way Chile and Argentina use the average income per capita, and not the GDP per capita (PPP). I think we should to remove the data of Argentina and Chile, or delete the article, because the information is wrong. Thank's.--Italodal (talk) 23:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyright Photo
Hi Feydey,

This photo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Renegade5-22-09.jpg is licensed as:

Here is the suggested HTML:

 Renegade Publicity Picture by Renegade World Music is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Based on a work at renegadeusa.com.

Further tips for using the supplied HTML and RDF are here: http://creativecommons.org/learn/technology/usingmarkup

Thank you! Creative Commons Support info@creativecommons.org

The original picture is located at: http://renegadeusa.com/publicity/renegade2.jpg

The band licensed it under creative commons, as the license above shows.

Can you please tell me how to tag this appropriately. Thanks --Warriorboy85(talk) 22:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Again,

I changed the license information in the summary, and I hope that corrected the problem. Thanks --Warriorboy85 (talk) 23:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Connecticut
Ping. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 20:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Might and Magic template logo removal
Greetings, sorry to trouble you. I'm not a hardcore editor by any means so forgive me, but I'd appreciate if you'd explain the rationale "rm. FU image in template space" from the removal of the logo in Template:Might and Magic series. Fair use image? Please elaborate, I can't tell.

I'll happily try to satisfy any criteria needed for its inclusion if you explain the problem, since it's featured in the vast majority of the original series' products and is the only universal logo available for that template. Thanks for your time. Monere (talk) 23:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. In which case, is the image used here: Template:Ultima also in breach of those rules? It's been there for months and, as far as I can tell, uses the same rationale as my image - has it been overlooked? I've been using it as a reference for the Might and Magic articles as both series are from the same genre and didn't know there was a problem. Monere (talk) 08:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I removed it. feydey (talk) 10:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks for clearing things up. You learn something new every day, I suppose. Monere (talk) 11:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Re:User:Nabil rais2008 (talk) and copyright violations
I completely agree with your actions- mass deletion, and if another image is uploaded, blocking. As the user has been a little shady about what is and is not theirs, and as they still insist images that are not theirs are until the very last minute, I would personally support blocking now. I was going to take the issue to ANI, but I'm only partially active at the moment and just couldn't find the time. J Milburn (talk) 22:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Another copyvio has been uploaded, so I have blocked the user indefinitely. You're welcome to overturn or adjust the block as you see fit. J Milburn (talk) 16:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Denmark–Mexico relations
Do you have time to peek at Denmark–Mexico relations?

Heads-up
, who you blocked for a week the other day, has been overtly block-evading through a sock account. I've blocked the sock, leaving the main account to you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way, it turns out he additionally socked also with an IP, 92.53.2.127, during the same time. Now the week is just over, so you might regard it as moot – just wanted to keep you informed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Mel Lynskey
Hi, can you please help with this image copyright code? I understand it has been deleted but it is a photo of her character Rose from the sitcom Two and a Half Men - all photos copyright CBS. When I looked at the cast photos used on the actual wikipedia Two and a Half Men site it also used cast photos using the rationale that they could not be found elsewhere. Also, off topic, if I (finally) manage to upload an image will it replace the horrible one currently against her profile or is there an option where I can delete the current photo? Thanks in advance...

(BilboBaggins182 (talk) 07:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC))

Photos
Hey there. I noticed you deleted the photos I uploaded. Could you tell me exactly what's wrong? I have received full permission to post them. I'm guessing I'm just not properly reporting that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluesouljah (talk • contribs) 15:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for File:Sandrammerbaseblock.jpg
An editor has asked for a of File:Sandrammerbaseblock.jpg. 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. Vertical.limit (talk) 10:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Abusive CSD:A7s
You've deleted at least one article (Brad ross) which was tagged for CSD:A7 after I'd previously rejected the A7 claim. I tag such articles for ProD when I notice that CSD:A7 is being abused, and the fact that the article has since been deleted prior to the expiration of the ProD indicates that an editor struck my ProD, the article was tagged with another CSD:A7, and you apparently didn't research the imrpopriety of the CSD re-tagging prior to deleting the article. Your deletion comment of "No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion" indicates that you may not be aware of the common abuse of CSD:A7. To avoid being deleted by an A7 claim, an article merely needs to state importance, which is "a lower standard than notability". I maintain that the article in question did assert importance, and while I question the subject's notability as well, it is proper to give an article's editors the duration of a ProD as an opportunity to improve the article and establish notability which we were otherwise unaware of. I'd like to ask you to be more conscious of this in the future. &mdash;  X   S   G   08:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

about my images!
Well I have spoken to the administrator of that particular website over the phone,because of some technical difficulties he could not mail me,I shall forward you the mail as soon as I get it,teaks a lot!

Imagaes again!
That is what I told you! We have just spoken over the phone,yet to receive a mail from him,I shall forward the mail as soon as I get it,Thank you ! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gautamgoa1984 (talk • contribs)