User talk:After Midnight/Archive 14

reorg of recall cat subsidiary info pages
Hi. I think I'm done with the reorg, but I'd appreciate another pair of eyes. I got rid of the other page that was a category subpage too. I think all the pages are now parallel. Both of the former categories are now actually hard redirects. There are still a few pages referring to them that are stragglers but I suspect both category subpages will be deletable soon. If you spot any flubs please advise. (I used my bot account for some of the work since I was running AWB so check contribs of Larbot as well as mine to see what all was done) ... I am leaving a similar note at jc37's page. Thanks in advance for the onceover... ++Lar: t/c 16:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Just a quick response now to let you know that I'll take a look at this later today. --After Midnight 0001 16:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me. Thanks for taking the time to work it out. --After Midnight 0001 00:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for looking into it. As for those DRVs... I still think you guys are running a cabal :). But I have bigger fish to fry, I guess. I'm going to let them slide for now, because most of your closes are good ones, I guess. Maybe just try a bit harder to involve category members so you're not possibly missing out on why the category exists? Not saying ask every one but maybe invite one or two? Unlike everything else, just about, there is no warning at all that a category is up for deletion on the pages that use it... give it some thought, eh? ++Lar: t/c 19:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. Thanks for getting back to me on that and I will promise to take your words to heart. If you don't mind, I think I would like to send you an email in the next few days about how you and I got here.  I've been thinking about it ever since you made this edit.  I would like to do whatever I can to help make sure that we make better assumptions next time. --After Midnight 0001 02:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That would be splendid. It's way too easy in online discourse to get off the rails and not realise it. I am not sure I've given you a fair shake and I'm sorry for that. ++Lar: t/c 23:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

And there you are....
I just put a note on AMbot's request page that I would watch for you to edit.... and here you are. I'm ready when you are, just let me know. By the way, this would be one of those times when it would be convenient to use IRC if you had that available. (It isn't just for the use of the cabal (wink). ) --After Midnight 0001 00:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note : )
 * I need to do something with a noticeboard (change of year), and then I'll post the nom. SO about an hour?
 * (Also, AFAIK, IRC is not an option for me for similar reasons that the "cool tools" aren't either. I guess I'm destined to live my Wikipedia life in half-blind/deaf monotony : )
 * Thanks again : ) - jc37 00:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll wait a little while for you to get back to me. As far as usability of IRC, it doesn't take much.  One option is to download mIRC, which works much like an instant messenger client and takes about the same amount of overhead.  Another option is to use the web interface found here: http://java.freenode.net . For more info, check out IRC channels. --After Midnight 0001 00:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your patience : )
 * (And I'm going to ask for a bit of an extension)
 * a.) I got distracted and b.) since then, something's come up.
 * So I have to go for now. I'll post the nomination either when I return, or tomorrow. I'll drop a note for you here, if you like, after I have done so.
 * Thanks again : ) - jc37 03:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem, whenever you are ready. I should be around a little while longer tonight and for several hours tomorrow. --After Midnight 0001 03:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * And now, (finally) ready when you are. I left the explanatory note on Ambot's request page. - jc37 08:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Dinardo
Good Morning!

I noticed you removed the tag to the Coat of Arms of Daniel DiNardo, which had been speedily deleted because of copyright issues. I'm not sure if you can help me with my question here, but I thought I would go ahead and ask. If I took a photograph of a framed rendition of his coat of arms, as they hang on the wall in the Cathedral Basilica, would that qualify as "my own work" for the purpose of placing it on Wikipedia?

Thanks in advance for any insight you might be able to provide! Nsaum75 (talk) 10:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm actually going to give you 2 answers.... I did delete Image:CardinalDiNardo-CoatOfArms.png because it was tagged for having no Non-free use rationale. The image was tagged correctly as being a non-free logo, but there was no rationale to allow its use, as would be required, per WP:NFURG.  As an aside, there was also no information on the image regarding who owned the copyright or where the image came from.  More directly to your question, if you took a picture of the coat of arms, that would non qualify as "your own work", but rather, it would be Derivative work.  Now, just because it is derivative work does not mean that you can not use it on the project.  You just need to tag the image properly to indicate that you took the picture, but also who owns the coat of arms, and supplement that with a usage rationale.  I hope that this helps you with what I think you are trying to do.  If not, or if I can provide any additional help, please feel free to ask again. --After Midnight 0001 14:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Undelete request
New Year's greetings, After Midnight-

Pls consider undeleting your SD of Image:MICA Logo.jpg long enough for this to be fixed. Because the article was not tagged with, editors such as myself who had the article Maryland Institute College of Art on our Watchlist were unaware of the pending SD. As this non-free image of the logo would meet NFCC for use in the Wiki article about the organization itself, if a proper non-free rationale were added, I'd like to do so.  JGHowes talk  -  21:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ --After Midnight 0001 21:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I've now added appropriate Fair Use Rationale and Non Free Media template. Also, I've reduced the resolution considerably from what the original Uploader had contributed, to meet NFCC.  JGHowes talk  -  05:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Another undelete request
Hi, please could you undelete Image:Iran-stamp-Scott2335.jpg long enough for me to investigate/correct the copyright status. The page correctly asserted "This image of a postage stamp ... is ineligible for copyright", as explained for Iranian copyright in Iran and copyright issues and Copyrights, so is not a U.S. copyright violation. It was probably a mistake that the page also used the stamp template. I won't use the image in article space until I figure out the proper position, but that is hard to do without the Image text and history being available to me. I was only watching an article using the image so was unaware of the pending SD; the original uploader no longer seems active so maybe no-one noticed the pending SD. Thanks. Rwendland (talk) 17:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ By the way, it was deleted for not having an rationale, as opposed to having the wrong license, I believe. --After Midnight 0001 18:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've added my analysis to Image:Iran-stamp-Scott2335.jpg. I think it's too much of a policy stretch to use even though it would be U.S. legal. I suggest we leave it for the 7 days to 9 Jan in case another editor wants to argue a fair-use case, then let it get deleted. Rwendland (talk) 14:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. Thanks for the follow-up. --After Midnight 0001 14:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Joe Pelton.jpg
Hi - Why did you delete the "Joe Pelton.jpg" photo from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Pelton? Thanks.

(I apologize but I don't know how to work with wikipedia very well.) Here is the history information that shows you deleted the photo:

(cur) (last) 18:52, 6 October 2007 After Midnight (Talk | contribs) (1,955 bytes) (Removing instance of image Joe Pelton.jpg that has been speedily deleted per (CSD I6); using TW) (undo)

S7o7b7 (talk) 18:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)s7o7b7


 * Hi. The image was a non-free image, but had no license tag and no rationale for use.  As a result it was deleted, per WP:CSD.  For more details, please take a look at the following: Non-free use rationale guideline. Hope that helps. --After Midnight 0001 19:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi back. It was a photo that I pulled off a poker website and I thought I did indicate license and rationale. Does copywright information suffice as a license tag? Please let me know how I should have indicated licensing to avoid future deletions. As for rationale, I indicated it was being used to identify the individual. What should I have put instead? Thanks! 167.219.0.140 (talk) 01:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)s7o7b7


 * For the license tag you will want to use something from this page: Image copyright tags/Non-free (probably something like non-free screenshot). For the rationale, something like Non-free use rationale. Please let me know if you need additional assistance. --After Midnight 0001 01:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Meredith_hunter.png
I just assume you or someone else delete the image. See Image_talk:Meredith_hunter.png. Friendlyliz (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Regina Richards
Did you read the article you were editing - ? :) The article was in an extreme case of vandalism at the time.  Even the name had been page move vandalized.   Corvus cornix  talk  21:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, that is something. I actually never even had the article up on my screen.  I was clearing the images at CAT:CSD and when I deleted the image, WP:TW automatically removed the image from the (vandalized) article as an edit in the background.  I'm glad you caught it. --After Midnight 0001 22:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That's how I saw it - saw your edit in Recent Changes. :)   Corvus cornix  talk  22:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Leftöver Crack
Hey there, you've deleted two images I've uploaded twice on the Leftöver Crack profile page. I'm not going to pretend I fully understand how all this licensing business goes but I'm pretty sure the one's I selected were relevant. I'm the official website administrator for Leftöver Cracks website and therefore have permission to use these images. Anyway if you could help me get these images up in accordance to your tight regulations that would grand as it took me a while to figure it all out to begin with. Best regards, Tim —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timjohnson (talk • contribs) 23:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It looks like the problem is that you have licensed the images for Wikipedia use only. The images were tagged as having an invalid license, specifically, that "Only non-commercial or educational use of this file is permitted", and had this tag Non-commercial from license selector placed on it. If you clink on that link, you'll see some instruction regarding how to remediate the problem. The main issue is not that the image can not be used, only that it can not be used if it has that tag on it.  I am sure that this can be worked out. --After Midnight 0001 02:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationales
Hi, you just dropped 10 template messages on my talk page telling me to "go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale". I didn't add a fair use tag to any of these images (see their histories). Originally, I tagged them with the now-defunct Template:PD-USSR. None of these should be tagged Fair Use and since we're not accepting PD in the Soviet Union prior to 1957, they should have been deleted. The user who decided that they should be kept under Fair Use should write a rationale to justify keeping them if they feel that they are valid Fair Use. --Oldak Quill 00:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I deleted all of these images under CSD I4 - no source (making issues about Fair Use redundant) and not used in any pages. --Oldak Quill 00:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, sorry about all the tags at once. All these images were used in the same article and I was removing a "gallery" of non-free images from it(Socialist realism).  Perhaps you see some more there that should be deleted? --After Midnight 0001 02:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Bogus tagging
Your bot tagged Category:Wikipedians in Scouts Canada for rename by location, but Scouts Canada is not a location, it's a organization, so I removed the tag. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 01:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hehe, my bot was working from the list at User categories for discussion/Wikipedians by location. I think that the nominator either missed that one or thought that "Scouts" was a city.  I'll strike it from that list also, thanks. --After Midnight 0001 02:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationales on Jimi Hendrix album covers
Hi, I happened to notice that you recently marked most Jimi Hendrix album covers as violating the fair-use policy by not providing a rationale for their use. I went ahead and corrected that for what I think is all of them, however in the process I was surprised that the "correction" simply consisted of copy-pasting a static block of text and replacing the article name. Furthermore, some covers, such as Image:Jimi Hendrix - Electric Ladyland.jpg, were actually MORE in violation of fair-use than the ones you flagged. For Electric Ladyland, the rationale that was in place did not refer to any article where it was used, and it was used on Electric Ladyland, Jimi Hendrix, and a number of songs from that album. The usage in a section of the Jimi Hendrix article is (I hope) okay, but the usages in pages about songs aren't.

Anyways, I commend the fact that you are looking out to make sure images aren't improperly used, but it seems that you did far more work with the flagging and commenting-out and reverting your own edits than it took to just fix the problem. I think the fair-use policy for album covers is pretty clear - it's okay on the article about that album, but otherwise not okay. That makes it extremely straightforward, and even boringly repetitive, to fix these kinds of problems, just as straightforward and repetitive as flagging them, but (at least it seems this way to me) requires less work. eae (talk) 07:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. --After Midnight 0001 13:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Souljah Boy
Where did you mean to redirect this to? You have actually redirected it to itself, so it's in a closed loop. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks --After Midnight 0001 20:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

re: Fair use rationale for Image:GEM Monopoly box.jpg
Hi, thanks for the heads up about Image:GEM Monopoly box.jpg. I've updated the image description page with a rationale and scaled down the image (it was hi-res before). I'd rather get someone else to check before I remove the tag though, to make sure the rationale I provided is good enough. Would you mind checking it? Also keep up the good work in the fair-use section of Wikipedia, there's not much positive feedback in that neck of the woods. Thanks, James086 Talk &#124;  Email 06:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've removed the tag for you, it looks fine to me. Thanks for the positive feedback. --After Midnight 0001 11:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Derias's images
As the admin who deleted the images uploaded by, it would be noce if you could respond to WP:ANI, where a user openned a discussion about him. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

✅ --After Midnight 0001 14:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)