User talk:Dee Mac Con Uladh

Clearly we got off on the wrong foot. I apologize for deleting your entry out of hand, and for removing the section from the talk page. --Golbez 08:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

anmerkung zum selbst
Evgeny Stepanov

May 4 2006
If you had looked at what the template you were replacing (reverting my removal of) said, you would have noticed that No rationale is specifically for images "uploaded after May 4 2006". Because these images were uploaded prior to that date, the tag does not apply to them. I will leave the tags that you have replaced and let you decide if they need to remain. If I come across additional images uploaded before 4 May 2006, I will continue to remove these tags. ~ Bigr  Tex  14:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * BTW, I just read your post on User talk:Jkelly. My removal of those tags does not imply that they are fair use, nor is it intended to imply that they don't need a fair use rationale, just that the tag is not valid on those images.  For every image that I removed the no rationale tag from, there were other valid tags that would cause the image to be deleted if not corrected.  There is little advantage to stick an image into 8 different recycling bins if you can stick it in just one that will get rid of it.
 * Further, it is unlikely that you will get an administrator removed from this project for images that were uploaded 2 years ago. If you look at his edit history and select the image namespace, you will see that GeneralPatton has not uploaded any images since 6 August 2005.  It is unlikely that there will be significant additional time needed to clean up his images as compared to the time required to clean up images uploaded by new users arriving on the project who are either intent on vandalism or are naive about our image rules. ~  Bigr  Tex  14:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I am a policy-gnome. I have found that following policy gets things done faster.  If I were the admin who came across an image with multiple delete tags some of which were blatantly incorrect, I would investigate much more throughly (and be less prone to delete) than if I came across an image with a single tag that was obviously per policy.
 * GeneralPatton has no history of uploading any images since August 2005. Suspecting an administrator of operating a sock puppet to get around established policies is a serious charge that should be brought up at Suspected sock puppets, not on third-party talk pages.
 * We also have processes in place for copyright violations.
 * The copyright holder can contact Wikimedia to request removal
 * You can tag it with if you can point to where the image is used and marked as copyright reserved on the web
 * You can take the image to WP:CV if you can provide source information
 * You can take the image to WP:PUI if you feel that it is a copyright infringement but are unable to document it as such
 * You can nominate the image at WP:IfD and explain the rationale behind why it needs to be deleted
 * You can tag the image as not being in compliance using no source, no license, or no rationale iff they really are missing.
 * I am concerned about copyright violations. I am sorry if that was not clear from my previous messages.  I have taken images through all of the above processes except the first, and will continue to do so.  The processes work, but they do take time.  I would be happy to help you work within the established processes, just ask.  ~  Bigr  Tex  15:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You may notice that I went ahead and overtagged Image:Irving Speer 01.jpg with .  This is the most direct route.  I eventually tracked down the page that showed that it was a copyright violation (which it would have been nice for you to provide somewhere), and requested a speedy deletion of the image based on that copyright violation.  I will proceed to do the same for the other three images that you nominated at WP:IfD if I can find similar webpages for them. ~  Bigr  Tex  18:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you figured it out eventually.

personal attacks
If you continue to make personal attacks, calling other users "stupid" and "dickhead", you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. – Quadell (talk) (random) 01:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)