User talk:Melesse/Archive 7

Fair use rationale for Image:Chaos Kinnikuman Nisei.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Chaos Kinnikuman Nisei.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. Additionally, if you continue uploading bad images, you may be blocked from uploading. STBotI (talk) 04:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Deicide - When London Burns.jpg
There was an incident where I did the upload the image before finishing the repective page think but that is already corrected ... or not? Cannibaloki (talk) 06:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Googlefight_Keep_vs_Delete.JPG
This image supports article Googlefight. This article is currently subject to DRV where it seems likely to be restored. Please do not delete this image while the discussion is in progress. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleted Images
--

Mazfired (talk) 13:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You motherfuckin bastard ! How do dare you delete my photos, u fuckin ugly pig ! GO FUCK YOURSLEF AND GET THE FUCK OUT OF WIKIPEDIA !!!!

Apax Partners
I watch a number of Private Equity firms and saw the deletion of the Apax Partners logo. I am not sure why no justification was given but the image has been up on Wikipedia since February 2, 2006 and is pretty clearly justified under fair use for company logos that every other logo on Wikipedia is justified under. If there is an easy way to restore the image I would think it would be helpful.Urbanrenewal (talk) 02:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry!
Just looked through my watchlist and found your contributions; sorry you had to clear up after me! i've never really added images before, i'm just quite enthusiastic about that particular band. With this combined with what i can see of your previous edits:
 * Ahh ok, thanks for the tip! i'll keep that in mind in future; less errors i make means people can spend more time improving the content and less clearing up after each other. and thanks for the smile! Ironholds (talk) 03:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Image deletions
Hi. I noticed you deleted 1 of a series of 3 related images I uploaded many moons ago, and I hope you don't mind doing away with the other 2 as well (links to all 3 at the bottom of my talk page). I haven't been following the relevant policies, but I think the cleanup's a good thing. Thanks, --dfg (talk) 03:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Question
Hey. I noticed the poster on the page 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Elfenpromoposter.JPG'. May I ask where I can obtain a real copy of the poster? I shall come back to read from here as I am not a user.

~DN

Hi, I am quite confused and I hope that I won't become disappointed too - please help me with this one! :

On 15 of April, I got a message from you on my talk page, stating that an image had been in violation. I had received a prior message from 'STBotI' and I am completly aware that the image was not in proper accordance to copyright, I was going to change it but never quite got around to it until now.

However, I now wanted to view the page I had created both in English and Chinese and ITS GONE. Maybe I am just going mad, but the whole page I can't find. This was my very first wikipedia page and I did try to make it as good as possible, all apart from the image was fine - and I knew that and was going to fix it. I also checked my 'my contributions' list and there is no record, which totally confuses me, as the page on 'Joanna Wang' took me at least two hours to make and it had been up and running for a few weeks after I finished all the adjustments and took it from 'construction phase' to being open. Please tell me that it was not all deleted because of the image. :(

I am not that familiar with the wikipedia world and forums and stuff, so I hope you get this message and that I can find out from you what happened. --Lexxus2010 (talk) 17:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Quick question
Sorry to keep bugging you, but you seem like a nice editor :). I'm thinking of making a proposal regarding featured articles, basically suggesting that policy is that they be made semi-protected for the day they're main page news, as from my rv'ing experience i know they get vandalised basically constantly for that 24 hours period. Do you know where i'd post this, if it's likely to be accepted...? i appreciate i'm a new-ish user and i dont know if they'd be willing to listen. Ironholds 21:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

fair use reduction request
hi, it seems that you had earlier reduced one of the i took. There is of the same type. Would be glad if you could reduce this one to fair use policy as well. Cheers. Tarun2k (talk) 16:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Have seen the fair use version. Thanks. Tarun2k (talk) 22:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Fi-linx logo
Sorry, I'm still learning the ropes here. I'm working on putting together my first article (testing on my user page) and uploaded the company logo Fi-linx-logo.jpg for that article. Should I have waited until after the article was created to upload the image? Can I remove the "orphaned" tag if I plan to create the article soon (i.e. this weekend)? Skiguy330 (talk) 21:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Leptictidium tobieni.jpg
Just a question: have you even bothered to read the fair-use rationale for the image, or are you one of those people who just like to say that almost any fair-use image is replaceable? Besides, you didn't even take the time to notify the uploader (me).
 * Okay, so I now have another similar question for you; have you even bothered to read the templates you use? Notify the uploader with:. Imperative mood! It does not say "you may notify the uploader", it says "notify the uploader."
 * Now, let's move on to your claim. Why don't we propose Image:Arwen.jpg for deletion? Surely someone could write to New Line Cinema and ask them to release their rights for this particular picture? Is it impossible that they will feel generous and accept? No, I don't think so. And a free replacement need not be impossible to obtain, it's just got to be reasonably impossible. a subject for which a free image might reasonably be found. It says so explicitly in the template you use. But then again, I guess you don't like reading. Leptictidium (mt) 10:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems you've changed your mind, at first it was a normal deletion procedure, now it's a speedy deletion! I wonder what made you change your mind... Leptictidium (mt) 10:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Musical theatre images
Hello, Melesse. I saw some excellent work that you did on a Fair use rationale. About a year ago, editors removed nearly all of the images illustrating the article musical theatre (although not the public domain ones for the part of the article covering periods prior to 1923). The removed images were mostly CD covers or original posters for well-known musicals that were discussed in the article. Do you think that you could write a fair use rationale for that would allow some images to illustrate the parts of the article pertaining to the period 1923-present? If so, let me know, and I will suggest some Images that I think would be good choices for the article. This diff shows many of the images that were removed. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the message. Many images for musicals articles are about to be deleted as linked here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SFTVLGUY2  Some of them are photos that probably do not qualify under Wikipedia guidelines, but many of them are logos, CD covers, posters, etc that just need Fair Use rationales.  I have been adding fair use rationales to the best of my ability, but I cannot keep up with the rate at which they are being put up for deletion.  Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi there Melesse, thanks for adding fair use rationales to the images. I'm a bit concerned by the rate at which you're adding them though - some of the rationales really don't seem to apply to the articles, so you should really consider carefully whether the FURME standard rationales are applicable or not.  Take Image:PatrickTopaloff.jpg for example: The fair use rationale you added justifies inclusion of the image in Patrick Topaloff by saying that it is required as an accompaniment to a section of text about the book.  In reality, it is being used in the article to show what Topaloff himself looks like - the caption even suggests this!  Commentary about the book cover is limited to only one line, and the fair use rationale is really not strong enough to support its inclusion.


 * I agree that a good number of the nominated images are being used fairly, but I think you're being a bit too liberal with the default FURME rationales at the moment. I'd prefer not to have to do a load of IfDs on these! Papa November (talk) 06:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks a lot. I'll check through them all properly when the nominations expire anyway.  Cheers, Papa November (talk) 06:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for what you did on the Image:The Children's War.gif. I'm still a noob when it comes to Wikipedia. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 15:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Wrong "Speedy Deletion"
You performed a "speedy deletion" on Church of the Assumption-Rivne.jpg without even reading my reasons for keeping the image. The image you deleted was NOT a "bit-for-bit" copy of the image in Wikicommons. If you had read my comments on every relevant talk page you would have known that the images were NOT identical (I took BOTH photos) and that the image on Wikicommons was an inferior image to the one you deleted. I demand that you undo the speedy deletion and do what I asked you to do--replace the Wikicommons image with the superior image which you deleted. I don't know how to "replace" images in Wikicommons. (Taivo (talk) 04:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC))

(I don't know if you are watching my talk page or not)
 * Since you asked oh-so-nicely:
 * Image:Church of the Assumption-Rivne.JPG
 * Image:Church of the Assumption-Rivne2.jpg
 * Image:Church of the Assumption-Rivne3.jpg


 * If none of those is the "superior image" you were referring to, then I'm sorry but you'll have to learn how to upload things on Commons yourself. Melesse (talk) 05:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My "oh-so-nicely" is AFTER I had carefully posted a comment according to instructions everywhere that the Wikipedia speedy deletion notice called for and my image WAS STILL DELETED. Image 2 is the correct one to keep.  The other two can be deleted.  Thank you. (Taivo (talk) 09:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC))

Re: Image for deletion
Thanks for informing me of the tag on the image I uploaded. I've replaced the usage rationale with a more appropriate one, as suggested. Aridd (talk) 11:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:StreamersPoster.jpg and Image:SizweBanzi.jpg and Image:PavloHummel.JPG and Image:ManLuckPoster.jpg
FYI, you used the rationale for a record album instead of a poster for all of these images. If you keep using the wrong rationale they might be deleted. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 12:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey
I remember in your RFA that you were an image-related admin. I also posted this at WP:AN, but there's a backlog at Category:All images on Wikimedia Commons ready for deletion, for images that can be deleted. Thanks, Spencer  T♦C 22:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks, and no problem. Spencer  T♦C 20:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:13thAlleyMovie.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:13thAlleyMovie.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 07:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:ThingsHaveChanged.png
Nice to see someone else who cares about album cover size- this is just a note to say that the template is fair use reduced, not fair-use reduced. Keep up the good work! J Milburn (talk) 10:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Sonic Boom Six Logo.png)
 Thanks for uploading Image:Sonic Boom Six Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Aspects (talk) 14:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Farari.jpg
You recently created a fair use rationale for an image that does not exist. Please be careful with automated tools. J Milburn (talk) 15:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Russians
You cant just do what you think is right without knowing the case. It was long ago decided that the current image is the best. Also, everybody wanted it to be a ONE PIECE image. What you did is hurting a concensus and doing a useless thing. In your version, for example, sizes of the images were not the same. It's not possible to do it the same unless it's a one piece image. MaIl89 (talk) 09:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I thing i understood why you did this mistake. You thought that the iamges on the one peace image and the seperated once are different. They are not, simply while combining them into one image they were re-edited. For example, cutting all the image except the face. For example. But anyway we prefer a one piece image with the sizes off all equal. Thats much better and more esthetical. MaIl89 (talk) 09:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. Thats just rude. You were exaplained why not to do it yet without any discussion and explanation you keep it. Stop. MaIl89 (talk) 09:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, first you should be the one pointing me a reason why it shouldn't. Youre the one who once to change something not me. Well fine, lets do a vote on the discussion page. It seems fair to me. MaIl89 (talk) 11:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe i was wrong and i havent noticed that they havent talked about it, but you shorly see that the one piece image was here for a long time till you came because it was the agreed once. MaIl89 (talk) 11:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

'''I started a vote. Here'''. After you say what you support fell free to give an argument why. MaIl89 (talk) 11:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Whay haven't you voted? It's the most fair solution. MaIl89 (talk) 11:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair use reduction
Hi, I was just wondering if there was a specific tool you were using for reducing the size of the fair use images? You're doing it far quicker than I could... J Milburn (talk) 11:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really, I just download them all at once, resize and then re-upload them all at once. Melesse (talk) 11:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Replacing and deleting images
Hi It appears you have moved images such as this to Commons: This appears to have been done on a series of Irish "roads" articles, such as the N2 road. Unfortunately the resulting images (which appear in tables) are all the wrong size and are all different sizes. I wonder if you could restore the previous state of these articles; reverting doesn't work because you have deleted the originals. Thanks Sarah777 (talk) 00:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue appeared to just be that the PNG and SVG images were cropped differently. I think it should be fixed now so there's no need to revert.  Cheers, Papa November (talk) 16:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)