User talk:Peripitus/Archive10

Charlie Kadau deletion
Good afternoon... I saw that Joe Raiola has a page on Wikipedia, and was going to create one for his writing/editing partner, Charlie Kadau but noticed that you had deleted one: "11:14, 21 January 2010". Trying to follow the rules, Wikipedia asked me to contact you before creating the page. Any reason, if you can remember from back then, why I shouldn't create the page? Thanks. And Happy New Year.

Onel5969 (talk) 19:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for responding on my talk page. I've added a brief page regarding Charlie. Will flesh it out as I come upon more citations. Please, if you have any comments/suggestions regarding it, don't hesitate to let me know.

Onel5969 (talk) 02:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Ally McBeal cast photos at Files for deletion/2014 January 31
Can you double-check the comments there? Two people were uncertain about which images to delete. Nominator prefers season 4. Me: I just uploaded them. --George Ho (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Explanation for new user please
Please post a close explanation at.

is a new user and won't be able to understand that their upload was deleted even though I added a discussion of the image to the article the text. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you :D
Hello Sir,

Thank you so much for Deletion of the file : File:Gabbar Singh (film) Album Cover.jpg

(:D)

Regards,

Raghusri (talk) 11:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

File deletion issue
I had contacted User:Mark Arsten regarding his deletion of. He said he would look into it on his talk page. When I went to follow up on his talk page and clicked on the image again, I saw that he had restored it, hadn't told me that he restored it, he had the image nominated for deletion (without notifying anyone) and then the discussion was closed as delete (and deleted) by you based on one incorrect vote. This is not a government document, it is a copy of a government document for which it is unclear that there is any copyright issue whatsoever. NFCC#3 doesn't apply based on minimal usage, nor does 7 (it is referenced in multiple articles), 8 (it's used as the only available source from the state) or 9 (it's used only in article space). Without the image the information is unverifiable in any way as the material is unpublished by the State of New Jersey. May I ask you to reconsider your deletion of the image once and for all. Alansohn (talk) 17:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

File deletion question
Desiderata45 (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC) RE:Broadway director Harold Prince receives the Golden Plate award from Nobel laureate Toni Morrison at the American Academy of Achievement’s 2007 International Achievement Summit in Washington, D.C. on Friday, June 22, 2007.jpg

File deletion question
Desiderata45 (talk) Dear Peripitus, How do I upload the photo again and designate it as a "free" photo? I really appreciate your guidance. Thank you!

Hello
In reference to your edit HERE, thanks for taking the "high road" and taking the time to find and insert a replacement image. Your action showed a high degree of collegiality, is a reflection of someone who assummed good faith and, shows that there are still reasonable admins who are willing to spend the bit of effort necessary to avoid an outright image deletion. It is refreshing to see this happen, for it is oftentimes frustrating for an editor to engage in the time-consuming job of searching, locating, assessing and extracting of an appropriate image and then to upload with an equal amount of effort and good faith, just to find that not too long later a quick-tempered and trigger-happy reviewing admin has deleted it without putting any much conscious effort to understand the image and the alternatives to a mere outright delete. With your edit, especifically with your searching and locating of the replacemnet image, you have shown you were willing to "think outside the box" and did not lose sight of "the greater picture", namely, improving the encyclopedia. Your action showed a genuine interest in making a positive difference. Cheers to you, Mercy11 (talk) 02:23, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

F.U.
I wish you would have better things to do! Those are public pictures, used freely and are not copyrighted or something else...but you have a job of being the self-appointed guardian of Wiki. I hope you're happy.

hi
please post reasons for deleting my pictures taken with my own camera !! i am the photographer!

(cur | prev) 11:26, 4 March 2014‎ ImageRemovalBot (talk | contribs)‎. . (12,871 bytes) (+32)‎. . (Removing links to deleted file File:Natasha Seatter radical sr8.jpg) (undo) (cur | prev) 11:26, 4 March 2014‎ ImageRemovalBot (talk | contribs)‎. . (12,839 bytes) (+32)‎. . (Removing links to deleted file File:Natasha seatter mss 2013.jpg) (undo) (cur | prev) 11:25, 4 March 2014‎ ImageRemovalBot (talk | contribs)‎. . (12,807 bytes) (+32)‎. . (Removing links to deleted file File:Natasha seatter brandlaureate.jpg)

hi peripitus
That is because i gave them the pictures to post on their website www.eurasiamotorsport!. I hired eurasiamotorsport for the whole year season and paid them a lot of money to run the team for natasha seatter !

All the pictures including taken by photographer (ipaid the photographer to do so ! ) are mine ! All photos published are also of the same person natasha seatter and given to the press to be published ! All my private photos are also all deleted !! Why ?? Look at how many pictures i posted you deleted it all !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Racingqueen (talk • contribs) 15:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Deletion Review
Some other editor has started a deletion review for an image you deleted : --86.2.216.5 (talk) 16:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear Peripitus,

I've been a bit misled with the copyright rules about , I'm the webmaster for the owner MD Tim Overtoom and he has given me the full permission to use the files ( although I think that an "Attribution – – The copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the copyright holder is properly attributed." might be appropriate.

How can we proceed?

Thank you in advance.

Francis Franck (francis.franck at gmail.com)

________________

Hi Peripitus,

In the meantime I've removed the copyright claim from www.overtoomballoon.com and had a agreement sent to permissions-en@wikimedia.org by the owner of the pictures. Kind regards,

Francis (FrancisFranck (talk) 11:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC))

Suphanburi FC
I had all of my images deleted from the club page of the team I work for. Should I have used different categories for the copyright? I work for Suphanburi FC My boss is Varawut Silpa Archa who is the President of the club. He is happy to produce documentation to confirm that I have permission to put the images onto our page. I am happy for the club to be contacted to verify this. Please let me know how I can proceed and thank you for your diligence. We know that it won't be easy for other people to cause problems in the future once this has been sorted out. I can also be contacted at suphanburifcenglish@gmai.com Best wishes Matt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oliver Riley (talk • contribs) 05:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear Peripitus, please advise the reasons for deleting the picture on Jeff Rustia's article. The main picture was approved and endorsed by its photographer Jefre Nicholls a couple years ago, and was never an issue prior to your deletion. Arms863 04:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arms863 (talk • contribs)

Trexler Nature Preserve
Thank you for your editing suggestions. I will make the changes by this Friday for your review. More details will be on the Trexler Nature Preserve talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lehightrails (talk • contribs) 08:17, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Kalyanee Mam
Please do not this photo or any further images that have been submitted under this user name. The ownership information and permission will be sent over shortly. comment added Alexbpearson 05:25, 18 March 2014 Alexbpearson (talk

DYK for Whitemore, Tasmania
The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The oldffdfull template
Hi, re edits where you put the  on the file description page. Files for deletion/Administrator instructions says to "add a link on the file's talk page to the discussion sub-page. The template is recommended for this"  states "if the talk page for the file already exists, add this template to the talk page. Otherwise, the template may be added to the file page itself under a heading such as ==Deletion discussions==. In this case, there was a talk page, so I've moved it and two others on my watchlist that I noticed. Please would you check through any others that you closed recently, and move the  to the talk page where appropriate. Thank you. -- Red rose64 (talk) 13:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Which four photos?
Hi. I am D'pak HKadam. I have received your message on the deletion of four of the photos uploaded by me. Please can you tell which are the four photos? And why do they seem to be taken from other websites?

Reg. file permission for Nina Nayak.jpg
I have emailed the owner of the file to sign the permission statement and send it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If the owner does not copy me on the email, how else can I find out if the permission is sent?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nrangarajan1 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Nina Nayak image permission sent
Hi Peripitus

The owner of Nina_Nayak.jpg has emailed permissions-en@wikimedia.org with the permission statement. I hope this will clear all copyright issues. Nrangarajan1 (talk) 05:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Re: Which four photos?
Hi, Peripitus. D'pak HKadam here again. Thank you for the info. I admit that I had downloaded those images. I just wanted to know which four photos they were so that the next time when I visit there, I would take real photos of them.(And which was the fourth photo? You have given about only three of them.) Don't get me wrong. I wasn't furious while reading your message as I knew it was my fault. I wanted to know because, some photos of the uploaded ones were legitimate (Except those four photos and some company logos I had earlier uploaded.). But the logos were legalized by someone who advised me not to do it again. So, why can't these photos be legalized? Just because of the watermarks? And please can you tell me how did you find the source of those images? Because, I had downloaded them from Google Images :) — Preceding undated comment added 07:56, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Re: D'pak HKadam
Thanks for the kind information, Peripitus. - D'pak HKadam — Preceding undated comment added 20:02, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hadspen, Tasmania
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hadspen, Tasmania you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Casliber -- 11:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

PD-CANADA
I've been trying to review these... Your assistance appreciated.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hadspen, Tasmania
The article Hadspen, Tasmania you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hadspen, Tasmania for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Casliber -- 23:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Image B._Gopalakrishnan Permission
Hi peripitus

I've attached the image permission from the owner of the file Advocate B. Gopalakrishnan himself as an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Kindly provide the permission to the image.

Alan

Regarding your FU claim dispute
Please see Talk:Natalia_Poklonskaya. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:09, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

new user
i'm new to wikipedia--can you provide some tips for easy editing 12:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

You've got a new mail!
Mediran ( t  •  c ) 02:45, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Reg. File Capt Amarinder Singh.jpg
Licence information has been updated. So I am removing the deletion message from the image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Punjabwikiwatch (talk • contribs) 04:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Wurlitzer Guitar Photo
I have virtually no idea what you just posted regarding the photo I uploaded yesterday. . . All I know is that I contacted the owner of the website where I found the photo and asked for his permission to use it. I provided all the appropriate contact information for that website owner when I uploaded the photo. Seems to me the reason I provided all of those links and names, etc., was so that if someone at Wikipedia (i.e. you in this case) had any questions about ownership or permission that YOU could contact the guy who gave me permission to use the photo and clarify the situation with him.

All I can tell you is that I found the photo on his website. It appears to be his photo and he told me I could use it. Beyond that, I can't really help you. I think a photo is nearly essential where I inserted this one, but short of buying what would surely be a very expensive and rare guitar to photograph myself (since it's highly unlikely anyone would agree to ship one to me for the purpose), getting permission to use a photo like this one appears to be the only viable option.

If you can explain to me in plain English what more you think I can do in this regard, please let me know. Otherwise, I can only refer you to the information I provided when I went through the upload process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikerrr (talk • contribs) 18:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I hope this will show up as a new message. . . I'm still not real savvy on the ins and outs of Wikipedia's inner workings. It appears that the photo in question probably came from an eBay listing which ended YEARS ago (about 6 years ago, apparently). The seller/original photographer is unknown and unfindable. Wouldn't this be a public domain item by now? If not, I'm not sure the website where I found the photo can give me the permissions required. In that case, I'll have to try tracking down other photos. Mikerrr (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's a bummer. I've tried to contact an alternate source of photos of these guitars but they haven't seen fit to reply other than to say they'd get back to me. So, if you must take down the photo I uploaded, I guess that's just how it has to be. Hopefully either I can find a usable one elsewhere or someone else will upload one. The unique shape of the Gemini model is one of the key aspects which made these guitars stand out. That and the "W" cut-out in the tremelo mount. It would be nice if these Talk pages worked more like discussion boards on regular Internet sites. . . I posted this in the thread on my own Talk page and then realized that you'd probably never even know I posted it there. Even though that's where the discussion started. Anyway. I'll see if I can find an alternate photo to post. Or, I suppose I could just hand-draw a picture and post that, right? Mikerrr (talk) 19:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Please restore these files
File:FreeCell XP.png and File:Hearts XP.png were deleted without a single concurring opinion by another editor in either case (in the latter case there was even a dissenting opinion!). Furthermore, the original deletion rationale (in both cases) is invalid as the former use of each file did in fact satisfy WP:NFCC. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Both images were appropriately deleted, as both images fails WP:NFCC. Your argument was that they should be kept because "you are not able to compare the graphic of both versions. Also it is a good example for the improvement of software through microsoft and so on wikipedia is supporting their products." For those reasons to be valid under the Non-free policy, there would have to be sourced commentary about either the improvement or the differences in graphics. User:Codename Lisa was correct in her argument in the deletion discussion. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 18:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * First of all, these images should be restored regardless of this discussion as a single opinion should not be sufficient to delete them in the first place. Second, that is not necessarily my own argument - that was merely the argument another user made (and only in one of the discussions). I would argue that both of the WP:NFCC criteria brought up are in fact met by both images: there is sufficient discussion of the older versions in both articles (thus meeting criterion 8), and there is sufficient difference between these screenshots and the ones of the respective newer versions of the games (thus meeting criterion 3). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Policy backed issues do not need a discussion. These files simply do not meet the requirements of WP:NFCC. Either way, an admin shouldn't overrule a discussion, even if few people participate, especially where policy is concerned.  You are going to need a consensus to have the images reinstated.  I recommend starting a discussion at WP:NFCR, inviting the original participants to join the discussion.  If you can get a consensus to have the two images reinstated, I will personally restore the images. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 21:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Right, because an anonymous user who didn't even bother to contribute to one of the two discussions will gladly add some input to one that takes place much later... (I suppose that's just what you're counting on, isn't it?) I've laid out my case regarding WP:NFCC already, and yet you haven't even bothered to try to respond to it. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 21:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't care who you get to add input to the discussion. You can even link the discussion to the two article's talk pages. I don't think that you should hint that I have some undermining scheme against you. I'm actually well versed in WP:NFCC, it was the driving force behind the community of editors supporting me for admin. And Peripitus, I'm sorry for jacking your talkpage. As for your WP:NFCC claims, FreeCell (Windows) has no SOURCED, critical commentary (WP:NFCC#8) about the Windows XP version that requires the image for the reader to understand the article. In fact, the article only mentions XP in that it has the new feature of "1 million card deals" which does not require the image to be seen (WP:NFCC#8).  In the Hearts (Windows) article, the information about XP (which you restored today) is not sourced, nor does it need the image to understand that paragraph. You can understand "cards are designed to suit and accompany the application's looks of gradients and solid colours" without ever seeing the cards. But seriously, please, I don't want you to think there isn't a process in this situation.  Open up a discussion if you feel that the images are within policy, find a consensus (I don't care how, as long as you aren't violating other policies) and I will restore it. Its simple. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 21:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

. Hi both of you. There are a lot of images like these that have been deleted over time. Deletion like this, with minimal discussion or participation, is the norm in files-for-deletion. Where these files sit in terms of NFCC is - this is based on the long term consensus derived from deletion discussions and discussions in other places regarding non-free files. I am deliberately extending this to cover all of the NFCC points, rather than just the ones raised in the discussion. - Peripitus (Talk) 01:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * NFCC#1 - the image is very similar (to File:Hearts7.png in one case) to another image in the article. The small differences can be adequately explained, without significantly impairing reader's understanding, with text alone. The 'A picture is worth a thousand words' argument never holds sway. If it is not possible to describe the differences because there are no reliable sources to use as a reference then the image also falls foul of NFCC#8 below.
 * NFCC#3a. The files are different and show different things. This is insufficient to meet the criteria. All different images show different things so pointing this out is not at all convincing. The differences in the images have to be required for significant reader understanding of the topic. Showing something is different is never enough, it has to be both required for the topic and show the differences in a way that is significantly more than text alone could. This has often been invoked to remove instances where we have had images of EVERY edition of a book, some software, an album, or multiple shots from the same video or movie.
 * NFCC#8 - this criteria is failed in this case, and in many others, for a common reason. There are no reliable sources talking about the visual differences between the software versions. Where there is no reliable source saying something like "image x looks like y and image x1 looks like y1", the verifiability requirement then leaves us with no supporting text that meets Wikipedia's requirements. If the reliable sources don't care to write about the differences, then the general consensus is that Wikipedia cannot support writing about the differences. Any other result strays into original research
 * NFCC#10c - the rationale in these cases said "This image is intended to illustrate the software in question." This is grossly insufficient. All images illustrate things so this rationale says nothing at all about why Wikipedia is hosting it.

Concerning Windsor Airlift.jpg
Could you perform the necessary action to correct the copyright? I'm taking the day off and would rather not hassle with having to learn it. :) Thanks!

RhettGedies (talk) 18:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

As I received your message, the one problem is Windsor Airlift does not play many live shows/get much coverage (aka. no good pictures). It will be impossible as there are really no pictures of them that fit Wikipedia's mold besides that one.

RhettGedies (talk) 05:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hagley, Tasmania, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saddler (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Photo - Warwick Davis' family
Hi, this is regarding your note on the use of the. I wish to write the reason why I feel this photo should be used, but am finding it difficult to figure out how to write it. I do not wish to delete any of the notes you have placed, hence could you please guide me on how and where to write the justification for the reason?

I could not find any free photos of his family (free means photos on flickr and facebook - am I right?)

Since I am new to adding photos in wiki articles, I would appreciate any other tips from your side too.

Thanks Notthebestusername (talk) 01:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Hagley, Tasmania
The DYK project (nominate) 01:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Images
Thanks for looking over the ones I am not sure about.

I'm trying also to add information blocks to Commons candidates to aid evaluation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * . You are most welcome. I find that there a few common problematic categories that now stand out even as thumbnails. Most of the issues are people not knowing that self-edited and self-made are different - Peripitus (Talk) 21:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Seyi Shay on Ndani TV.jpg
Greeting Peripitus. Thanks for the note you left on my talk page regarding this file. I added a disputed reason for why this file shouldn't be deleted. Can you please take a look at it and tell me what you think. If the reason I gave isn't sufficient, I will tag it for speedy deletion. I normally upload singles and album covers using the non free use rationale. I uploaded the screenshot because I couldn't find a replaceable one.  V e r s a c e 1 6 0 8   (Talk) 13:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Kiren Rijiju oath as Minister.jpg
Please advise me, the below image from the same source is used in wiki without any licence issue. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Narendra_Modi_taking_oath.jpg

Kindly advise or guide me. Thanks in advance. --- your reply
 * The licence you used means that someone can take the image and

The website does not include these terms. They are allowing you to use the image but are NOT allowing modification, derivative works, commercial use and so do not meet the conditions needed for a free licence - Peripitus (Talk) 11:26, 29 May 2014 (UTC) --- Reply Hi... In http://pib.nic.in/newsite/terms.aspx, 2. COPYRIGHT POLICY says "Material featured on this website may be reproduced free of charge and there is no need for any prior approval for using the content". Many Images from this site are widely used in wiki. All my efforts will be invain if you delete my images. review once again.
 * modify it as they see fit
 * reuse it for any purpose
 * sell the image.

Hi there. I've deleted this image as the terms of use on the linked website do not support the license you chose. this image is copyrighted, and not freely licensed - Peripitus (Talk) 11:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually the same goes for the other images you uploaded. - Peripitus (Talk) 11:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Sporting Camp Photos
I updated the information for the two older photos, and have emailed for proof of rights to post the others...but two of the modern ones you deleted were mine - I am going to repost them so please don't delete them again, I took these with my own camera! Thanks Bulldogcamps (talk) 11:16, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That all looks good. I've removed the "no-permission" tags from the other two. For future reference, when an administrator such as myself, deletes a file that should be restored...we can undelete the file easier than you can upload. Deleted files are, largely, hidden but still extant - Peripitus (Talk) 01:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I didn't know that! I have forwarded the license agreement for the Bradford Camps photo from the owner although the status still says "pending" - and I have also sent the license agreement for the Red River Camps photo...I had already re-uploaded the Bradford Camps photo but can you restore the Red River Camps photo with the "pending" message so I don't have to re-upload it? I expect to hear back soon about the last remaining photo license from Libby Camps. Thank you! Bulldogcamps (talk) 16:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As an OTRS team member I can confirm that we have recived the ticket for the deleted image, and everything looks in order under the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license. Can you please restore the image so I may update the file with the ticket information, as well the licensing as well. The ticket number is 2014050510012415. Thank you. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 15:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry about that since, it has been restored by another admin. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 22:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * - ah, all good then. - Peripitus (Talk) 10:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Mount Carmel College, Bangalore
I have added image for Mount Carmel College, Bangalore which has been taken from its official website and i have mentioned the link also for the same. If anything else is required pls suggest me as i'm new to wikipedia. Thank You,

Yashpal Singh Sengar 18:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yash44444 (talk • contribs)

File:Arran High School.jpeg
It was my understanding that were it might be the uploaders own work, it was reasonable not to tag it as un-sourced, at least for 24 hours or so, once an initial authorship request (see uploaders talk page) had been made. The preceeding of course doesn't apply if an image is obviously non-free or copyvio. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:32, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ...Seems reasonable. In this case I saw an image that had obviously had resolution and quality edited to be used on a webpage, that is also cropped and downscaled from this. I didn't actually notice you'd tagged the image first though. I think I might have had it open in a tab from before you edited it. - Peripitus (Talk) 10:40, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Help with an image file, used in Hosea Williams, involved in a deletion discussion you contributed to
On 7 December 2013, I uploaded this image, and used it in this article. On 20 January 2014, User:Stefan2 nominated the image for deletion. There was a discussion here in which you argued to keep. Now, 12 May 2014, User:Sfan00 IMG has placed a tag on the same image file asking for clarification of copyright status or listing for deletion. During the course of the earlier discussion, you replaced the tag with the  tag. I don't know how to follow up this new attempt to restrict the use of the image. Could you either explain to me what course I should follow (or do it yourself, as that might be easier). I am completely willing to do the work, and to learn the procedures. To me, as a new editor, this seems to be restriction by attrition, but I assume good faith. As I did when I uploaded the image, still think the image materially improves this article, and could improve the rather weak commons collection of images from the African-American Civil Rights Movement; my preference would be to keep the tag, which you placed. - Neonorange (talk) 18:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The tag for reference is NFUR not needed, I'm trying to get the image so it can be moved to Commons, completely the opposite picture to that presented above. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I asked for explanations and help because the tag does not make a clear statement to me. If I had more experience, I'm sure it would. My request above represents my perception of your action, not, obviously, your intention. Thank you for the intention of ensuring the availability of the image at commons. Tell me exactly what to do, and I will do the work. And, while we are about it, how about a few dozen cards from the same identification set, those depicting other notable figures? - Neonorange (talk) 19:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You need to convert the NFUR block into something suitable for an information template. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * , . All fixed now and I've moved the image to commons (here). This is one of those times I pity people trying to learn Wikipedia's image policies and procedures. We sometimes seem more complicated than tax regulations. Peripitus (Talk) 21:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Not so much complicated, I think, but that the templates and shorthand are somewhat opaque (I needed three Wikipedia tabs open just to write the notes I posted). And then I saw the thin box of icons across the top of your user page, thought it was a rebus, and tried to come up with the word or phrase; that was complicated. Then I thought to click on an icon, and all became clear. I hope I can call on you for help in the future. Thanks again. - Neonorange (talk) 21:26, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Portrait of Tim Gosling.jpg
Dear Peripitus, I myself sent the permissions through to Permissions@wikipedia and these should have been checked by now so my images can be released? This has been going on for weeks now! Please can someone help me! Thanks so much in advance as am at my whits end! I also have two other images that have permission but I have yet to dare put on as its so complicated but I want to use - isn't there an easier way of doing this but I do see that you need permission which I have supplied?? Could you check that the images permission have been received and restore these images to the page please? Custardpieboy (talk) 12:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm an OTRS volunteer and admin, and I've just searched for your permission and I have found no email. The queue is rather clear and has been for some time. If you have permission from the original copyright holder, you can forward their permission to permissions-en@wikimedia.org or they can email directly (see WP:CONSENT for details). If the copyright holder has not given evidence that they wish to release the file under a free license, we cannot host the file as it is a violation of our non-free policy (WP:NFCC)). Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 20:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi ,

I thought I had sent it through and it was in my out tray. I have sent it now and would appreciate your help getting these three images online please ! That is two portraits and one image of the straw marquetry Cabinet to illustrate this.

Many thanks 09:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi there.

Thanks for that. I live in hope of bringing this page to a close so I can move onto something else! Much appreciated..... Custardpieboy (talk) 12:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello
Hi, Peripitus

I need your help with uploading picture of a living person to Wikipedia with out it being deleted. Could i upload the same picture again with different settings or something.... R. Kelly only has one picture on his site and same picture on all of his other pages, while others have plenty of pictures just lying everywere. I really appreciat if you could tell me what i should do to change that. - WikiFact123 (Talk) 21:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Minor confusion with non-free images
Hey Peripitus. At Megadeth's FA review, a colleague noted that File:Megadeth 1986.jpg was falsely attributed as the uploader's own work and demanded to be either removed or properly licensed. I uploaded the same photo under a fair use rationale, but it was quickly deleted with an explanation that such a file already exist on Wiki Commons. A solution?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 12:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Dude, nevermind, everything was cleared. Just to ask, can you delete File:Crush Em.ogg, File:Megadeth - Rattlehead.ogg and File:Train of Consequences.ogg since they aren't needed anymore? Have a nice day.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 15:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Unfree Commons file
Please be more careful when reverting files like this—the file was moved to Wikipedia with a non-free use rationale because the Commons file was uploaded with an illegitimate free license and will have to be deleted. Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * . You are correct, I missed that copyvio. I've disagreed with the uploader's rationale for having that as a non free image though and nominated it for deletion. - Peripitus (Talk) 21:52, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Image Copy Right issue
Hi Periptus. Need help in fixing the Copyright issues with 3 of the images uploaded 16 Possibly unfree File:Picture of Rev Abraham Varghese.jpg 17 Possibly unfree File:Bethel Malayalam Service.jpg 18 Possibly unfree File:Picture of Johnson V.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Levijustus (talk • contribs) 18:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Reply
you are right. The picture is from the website and I know this employee. How do we fix this now?

Leonard Orr's pictures
Dear Peripitus, both the the images I used in the article are publicaly available on Leonard Orr's web pages. If I get links to these pictures, would it solve the problem? Kind regards, Prajski (talk) 18:57, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Terry Bowden
Sorry about that — Preceding unsigned comment added by AuburnDee (talk • contribs) 22:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Dalling Cabinets, Anglo-Indian Vizagaptam ivory bureau cabinets, circa 1786, on ebonised and parcel gilt stands, c1810.jpg
Hi, can I enquire why this got deleted? User:Rodolph knows his stuff, and it's plausible that it was incorrectly tagged, as opposed to actually being a problem. I await your response on this, as I've found some other items from this uploader that could with careful discussion be 'rescued' as such. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC) . The image was from a Christies' (London) sale catalogue in September 2005. The cabinets are certainly old enough but whoever photographed this for Christies, or Christies themselves, holds the copyright for the image. He listed the source as "auction catalogue, Christie's King Street, London, 23.9.2005, lot 121.". Most of his photos look good, I am surprised to see someone still using a old D100 camera though ! - Peripitus (Talk) 23:52, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah. OK then... I can understand why it got deleted then, and I hope fair use was considered. Some of the items the uploader concerned takes an interest in are likely to be rare pieces. Thanks for the fast response.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:57, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't think of it at the time (non-free image of extant items) but looking at where the image was intended in Sir_John_Dalling,_1st_Baronet I think the image would have been failed when checked against WP:NFCC - Peripitus (Talk) 00:26, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

File:2nd Count grayscale oval.jpg
Reweusting an informal review on why this was felt to be out of scope? Thought it better to ask informally before starting the full process. (There may be more of these informal requests). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:33, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * - I think because the subject and painter are unidentified. The description was "scan of a nineteenth century photo of an oil painting". I've searched via tineye and not gained any more information. - Peripitus (Talk) 00:41, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

User_talk:Sfan00_IMG
Hi, being an admin you are able to see 'deleted' revisions which I can't. An informal review of items on this list would be appreicated. A number of them seem to have been moved to Commons (or were duplicated there). No objections to items on the list being stuck to help track recovery candidates.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Let's keep going :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:58, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

User_talk:Rodolph
The cover (but not the bookplate) may be acceptable, see the comments I left on the uploaders talk page. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

(Deleted Images)

 * User_talk:Rodolph

These were some ones the original uploader asked about specfically, it is claimed there was a permission, so I would suggest a careful OTRS check, if you have access. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I've also left some comments in response.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=609149507 your edit] to Southwestern Assemblies of God University may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:46, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * *Mike Evans, author, journalist, middle east commentator. cite web|url=http://jerusalemprayerteam.org/AboutDrMikeEvans.asp|title=About Dr. Mike Evans|

Courtesy Notification
User_talk:Rodolph

Although by now I hope you have the page watchlisted. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Reviewing image uploads by User:Rodolph
Thank you for your assistance and views so far.

I've asked for some wider views at WP:ANI,Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:02, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've cheipped in with a couple of suggestions. I don't want to treat him like an idiot so I've suggested he lists what areas need discussion and then we take it from there rather than deal with loads of convoluted specific examples straight from the off. Nthep (talk) 09:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Files_for_deletion/2014_May_9
The image may have deserved deletion, but it seems to me it would make sense to make sure my legitimate question was answered before doing so. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 16:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Your GAN decline of Tangascootack Creek
Hi. You declined Talk:Tangascootack Creek/GA1 some time ago and left feedback on the nomination feedback. I think it has all been acted upon, but it would be good if you could take a look and tell me what you think. Thanks. --Jakob (talk) (my editor review) 00:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * - Will do. Probably this weekend - Peripitus (Talk) 06:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've renominated it. --Jakob (talk)  20:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * - hope it does well. I must review some more there - the list in places and geography is getting rather long - Peripitus (Talk) 02:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Meander, Tasmania
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Chris Bradford image - permission granted?
Hi Peripitus, I have emailed a new permission letter from the owner for this. How do I go about having the tag removed, any advice?

File:Chris_Bradford_-_rock_musician_-_Cornwall_UK_March_2014.jpg

Thanks.

Billy900 (talk) 05:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment
Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Vasia.jpg
Dear Peripitus, this file was a scanned photograph of my own camera, cropped to show the face of the former football player. I object to the deletion of the file and ask to be reverted back to the article. Thanks Ilakast (talk) 14:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Images from pib.nic.in
Hi Though edited images from pib.nic.in are not allowed on Wikipedia but unedited ones shall have no issue, right? Because the website has the following copyright policy which can be checked here http://pib.nic.in/newsite/terms.aspx#copyright: "Material featured on this website may be reproduced free of charge and there is no need for any prior approval for using the content. The permission to reproduce this material shall not extend to any third-party material. Authorisation to reproduce such material must be obtained from the departments/copyright holders concerned. The material must be reproduced accurately and not used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context. Wherever the material is being published or issued to others, the source must be prominently acknowledged."

Replaceable fair use File:Blady Group Image.jpg
So I guess I'm not as experienced with adding images for musician's so I don't quite know what the protocol is. Why are some images used for several artists and some pages have the use of images disputed. In most cases it seems to me that the image is being uploaded by someone who did not take the photo. But where is it ok to take these images from and how do we properly source them? What would be the best way for me in editing this article to add an image of the band? Ratizi Angelou  contribs 02:21, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Then what about this image on flickr? Would simply being on the site give us the right to use it? Can't anyone at all upload media to flickr? Ratizi  Angelou  contribs 20:23, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

- That one is marked (c) All rights reserved and won't be able to be used here. It's possible there are no free images of them at the moment. - Peripitus (Talk) 05:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Snakeathon image
Are you going to delete https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:StudentsOfPACT.png as well? Sjoshi2014 (talk) 13:22, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * . No. Unless you can convince an administrator, someone else is going to delete is as replaceable fair use shortly - Peripitus (Talk) 05:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Projekt Records Ad.jpg
There was no any result of discussion. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 13:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Another 7alawa el3antbly‎ sock?
, an account created today, has added a Commons image to Alberto Del Rio which was uploaded by 7alawa el3antbly‎ (another WWE copyvio). Memo also chose to make an addition to Chokeslam which is eerily reminiscent of those made by Flikerst and Ana Xsosta. Bringing this to you because you seem to be up to speed on this case. Thanks. --VeryCrocker (talk) 18:24, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you - blocked now. I wonder when they will bore of this game ? - Peripitus (Talk) 21:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Judging by the contributions of here and on Commons, I suspect the answer is "not yet".  --VeryCrocker (talk) 17:40, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * . Endless it seems. I see that, perhaps by accident, they have uploaded a now correctly licensed free image File:Punk frankensteiner.jpg. Peripitus (Talk) 04:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Beau Coup Photos
Hi, I was the original uploader of the 3 photos on the Beau Coup page which you deleted yesterday. I was wondering why they were deleted when the copyright holder of all 3 photos emailed permission to use the pictures on the Beau Coup page back in May. Please advice.... Thank you! Mmcard59 (talk) 20:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Good articles
Hi Peripitus - I saw that you added the article Hagley, Tasmania to the Good Article nominations page, and would like to ask your help. I submitted the article Briarcliff Manor to the GAN about three months ago, with no reviews or commitments to review yet. Would you consider reviewing the article, and in turn, me reviewing the one you submitted? Thanks.-- ɱ   (talk)   20:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hagley, Tasmania
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hagley, Tasmania you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ɱ -- Ɱ (talk) 15:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Russell King.jpg
Hi there. Is the concern that we ought to be able to find a free equivalent or that it came from the BBC, a "commercial source". If it is the latter, my apologies, as I thought that that meant companies that sell images, and not a screenshot from a BBC show. Let me know and I can delete it at once. Sorry for the trouble. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)