User talk:Peripitus/Archive5

GSD Corporation
How could anything be more formalized than the Department of State publishing infomation declaring and recognization the incorporation of a new C-Corporation? As I understand Wikipedia's guidelines there exists no bias towards larger companies, or necessarily those with more press attention. Perhaps I'm mistaken about this? As soon as the State of Delaware files the paperwork, the corporation will exist as a legal entity... is it then that legal corporate entities do not qualify as being notable for an encyclopedia entry, but any number of other entities of lesser standing might?

Sorry, I've had many poor experiences with Wikipedia authorities in the past, who have often abused their authority as moderators and in flagging articles for deletion, etc. So I must ask, are there other moderators besides you who feel this way?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Commissar Mo (talk • contribs) 05:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Beltana, South Australia
I see that you were the one who added most of the references to Beltana, South Australia. It looks like you made some sort of error. What should really be there, rather than something called Aird G 1984 with links to a nonexistent section Beltanawontdie? Ntsimp (talk) 21:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Donna Upson
Hello, I'm just writing to say the result to the AfD you put on the talk page points to the first AfD (from 2005), not the last one. Could you please fix this?--Boffob (talk) 11:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit to David Judge (actor)
My original edit WAS backed up and was also signposted very clearly as "to be confirmed or denied". I can now tell you that the rumour is true, following a telephone call to Lime Pictures, makers of Hollyoaks - Bidefax 16:02, 14 July 2008 (BST)


 * Reply to: Hi Bidefax. Before adding material stating something like (x has been sacked from y) to a biography you MUST supply a source. At the other end of this article is a living person that your edit may be causing distress to so you have to back your facts up. Please read Biographies of living persons - Peripitus (Talk) 21:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Supratim's Entry
Thanks for your concern. I would have thought that the person is not important here. What is important here is the event, and the exceeding rarity of this. If I were given a choice I would like to record such events for posterity, just for their rarity and uniqueness.

The book "Anomalies and Curiosities of Medicine" by George M. Gould (http://www.amazon.com/Anomalies-and-Curiosities-of-Medicine/dp/B001B0A17U/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1216391769&sr=8-2) was compiled by Gould (and his friend Pyle), by resorting to such "single", "insignificant" events. They had all been published in separate journals and in separate years (separated by centuries!). If the authors of those single and insignificant events had chosen NOT to publish those events, such significant book would never have been produced.

Who knows after a year another similar even occurs and then another and then another, and then one could make a significant book out of it. Doctors could perhaps study those cases, to know how to deal with such cases in future. Lay people would read such books for their sheer amazing quality.

Thanks

Anil Aggrawal

Anil1956 (talk) 14:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Supratim's Entry
Alright Peripitus. If that is the way you feel. I am a medical doctor by profession, so I guess, I get excited by these kinds of news. May be I will have to put on the goggles of a non-medical man, to see it from that angle. I can not comment any more on this topic. My views of course remain unchanged. But just the same, it appears I can't change yours either. Since you sound more intelligent out of the two of us, let's go by your wish. I am anyway an old man, and may not survive long to see this entry for a long time. Regards Anil Aggrawal Anil1956 (talk) 17:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Peripitus
So... why not? You do great article work, you have clue and good judgement, you've been around for ages. Up for it? —Giggy 01:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, it lives. There's some instructions over at WP:RFA/N you should probably read through, then transclude it when you're feeling particularly brave. —Giggy 11:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Good luck! —Giggy 03:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Good on ya! :-) —Giggy 06:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Your RFA
Best of luck for your RFA --  Tinu  Cherian  - 05:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh
Good detective work =) – xeno  ( talk ) 22:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Admin congrats!
Let me be the first to give you congrats. They haven't closed your RfA yet, but it's overdue to be closed by about 20 minutes. In any case, congrats! I hope you don't get too many jokes about blocking jimbo and deleting the main page... Okiefromokla questions? 04:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well done and all the best with Anstey.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 04:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well done SatuSuro 06:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You're a sysop!
Hi,, Congratulations on Becoming a Sysop! Hey there. I'm pleased to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator! You've volunteered to do housekeeping duties that normal users sadly cannot participate in. Sysops can't do a lot of stuff: They can't delete pages just like that (except patent nonsense like "aojt9085yu8;3ou"), and they can't protect pages in an edit war they are involved in. But they can delete random junk, block anonymous vandals, delete pages listed on articles for deletion for more than 5 days (provided there's a consensus), protect pages when asked to, and keep the few protected pages that exist on Wikipedia up to date.

Almost anything you can do can be undone, but please take a look at The Administrators' how-to guide and the Administrators' reading list before you get started (although you should have read that during your candidacy ;). Take a look before experimenting with your powers. Also, please add Administrators' noticeboard to your watchlist, as there are always discussions/requests for admins there. If you have any questions drop me a message at My talk page. Have fun! =Nichalp  «Talk»=   =Nichalp   «Talk»=  06:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Congratumalations!  Gazi moff  06:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Congratulations ! you may may now delete the main page, ya seriously --  Tinu  Cherian  - 07:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Congrats on le adminship. I'm glad you took on board the advice given in my oppose and allowed me to switch to support. you may find admin dashboard useful in finding things to do with your new buttons. happy adminning =] – xeno  ( talk ) 12:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Congrats! Here's your t-shirt! Erik the Red  2 ( AVE · CAESAR ) 15:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC) [[Image:Admin_T-shirt.svg|thumb|150px|right]]

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Australia
Hi, just to let you know there's normally no need to remove debates from this page manually as in this edit. My bot generally does it every day or two, and also adds closed ones to the archive. the wub "?!"  12:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC) P.S. Congratulations on your adminship!

Deleting 7r13q account
Hi, actually, I did mean to have that page deleted. The whole account, actually. Is that not the right way to do it?

7r13q (talk) 12:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Lol, thanks. Your first tasks as admin were pretty exciting, eh? Best of luck to you!  Regards.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 7r13q (talk • contribs) 12:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Principlist
Might I ask you, what sort of asinine authority gives you the right to delete my work? Some silly "policy" you site as "G4" ? I could careless about the previous state of the article, there was not a valid reason for the page to have been deleted. Restore it at once. LFOD (talk) 01:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Jay J Armes
I got notice that the picture of Jay J Armes has been deleted, I think by you. Why? I had all the correct permissions from the photographer and subject. see: Http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=%3AImage%3AJayJArmes.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by TigerPaw2154 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:GranadaBoyScoutBand.jpg
Hello, in closing this IfD, did you properly consider the replaceability argument made towards the end of the discussion by Calliopejen? It turned out there are several free images available of exactly the same Boy Scout group in the same camp and the same year, e.g. Image:GranadaBoyScoutMemorialParade4.gif. This argument wasn't addressed by any keep voter. If you feel this does not constitute replaceability, could you please explain why? (I've re-tagged the image as rfud, but the easiest way procedurally speaking would be if you just reconsidered your closure.) Please keep in mind that NFCC#1 is mandatory and cannot be overridden by local (non-)consensus. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Fut.Perf., I did consider the replacability of this in line with NFCC#1. Unfortunately I can't verify any of thinks given at the end of the article as, from here, I cannot open any of them. Given the detail of the debate I can't see any other conclusion than keep. While it may be hyperbole Rlevse did call it "unique", an no contributor to the debate indicated a replacement image (that I was able to view). If there was another image, freely licensed, that I could see that could be used in the article then NFCC#1 would come into play. Much more problematically I find, for Wikipedia in general, is the wide range of opinions on NFCC#8. I've stayed out of the debate as I have a very hard time understanding how the images in say, this article, significantly increase understanding of an audio recording. - Peripitus (Talk) 14:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. Yes, you're right, the links as given by Calliopejen weren't functional, that threw me off myself at first. But they are the ones that Rlevse himself uploaded to commons shortly after this one, two of them are Image:GranadaBoyScoutMemorialParade4.gif and Image:ManzanarBoyScoutMemorialParade4.gif (there are a couple more on Rlevse's user page on commons:User:Rlevse/gallery, and more here and here, for example. Boy, those are even much better than the band one!) Since the fact that these existed was pointed out only at the end of the discussion, it really makes the whole previous debate moot. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S.: I uploaded the best one I could find here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Nonetheless FP, it was kept and your orphaning it and tagging it right after closure as keep is less than ideal behavior. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 13:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, is it replaceable or is it not? Don't get me started about what I think of your behaviour, Rlevse, since you were yourself the uploader of the free image and failed to mention it when you knew it existed, and since you failed to respond to the IfD once Calliopejen pointed it out. You have a lot of explaining to do here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I merely stated my opinion and let others state theirs. Unlike you, I didn't run around responging to everyone that disagreed with me in those two threads nor did I orphan an image immediately after it was kept. A far better course for you would have been to file a DRV-a process you are well aware of. You orphaned the image because you didn't like the IFD result, that's obvious. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 14:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have to jump in here re: Future Perfect's unwarranted slam against Rlevse which does not address your own misdeeds but deflects the issue onto another party. Rlevse was pointing out that you, as an admin, appeared to violate WP:OWN, as others pointed out in the deletion debate, by so hastily orphaning this image. The whole deletion debate smacks of your condescension and narrowmindedness. Look to yourself before you start blaming others.Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As does his improper close of another deletion discussion as "delete" when all three good-faith commenters recommended "keeping" with good-faith, NFCC-based rationales. I think perhaps FPaS should step back from IfD and other image-related discussions until such time as he can be more level-headed and objective in such discussions. S.  D. Jameson 14:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Given the, seemingly appropriate, change of image in the article to a free one, perhaps we have a resolution. Original can be tagged unused-fair use and non-controversially deleted in a week, via the normal process? Peripitus (Talk) 21:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I could support this, though I can envision useage of the photograph in the future, if the article is expanded to further discuss the activities of the scouts in that camp. S.  D. Jameson 22:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I've got to agree with S. Dean Jameson's comments here. Like him, I believe that the final outcome here (replacing the band image with one of Calliopejen's freely licensed images) was correct (despite my earlier "keep" vote). Also like him, I believe that Future Perfect went about it in a way that was (at the very least) unbecoming a responsible editor, much less an admin. The appropriate course of action for FP here would be to pursue a DRV or simply re-nominate the image for deletion in order to continue seeking consensus in light of Calliopejen's information. Simply unilaterally orphaning the image was not appropriate. If folks are correct that FP is showing a pattern of behavior here, and that pattern continues in the future, then the community has a problem to address.

I also agree with Peripitus's suggestion that the band image be speedied at this point, since that is an appropriate final outcome. (Heck, I'll do it myself.) But the final disposition of the image is secondary in my mind to supporting the discussion and consensus ethics of Wikipedia over individual editors going cowboy. --Ipoellet (talk) 22:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll come clean. I just added db-i5 to Image:GranadaBoyScoutBand.jpg. Then I actually used my brain and realized that I had done exactly what I had just finished banging on FP for doing - that is, short-circuiting a consensus discussion that was still under way. So I (shamefacedly) removed the speedy tag again in favor of registering my support for Peripitus's suggestion. --Ipoellet (talk) 22:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh, gotcha :-) orfud would work just fine, it's a mere neutral statement of fact. Not that these procedural details matter overly much, of course. Personally, if I may say so, I'd perhaps prefer it if Peripitus could also add an additional note to his closure marking that the image had actually turned out to be replaceable, just to have it documented. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Those two templates are redundant and need to be merged. --Ipoellet (talk) 22:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Footbo
Peripitus, isnt that the case? There were news sources and press releases referenced - I think the sources were TechCrunch and PRNewswire - both independent. What else is required? Inspiredminds (talk) 14:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Peripitus, thanks for the pointers and advice. I have edited the text a little and added some further references. I was hoping you might be able to give it a quick glance-over and let me know if it needs more work before submission. It is located in my sandbox. Thanks again Inspiredminds (talk) 07:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks again for the feedback. Have added some more independent references (there are plenty out there - but didnt want to overload the article with too many). Is it sufficient? Thanks again Inspiredminds (talk) 09:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Western isles.gif - delete and restor
The reason I restored it was that I expected a Commons image to come through, which didn't happen. Also the flag did not appear to be that of Western Isles. I was confused and out of time, so I just restored it and planned to get back to it later. It look like another admin has already deleted the image. -Thanks, Nv8200p talk 15:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

juninho photo
are you crazy the photo of juninho is not a tv photo but a real photo and i made at the stadium of lyon... stop to cancel in this year the page of juninho is continuously destroy I am the only one who have improved in better the page.... stop to destroy stop!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babboleolr (talk • contribs) 21:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

thank you for your help. --Babboleolr (talk) 10:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:CrystalCityGirlScoutsDrama.png
I'm sorry I have to bother you again about that old issue of the scouting photographs you closed at IfD the other day. I was thoroughly fed up with the issue at the time, but now (after considerable amounts of good coffee and somewhat less of glenfiddich) I've decided it is just too important to let it rest, because it sets a dangerous precedent. I've seen you making responsible and seriously considered XfD closures in the meantime, so I trust we can have a calm and intelligent discussion about this one, and I'd like to ask you for your ideas on how to proceed from here.

I'm still strongly of the opinion this image fails fair use (not just wikijargon-fairuse, but reallife-fairuse), and on re-reading the policy page, I'm struck even more strongly by just how blatantly it fails even the project rules, to an extent I really fail to understand how this could possibly ever pass debate. Just look at WP:NFC, especially point 4:


 * "An image whose subject happens to be a war, to illustrate an article on the war, unless the image has achieved iconic status as a representation of the war or is historically important in the context of the war (e.g. Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima)."

It is quite obvious that the scouting image falls in just this category: it would be ridiculous to claim it is "iconic", and there clearly is no non-trivial discussion about the image as an image in the article. The guideline (together with the other similar examples that come with it) are crystal clear on this point: an image cannot be used simply as a vehicle for illustrating encyclopedic discussion of something else that we happen to find interesting; it can only be used if it, as an image, is a subject of encyclopedic discussion in its own right. This is the essence of what all the examples reiterate. (Obviously, a trivial sentence or caption simply stating what it shows is not "discussion" in this sense.)

The reason why I'm so insistent is, debate about non-free content has shifted in a dangerous direction recently, and this decision is setting a dangerous precedent. People have become used to the idea that legal "fair use" conditions and our internal "non-free content" conditions are two different things. Okay so far. But that in turn has led to the misconception that legal fair use concerns are of no importance of all, and we only need to fulfill the letter of the NFCC checklist. People suddenly seem to believe that "fair use" as such gives us carte blanche to use whatever we like and that the whole issue is just about our voluntary self-restriction. Wrong, of course. And the wording of NFCC, if taken in isolation in this way, is vague enough that it allows ridiculously wide interpretations. Here, it has led to a reading according to which, basically, we can use anything and everything simply provided we find it interesting. Because "it's interesting" is essentially the only keep argument there was.

However, NFCC8 is not vague at all if it is read in the context of (a) the foundation mandate that non-free content must be minimized, and (b) the larger WP:NFC guideline, which is older and, in a sense, even more authoritative than the NFCC "policy" checklist; and which focusses much more on the idea of genuinely fulfilling the spirit of fair use. The idea that images must be subject, not vehicle, of encyclopedic commentary has been a very solid, longstanding consensus, and that's what the NFC page embodies. The "guideline" forms the authoritative explanation of how the "policy" needs to be interpreted, and it was only under the understanding that it would be interpreted in a spirit at least as strict as this prior practice that the "policy" was accepted as our official "exemption doctrine" by the Foundation.

A local consensus at IfD or an administrator acting on its basis in closing an IfD simply have no right to override this long-standing principle.

So, what do we do now? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Local consensus at IfD" on how to interpret NFCC does (or should) override the interpretation of one administrator when closing an IfD. There's no consensus on how to interpret #8, so consensus does hold sway, according to the closing instructions provided at IfD. S.  D. Jameson 13:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Peripitus, thank you very much for your thoughtful response, much of which I can agree with. I can respect your stance of subordinating your own opinion under that of the voters, although I still don't really think it's the right thing to do, in a case where a central policy issue is at stake. The thing I'm still uncomfortable with is the question of how to deal with the legal side. You basically say we have no way of knowing and we must wait for the lawyers to intervene (and until they do, we basically do what we want). I'm not comfortable with that. Okay, we all know that the issue is ultimately untested, because nobody bothers to sue somebody like us. But just because we can get away with it doesn't mean we're acting legally. For all I can see, fair use law is far less unclear on these issues than people believe. There are guidelines out there and well-documented opinions of professional people who deal with fair use issues in libraries, archives, universities and the like. They are all much, much more cautious than we. Our bold claim that just because we are non-profit we're always okay as long as we don't cause actual monetary loss to the other side most certainly doesn't match the understanding of the real world out there. We are really acting in self-deceit here; if we considered these things seriously, we would, even as laypeople, be compelled to come to a clear knowledge of wrongdoing. It may be true that because we're non-profit we're not a likely target of a lawsuit. But if we went by that logic, we could also freely steal every private flickr owner's images. They probably won't sue us either, will they? Thing is, it's always been our principle that we should voluntarily do what is right. Not whatever we can get away with.
 * And it most certainly isn't right to deprive that lady with the scouting images of her control over her private documents. In the particular case, I've actually been in contact with the archive to see if we can get a proper license. I'm still waiting for a response from the person most directly responsible (got a first reply from somebody else so far) - but I'm pretty sure what we'll hear from them is that they are by no means happy and contented we are claiming "fair use" on their material. Such institutions do expect people to ask permission from them – and to pay a fee for it, actually. And yes, that does apply to for-profit and non-profit publication alike.
 * Shall we wait to hear more from them, and then decide how to proceed further? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Sock Puppet Claims
Hi, I just saw that you were the one who dealt with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Matthew_K_Sharp recently. I want to thank you for that but now today myself and another editor who have constantly had to revert vandalism to these pages had sock puppet tags added to our talk page by an IP. I have to assume that it's this same person since he said I'm "clearly" a vandal in some way. I removed the tag but realize that may not have been the correct mode of action so I apologize in advance. It would be nice if someone could deal with this. DX927 (talk) 19:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Being the other man that's been labeled a sock puppet by said IP that you have tagged by User:ECW500, it would be definitely appreciated if you or someone you have contacts with to ban User:41.245.171.32. COOLRUNNER87 (talk) 19:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Chipp
Why change it until we're forced to? Timeshift (talk) 06:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough (I wasn't aware that the image had been up for deletion). Timeshift (talk) 07:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleting images
Don't delete the images that I just uploaded. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fetch dickson (talk • contribs) 05:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry Fetch but I have deleted all but the DVD/video covers. I found that all came from sources on the web and, by our term, are copyright violations. You should only upload images you own, you cannot take images from the internet and just edit/post them here - Peripitus (Talk) 05:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * How come? Claudine's photo is in my folder and I edited it by myself as well as with Piolo and Toni's. I admit Kris' and Sam's were got from commercial websites. Who are you? Are you a Filipino? Do you know anything about these celebrities?
 * Claudine's photo appeared to be from a 2008 commercial photoshoot whose copyright is owned by Sasha Manuel. I'm not Filipino and know nothing of the people in the photos at all. All I can see is someone, with the best of intentions, adding images to articles. These images, as with most found on the web, are not freely licensed. For living people Wikipedia only accepts free images, that is those uploaded by a person who took the image. Editing the image does not affect the copyright ownership - it is still owned by the person who originally took the photo - Peripitus (Talk) 06:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well how come other Filipino celebrities' photos posted here were also posted in other sites? Are you the moderator of this site? How were you able to check that those images I've uploaded were owned by somebody else? What country are you from though? I am a supporter of those personalities so its kinda annoying when those facts I'm entering here is edited or deleted.

Image:Yone Minagawa3.JPEG
Hi, since you closed the Yone Minagawa IfD, could you perhaps also take care of the Image:Yone Minagawa3.JPEG? It was uploaded as an alternative during the same debate and falls under the same copyright situation. (I'd speedy it myself, but I've so many people howling murder at everything I do these days I'd rather not...) Thanks, Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and also for the notification about that other DRV. I was aware of it but since there were three others in parallel I sort of couldn't be bothered to comment... Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

AN Notice
I started a thread to ask for a review of my decline of an unblock request after Thunderbird dropped by my talk page. The thread is here: Administrators' noticeboard/Archive248. Since you were involved, I am letting you know. – xeno  ( talk ) 13:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

uploading image
I explained, under the image, that I've drawn it, based on that image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Macedonia_greece.png. It is written clearly down there that: ''This image is a mapping derived from products of the United Nations Cartographic Section. Modified versions of UNCS maps may be used provided that the UN name and reference number does not appear on any modified version and a link to the original map is provided. Modified UN maps are to be considered in the public domain. This applies worldwide. The UN maps is an open source material. You can use them to make your own maps. You do not need our permission for that. Please be advised that the UN name and reference number should not appear on any modified map. The UN map is a UN document and cannot be modified.'' Drop me message. Thank you! --makedonas (talk) 20:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm, okay, I think I can see how he made that map on the basis of Image:Macedonia greece.png – not scanning, but semi-mechanical re-drawing over an electronic copy within the graphics software. He then added only the coloring for the mountains. And since we now have established it really is from that source map, and the source map is PD, we'd be okay. But, Makedonas, why do you want your modified map in the first place, why not just use the more professionally done original? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I must also excuse for the misunderstanding, I'll explain more clearly the sources next time. User:El Greco was very aggressive against me, that's why I didn't defend myself. I put the modified version because it has more intensive colors and more details, about the relief of the terrain, transport etc. although it isn't so professionally done like the original. thanks again! --makedonas (talk) 08:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review New Cold War
I'm curious about your decision to close the review as an endorsement. First off I don't see any provision in the policy on deletion review for a non-consensus position. Secondly I would think if there isn't a consensus on whether deletion was justified in the first place that suggests the article should be restored, not remain deleted. Also you failed to address whether the reason for closure, original research, was sufficient reasoning for deletion and in keeping with deletion policy. You also didn't even address my concern about the closing admin admitting to having dismissed basically what amounted to all arguments for keeping the original article even though they were arguing for the notability and verifiability of the subject, core criteria for keeping articles. I would like to know exactly why you made your decision.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 06:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you or Coren properly evaluted the substance of the article. While the term was used during the Cold War that was more to describe a new phase in that conflict or another aspect of it. As such the article had properly noted it had another use for a period in the Cold War and directed readers to that article. Any claim the older usage of the term impacts the article itself is illegitimate. Also original research only comes into play when the subject itself is a product of original research. However, many articles and books discuss it as a concept and idea with a clear definition. The particular areas touched on in the article are all tied together in several articles on the subject, which I pointed out, so while the article itself may have used synthesis, the subject itself was not. This argument however, is simply unaddressed in both the decision to delete and your decision. You haven't given a good reason to dismiss this argument.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 20:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you missed my point. Mentions of a New Cold War during the Cold War were accounted for by citing that particular subject as one of its other uses. The article which was deleted was about its usage post-Cold War as the article itself made clear. That post-Cold War subject was sufficiently narrow and sufficiently notable to have an article on it. The only particular notable usage of the word post-Cold War that did not deal with Russia dealt with China. It was considerably more limited as well. This is of course not considering the usage of the term Second Cold War or Cold War II to refer to the problems. At the very least the serious deterioration is a notable subject and a rename could have been in order. I've seen several articles on notable subjects get deleted because of their name and I think this is just another case of that. I believe the name is notable enough to have a subject on, just like World War III, but I do not think the name is what should be used to bring down the article.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 22:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Laarni Losala Pictures
NO, those pictures were not from the TV, they were took directly from both PWU contest. One is campus idol and the other is Lights of A Million Morning she sang while on a party. And there is not the usual icon for television networks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eduhello (talk • contribs) 10:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * With someone else, i already asked for the permission from a user named dekloy.:

Eduhello (talk) 12:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_August_28
Hi Peripitus. I was about to post on this IfD but got edit conflicted with your close. I would have made the point that as Abdul Aziz is a Pakistani name, he was quite likely a local high altitude porter hired by the expedition (colloquially he'd probably be called a Sherpa, though strictly speaking you don't find many Sherpas in Pakistan), and local porters are typically not listed as expedition members, so the fact that his name doesn't appear isn't too surprising. As for John Canivley, again he doesn't have to have been a climber - if he was along as a film-maker who didn't climb on the mountain itself he wouldn't have been on the list of climbers either, though it's still a little odd that I couldn't find his name anywhere on Google. Another possibly noteworthy observation is that he claimed one picture as his own and attributed the other to Aziz - if he just nicked them from a website why not claim to have taken them both himself. I suppose I don't really object to your close as much of this is supposition, and to err on the side of caution is probably to delete it anyway (plus it wasn't that good a picture - it could be any climber's posterior on any mountain), but wouldn't have gone as far as to conclude the attribution was bogus, just uncertain - maybe I could persuade you to rephrase the reasoning? Best, Iain99Balderdash and piffle 13:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Peripitus, I don't know exactly how the image deletion process works, but it seems to me that when images are being proposed for deletion, there ought to be a courtesy note placed on the talk pages of the effected articles so that involved editors can participate in the discussion. Is there any sort of appeals process? --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello, here's my two cents about the deletion. The fact that the website you mentioned doesn't contain the expedition is not a prove that there hasn't been such an expedition. K2climb.net states on this site: "Note: List is preliminary and subject to changes" and "Did we forget you or your friends? Mail us...".  sorry, I just saw that k2climbs listed that expedition (I didn't see anything about "daring to dream" film) and Carl Drew et. al are mentioned. but the rest of my points is still usable somehow: The absence of the name johncanivley is not a prove either . Since when do usernames have to be a person's real name? And concerning Mr. Abdul Aziz: Well, I found this by using google: Homepage of the 2006 K2 expedition just scroll down to the article update from Carl & Kurt of July 18, 2006 and you will find out that Abdul Aziz is a high altitude porter (HAP) who was responsible for carrying the expedition's filming equipment. But HAPs usually do not bring their own camera. So it's most certainly as I guessed in the first place: Mr. Aziz took the camera on the mountain and pictured Carl Dew while climbing that ominous ladder. Johncanivley, the camera-owner's WP-username (maybe Carl Dew himself - but there's really no evidence for that guess...) uploaded it to WP and included it into the article. Iain99 might be right by stating that the picture doesn't really tell which mountain it is, but regarding the information i just found it seems rather authentic. So if you were assuming good faith in the first place you might react positively concerning my request for restoring the picture. Thanksalot. --Rupert Pupkin (talk) 14:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * @Marvin Diode: The user who proposed deletion unfortunately forgot to put a note on the K2-talkpage. Deletion review ask you this before appealing on that page: 1. Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look. So that's what I tried here... --Rupert Pupkin (talk) 14:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the confusion, but I was asking a more general question. I am not involved in the discussion over K2. There were some other images about which I was concerned. I'll start a new section. --Marvin Diode (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the extra detective work Rupert. The fact that Aziz was a hired porter, particularly one involved with making a documentary, also means it's quite likely that someone other than him would own the copyright to a picture he took, regardless of the ownership of the camera. It seems quite plausible that John Canivley was a non-climber involved in making the film, which also employed Aziz. So while we can't know for certain that the uploader is indeed the copyright holder, the same is true of every photograph uploaded as "GFDL-self"; there doesn't seem to be a strong reason to doubt the validity of this one in particular, and the fact that the uploader went out of his way to credit the actual photographer is a reason to assume good faith. Peripitus, would you be willing to reconsider your close?
 * (incidentally Rupert, I didn't mean to imply that I doubt that the picture was actually taken on K2 - just that as a photo of a fairly nondescript piece of rock it's of limited use for showing the particular characteristics of that mountain. Still, it's better than nothing) Iain99Balderdash and piffle 20:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think I got that right (but I wanted to avoid a response like, well if the picture is not needed, why should it be restored? ;-). But I actually like that picture, because it shows some serious climbing action. And it's good for me that I can be pretty sure that it depicts what it claims to (the right place). But for other viewers its indeed just rocks, some ropes, a ladder and a climber; could be anywhere in the alps, andes or wherever......--Rupert Pupkin (talk) 09:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Folks you have convinced me and I've undeleted the image and added back to the K2 article. The above scenarios sound very beliveable...thanks for taking the time on this - Peripitus (Talk) 21:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks Peripitus! Iain99Balderdash and piffle 21:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

From me too: Thank you! --Rupert Pupkin (talk) 09:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:ZionismCampaigner.jpg
I was unaware that this image had been proposed for deletion. I think that it is extremely helpful to the article Views of Lyndon LaRouche, because one of the debates between LaRouche and his critics is over whether opposition to Zionism is a form of Anti-semitism. The magazine cover, which dates from the time of this debate, makes LaRouche's view that "Zionism is not Judaism" very clear, and I believe this is helpful because otherwise we are in dangerous waters with respect to BLP.

I'd like to add that I have seen the argument made before, I believe by the same editor (User:Cumulus Clouds,) that images who were uploaded by an editor who was subsequently banned must be deleted. I know of no Wikipedia policy which supports this view. Image uploads, like edits, should be evaluated on their own terms as to whether they are useful to the project. Therefore I request that the image be undeleted and restored, pending further discussion.

Finally, I'd like to return to my question in the previous section: when an image is being proposed for deletion, is there no mechanism whereby editors of the effected articles can be informed, so that they may participate in the discussion? --Marvin Diode (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The uploader was a sockpuppet of indefinitely banned . Thus he was banned before he uploaded the images, not after. Technically, that would have been reason enough to speedy delete the images. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Also looking at the image, and the article it was on I think that it would clearly fall into unacceptable use under the normal interpretation of NFC (images item 8) - "A magazine cover, to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover. However, if the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article, and if the cover does not have its own article, it may be appropriate.". While a fair-use argument could be made for including the magazine cover in an article on the magazine itself (Campaigner) there is no sourced commentary of the magazine cover in the article - just discussion of the subjects covered in the magazine. This really means that the use of the image is just decorative and would also probably not meet consensus on passing WP:NFCC. - Peripitus (Talk) 00:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. --Marvin Diode (talk) 16:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Footbo
An article that you have been involved in editing, Footbo, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Footbo. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?

Happy Editing! &mdash;  18:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Please restore Image:Sylvester Braithwaite.jpg
Could you please restore Image:Sylvester Braithwaite.jpg? Another editor, who is probably the uploader, has written at  (rather than Image_talk:Sylvester Braithwaite.jpg)
 * I own the copyright to the material and sent an email to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org.
 * the image is on my flickr account: http://www.flickr.com/photos/noname/152627788/in/photostream/ Released under creative commons Attribution 2.0 Generic

--Eastmain (talk) 20:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

References & Sources
Can we use wikipedia as a reference? Or youtube perhaps?Eduhello (talk) 05:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of [[Image:DCS promo front.jpg]]
Hi. You deleted earlier today, following its IFD nomination on. The nominator said it was a replacable image of a building, however, this is false. The image is o Degrassi Community School, a fictional school in Degrassi: The Next Generation. The producers, Epitome Pictures, do not use a real school; it is simply a facade on their backlot which is not open to the public. While working on getting a number of Degrassi articles to FA status, I asked the production company in July if they would be willing to supply any free-to-use images but unfortunately they told me that they couldn't at this time. I was hoping you would be willing to reconsider your deletion since there is no replaceable image, and it really isn't a building. Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Lt Clayton.JPG
Sorry Peripitus, but this closure I really can't accept. You know I usually respect your judgment, but here, for me, it's an absolutely straightforward case of a policy that is crystal clear and can't be overridden by consensus. Can you see any merit in the arguments that this case met some accepted exemption of the no-living-persons rule? I just can't. DRV? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for closing the IFD, we'll take the comments on board and continue to improve the article. Ideally we'll continue looking for a free image. Regards, Justin talk 12:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the reply – not sure if you've seen the more general discussion on WT:NFC which is related to it (and where I'd be infinitely glad if it didn't all remain between Justin and me, because I'm sure it's tiresome for both of us.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, please do, I'd be very interested to hear your views. Justin talk 12:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, thanks, if you'd be willing to initiate DRV yourself, that would certainly be best. I mean, alternatively, you could of course also just revert your closure and re-list it for somebody else to close? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:1829.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:1829.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Question
Hi, just had a quick question. Is someone allowed to just change the importance level of a page without some sort of consensus being reached? RD Reynolds was put down to low from mid by a user, the same user who nominated the article for deletion a month after a nomination had happened and the consensus was keep. It almost seems like he's gunning for this page for some reason even a year later. I wasn't really sure who to ask this but since you dealt with this page once already I figured you would be a good place to start. DX927 (talk) 21:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Shawn Michaels peer review
Hi Peripitus, listen, I want to ask a favor. I wanted your input/feedback on Shawn Michaels' article, since I'm trying to aim to Feature Article status and I want to know what needs to be done first. If you have time, I would appreciate your comments a lot. :) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank for taking the time to give some feedback to Shawn Michaels' article, I appreciate it a whole lot. Also, I have responded to your queries at the peer review. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review
Hey Peripitus, is there any chance that you can comment on the peer review for Armageddon (2006). I'd really appreciate it. Thanks!  iMa tth ew (talk) 19:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Footbo
The article was updated, the issues were addressed. There were more links to independent and notable sites. So why did you delete it? Inspiredminds (talk) 08:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, but wow. I have seen wikipedia pages which offend your rules more than Footbo but yet you just dont like it do you?

In response to your comments:

You are assuming links are not reliable without making an effort to investigate. Just because someone has written a blog, it doesnt mean the blog is unreliable. Yes, i accept, a blog does not have the same credibility as established media. So there is an article from a major swiss newspaper, and Footbo is mentioned in The Express (A MAJOR newspaper in England) as well as on Setanta (now a MAJOR player in the football world). How much more relevant can you get? I could understand your issues with the previous version, at a stretch. But the latest version dealt with those issues. You wanted independent sources that were verifiable, you got major daily newspapers. So who exactly is supposed to talk about the site and the project it is endeavouring in before you, Peripitus, take note? Inspiredminds (talk) 09:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:BBCRMAcrobat.png
If you are going to delete this image, please give a formal reasoned close to.

I believe that I answered all the points made for the deletion of this image, and set out a solid case for why it passes WP:NFCC, and the !votes to remove it were based on false presumptions.

I would ask you to review this argument again, and preferably undelete the image.

Failing that, please supply a formal reasoned close, so that I can consider whether to proceed to DRV. Jheald (talk) 10:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:KOE US Embassy Athens 2006.jpg
Just FYI, I've undeleted this one, as I've actually got the license confirmed after all, supposing you wouldn't object. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

[[Image:Riva prema jugu.jpg]]
Hi. You've deleted this one  for what reason? Eleassar proposed it for deletion with very shaky argumentation. The image has also a credit, which hampers its free use - what does this mean? What precisely? It could easily be replaced with a better one - Eleassar proposed it for deletion but never contributed to the pages this image was linked to. He/she doesn't care about replacing it. I'm not author nor uploader of that image (which had permission of an author for free use), but I've used it on my user page and I like that photo. It seems it was little childish Eleassar's sabotage of my user page User:Zenanarh after my contribution in discussion where I was his/her opponent. Please can you consider possible undeletion of it? Zenanarh (talk) 06:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Blog Reference
What if the refernce is something like this:

This is a blog reference but can we make an exception out of this? After all the picture is taken from the show or an affiliate of the show itself.Happy Editing! (talk) 10:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Alan Shearer poster
I note your recent close of this at IFD. Your statement seems too much about your own views of the matter. My understanding is that the closer's role is to summarise the consensus of the discussion. Since there appears to have been no consensus, the close should have reflected this. Please reconsider. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Listed at DRV, see below. MickMacNee (talk) 14:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Image:AlanShearerBanner.jpg
An editor has asked for a of Image:AlanShearerBanner.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. MickMacNee (talk) 14:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete Breedon
You're welcome to delete this picture of a lock up in Breedon on the Hill (UK). It's stood there for over 200 years and I took the photo in 2006. If you feel it's not worth being on Wiki that's fine, I get to enjoy it's beauty every time I cycle past and don't need to see it on Wiki. Good luck, cheers Robdav69 (talk) 20:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC) his is a photograph that was clicked by our family. We own this photograph of this temple. This is incidentally publised in some magazine. Request your permission to retain this photograph.Kbala1055 (talk) 04:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

lord viswantha temple.jpg
This is our village temple and the photograph lends credence to the events associated with the saint in this temple. The photographs were taken by our family who regularly visit this village. This is one such photo taken by photographer who was arranged by our family. We have an album of such photographs owned by us only. Incidentally a magazine has taken some photos with our permission and printed. What are the proofs that are required ? Kbala1055 (talk) 01:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The user -Ravichandar84 has also edited this wiki article and retained this image. This has been done in good faith. You can also discus with him reg this. Kbala1055 (talk) 16:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbala1055 (talk • contribs)

I will try to scan and upload the photo itself. Thanks Kbala1055 (talk) 02:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I have uploaded the image scanned in the discussion page - can I upload this main article?Kbala1055 (talk) 01:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I have uploaded the image scanned in the discussion page of the article on Sachidananda bharathi-I- I am going to upload this scanned photograph of mine in the main article. If you have any objections, let me know. Kbala1055 (talk) 11:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Heinrich_Himmler_and_Gudrun_Burwitz.jpg
After talking with the uploader, I restored this image. The image was removed from the Heinrich Himmler article and made more relevant in the Gudrun Burwitz article. Does current use of the image meet your concerns expressed at ? -Thanks, Nv8200p talk 15:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Companions EP vinyl cover.jpg close
Can I invite you to reconsider your recent close of the Companions EP vinyl cover.jpg IfD.

The role of the closing admin is to weigh the balance of views expressed on the policy issues in the debate, not to impose their own personal view. Can I put it to you that on that basis the appropriate close would have been no consensus. Even of those most committed to deletion,
 * User:Papa November wrote: "It seems that there is no strong consensus" ,
 * User:Masem wrote: "the responses on this or that side are about equal" ,
 * even User:Hammersoft had written: "I have diminishing hope that it will be deleted... It's 50-50, right down the middle.",.

Turning to the specific NFCC points.
 * NFCC #1. The only person I think to take the view that generic images of actors/actresses could replace images of characters was Hammersoft.  It is not a view we accept anywhere else on Wikipedia, and it is hard to see how an image of the actress with a completely different hairstyle would help a reader better recognise the character or better understand how the character was presented.  This view of Hammersoft's clearly did not have consensus.
 * NFCC #8. Did the image specifically help readers' understanding of the topic?  The view of many, many respondents was: Yes, it did -- it helped readers recognise who the article was talking about, since faces are often much more memorable than tv characters' names.  And these were not just minor flotsam and jetsam - these were the only regular cast, and they each carried the show for whole seasons.  In particular, if the reader could remember the face but not the name, where would they go, rather than them having to trawl through 38 different articles?  The natural page was this one, to see whether there was something here to jog their memory.
 * The closing notice dismisses this on the grounds that the image was only a "navigational aid". But one has to distinguish navigational aids which do help reader understanding from those which don't.  In this case, it would have; without it readers won't get to the understanding they would have had.

Finally, you suggest that allowing this image would open the floodgates to a "vast range of other similar collages". I don't think that that is very likely. The advice at WP:NFC continues to be useful on reduce the fair-use take, particularly in its recommendation to concentrate only on major characters, and to prefer group shots. There were particular reasons why that advice could not be applied here - these were all major characters; and "season group shots" couldn't encompass them, through the very nature of the show.
 * NFCC #3. Minimal use.  Both in law and in policy, no more must be taken than justified to achieve the claimed use. (And the claimed use must be considered sufficiently justifiable). The closing notice calls the image "by any standards grossly excessive".  But there clearly was no consensus on that point.  Why not?  I think because the close fails to credit how much the collage creators have done to reduce their copyright taking.  This is no flaunted gratuitous parade of thirty-eight different 300x300 images into a strip 300x11400 long, dominating the article.  Instead the creators have gone to pains to crop and shrink the images, until the whole thing is only 500x800 - no more than needed.  That's why so many editors (I think) viewed it as restrained, justified and appropriate -- a good example of WP being responsible in its use of fair-use material.

I respect that you have given your honest view on the various NFCC questions. But I don't think you have reflected the actual balance of the views expressed in the IfD -- which even the most ardent proponents of deletion seem to have thought was heading for "no consensus".

Can I therefore respectfully ask you to reconsider? Jheald (talk) 15:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Jheald, you're stating my position as something that it is not. I do not believe there was no consensus. I believe there was strong consensus with regards to policy to delete the image. Yes, I said right down the middle, with respect to numbers. Consensus is not numbers. You cite this diff as from me supporting your position, but if you read the last paragraph it's clear that I do not. Peripitus, your close was accurate and spot on. Bravo! Deletions must be taken from the view of policy, not from the view of what the vote count is. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

My reading of this - based on the user's participating is
 * Delete arguments summarised
 * Papa November - Delete based on a lack of credit sources and publication dates, Missing fair-use rationale for each of the 38 images, Sees no significant difference between 38 images in a collage and 38 individual images
 * Hammersoft - Basically agrees with the nomination statement but additionally (amongst other things) shows that the images are not all from on-wiki sources and violate Wikipedia:NFC#Non-free_image_use_in_list_articles #4.
 * Baseball bugs - an "is useful" argument which I discounted
 * Black Kite - Blatantly violates one of the sites core principles. Fails NFCC#3A and is a copyright violation in not crediting the original sources
 * Masem - fails 3a in that each article has an image and that this one is being used for decorative purposes
 * Neutral Homer - fails NFCC as it is exessive use (NFCC#3a)
 * Masem - Argues that the image violates NFCC#3a as it not allowed in lists
 * Worm - Agrees with Masem - states that there is no argument about why all of the images should be kept
 * Suntag - States that as there are no sources discussion our collage picture it fails NFCC#8
 * Protonk - Not minimal usage (NFCC#3a), and fails NFCC#8 - effectively a gallery of non-free images
 * Fish&Karate - Meets fair use but fails to address the deletion arguments
 * pd_Thor - Fails NFCC#1 as the actors are still photgraphable (and some fair-use already exist), Fails NFCC#3, Fails NFCC#8 and NFCC#10a
 * Edgeopedia - Fails NFCC#10a (attribution) at least
 * HiDrNick - Agrees with Hammersoft's argument on
 * Comment. I think it is misleading to place Baseball bugs, Fish&Karate, and Edgepedia in this column, as on the key issue of whether in principle they thought this image was reasonable per NFCC#8 and NFCC#3, they all took the view that it was, even if Edgepedia thought there could be some clean-up in sub-image choice and description. Jheald (talk) 11:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

By a nose count the deletion arguments are ahead - though this is not a criteria I used in assessing this. On a policy basis there is little merit to the keep arguments. Almost all of the them fail to even argue HOW the image meets the NFCC requirements and most of them should be (and where) discounted from the assessment. The issue that was not addressed, satisfactorily, by any of those on the keep side is how this collage differs from 38 images separately but displayed via CSS, a simple gallery of images and a separate image against each companion. Where these images in a gallery or 38 separate ones used in the same article there would be little debate before removing them from the article. Using 38 copyright images to make a pretty navigation aid is far outside what is allowed by the NFCC rules.
 * Keep arguments summarised
 * SoWhy - allows the user some utility - argues that the images convey significant information but does not state how this is the case
 * Edokter - Claims that the source is identified (which it is in general terms but not in specific ones)
 * Coren - Says "It's encyclopedic, it's fair use, it's illustrative and it's a reasonable navigational aid." - the first is probable, the second assertion is not backed up and the last two do not address the NFCC requirements
 * Ckatz - keep but without saying why this image meets the NFCC requirements.
 * MickMacNee - Keep but with no reference to why this image is allowed under the NFC and NFCC rules.
 * weebiloobil - Keep but with no reference to why this image is allowed under the NFC and NFCC rules.
 * Ned Scott keep but with no reference to policies
 * Hobit - A not-strong argument without conclusion on whether the image meets NFCC requirements
 * Jheald - Argues that the image meets NFCC#8 by largely arguing that it is useful for readers.

That it is a useful navigation aid is not the point here. The point is that to use copyright images we have to prove to ourselves that they meet the strict requirements that we have set for such images. Where copyright images are used and we claim fair-use the rules are rightly strict on what we do and do not allow. The argument that NFCC#8 is satisfied as it lets the reader identify the subject is not one that gets much traction here. The logical conclusion to this NFCC#8 argument is and absurd proliferation of copyright images in direct contravention of the "Free Encyclopedia" bit - Peripitus (Talk) 04:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you are wrong. You claim that this purpose is "not one that gets much traction here", but cite nothing to support that view.  The encyclopedic value of being able to identify cast members is recognised for example in the "Non-free image use in list articles", which encourages users to upload a group cast shot.  Now this is (arguably) not a list article, and group cast shots are not possible; but the notion that such identification is in principle valuable remains.  To be able to recognise who the article is talking about, and/or to be able to recognise in the article a remembered face from the series does in either case help the reader leave the article with a better understanding.


 * Your claim of an "absurd proliferation" I think is overstated. Any proliferation would at most only be to other articles where the reader would also leave the article with a better understanding; and, as I said further up, I don't think there are many articles that the circumstances that are relevant here would translate to.  Our priority is the free content we write, but we also recognise the value of fair use material towards our vision of making the sum of human knowledge available. (cf WP:Signpost a few weeks ago).


 * We're not trying to chase ideological purity for its own sake here, rather we're trying to create something which is useful to the world. Easy reusability is important because it is useful.  The bottom line here is that we have an image which is valuable to the 23,000 users a month who saw it; which is not replaceable; and which is legal, both for us, and for our verbatim downstream commercial reusers.  Any other reusers could easily remove it, but we leave them the choice.  That's the balance that underlies WP:NFC.


 * I strongly believe that the usage here does comply with NFCC #8; and that the cropping, shrinking and consolidation significantly reduces the fair use taking (as the law would recognise). Removing this image is going to degrade this article for 23,000 readers a month; and I can't see anybody in the whole world that it is going to help.  Jheald (talk) 11:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we are never going to get to an agreement point here. You obviously want the image included and I firmly believe that it does not, and cannot meet the enwiki fair-use rules. I can't see the point in responding to all of the points you have raised as we are clearly not going to end up on the same page. I will ask you on one point (NFCC#8) ..... HOW does this image significantly increase reader's understanding of the topic "Companions of Doctor Who" ? HOW did removal significantly degrade the same reader's understanding ? - Peripitus (Talk) 23:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Fr.John.jpg
Please restore the image Image:Fr.John.jpg. Why did you delete? The decision of discussion was keep. --Jacob.jose (talk) 04:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

restored image
That's curious. When I try to view it, the image still seems corrupted and when I view at full resolution I get the message "The image “http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ed/Metrolink_3a_In-Car_Diagram_V4_new.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors." Oh well, that's the way it goes sometimes, I guess. -Regards Nv8200p talk 22:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Marble Hill
Sorry for the slow edit warring. I was following WP:DNFTT and trying to leave a day or two between reverts. Surely by WP:BRD the random, incomprehensible rundown of the "negatived" Marble Hill Protection Bill should stay out until Mifren can demonstrate any sort of notability or relevance? --Yeti Hunter (talk) 08:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you watching this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Marble_Hill,_South_Australia    Can you work out what he's saying? I can't. I can barely even follow the sentence structure. How can I set up a strawman argument if he doesn't even make one? It's just a list of random Mifren grievances.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 14:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Isaac Isaacs is now ACOTF
Hi. I have finally rolled over the WP:ACOTF for yesterday. The new collaboration is Isaac Isaacs, which you voted for. Please help to improve it in any way you can. Thanks. --Scott Davis Talk 12:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you very much for your support in my RfA, which closed as successful a few hours ago. The admin reading list makes clear there's a million foolish errors to avoid, so feel free to stop by with any advice or gentle pushing in the right direction if I make any silly mistakes along the way. Euryalus (talk) 11:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Deleted Pics
Greetings. I would like to ask, if a pic is from a public domain with no known locks from right-clicking doesn't it count as fair use as it is easily accesible to all?--Rcmtiongson (talk) 06:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Michael Crichton
Hi just a friendly word. Michael Crichton is dead. Didn't you know? Count Blofeld 12:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I was shocked too. He wasn't much older than my father. Only 66. Perhaps being that tall had a damaging effect on his body, does seem very young for somebody who otherwise looked healthy. Count Blofeld 20:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Tasos90 Sockpuppet
Hi Peripitus. I think you've followed this sock puppet vaguely (I pretty sure you blocked at least one of the socks). Anyway, per this reasoning on my talk page, it seems that User:Tasos90/User:Lav90 has started up again using this account despite the numerous warnings and suggestions to request unblocking through the unblock template. What's the best way to solve this? Mvjs Talking  10:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * He's now back as Briz18 trying to add as paragraph previously added by one of this other sock puppets. I've tagged the user page as a possible sockpuppet waiting for administrator intervention. Mvjs  Talking  01:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I am guessing, but it may be worth doing a check user on this one, that this is Tasos90 again. Same ISP as before, editing the Brisbane page again. Mvjs  Talking  08:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's the same range as the previous IP he used, which was also in the 211.31.*.* range and was caught editing the Crime in Brisbane article with the similar IP before getting banned again with the sockpuppet Sanfran0212. So, I'm going to be a bit bold here and revert this latest IP's edits, since some of the edits are so obvious by adding information without references. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 09:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * He's started uploading photos to Commons again, using a different username. He's then adding them to Brisbane Airport using the aforementioned IP. I guess he must think that Commons is off Wikipedia's radar. Mvjs  Talking  00:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Pealing crew.JPG
I request you to restore Image:Pealing crew.JPG. User:Angusmclellan has raised a question about its copyright status at Commons:Help desk and its well nigh possible that the image is in public domain. He has restored the deleted image as we are investigating its copyright status. Hence, I request you to restore the image until we are able to confirm its status- Ravichandar My coffee shop 04:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for helping me identifying the copyright status of this image. :-) - Ravichandar My coffee shop 10:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Peripitus,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Nelumno nucifera open flower - botanic garden adelaide2.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on November 28, 2008. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2008-11-28.  howcheng  {chat} 21:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Aria (singer)
Yes, I did not provide this valid permission. Please tell me what that looks like? At this point, I had valid verbal permission from manager, Merillee Johnson. If I need to email someone with an permission email, please tell me where to send it to. Thanks.

Image:Amin_hayayee.jpg
Hello Peripitus, An image uploaded by me is listed in possibly unfree images list. I should inform you that the source website has given me permission to use it on Wikipedia. The permission is given by an e-mail. Please tell me how can I inform Wikimedia of this permission. Do I need to ask the source website to contact Wikimedia? Or do I need to forward the permission e-mail to you? Regards. Haghshenas m a (talk) 15:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Eight Week Rule
ISo who appointed you God?

the photo that i uploaded is entirely my own creation.it may be an accident that the same photo of much larger size came in the website.however,i haven't done any mistake.i was also present at the function and the image is my own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harikumarjm (talk • contribs) 13:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Requested revert: Muhammad and slavery
This version of the article is the correct one. Some people who dont like the title of the page want it to be a redirect so it disappears from this website when it contains completely different material. I would be grateful if you can revert to that version. thanks. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 13:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I know that sock puppets email and emailed him to not do what he was doing. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 22:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

200 GA drive for WP:AUS
Hi there Peripitus. Grahamec gave me your name as a recent producer of a Australian GA. Well, we're within striking distance of 200 GAs at the moment and we decided to have a go at getting to 200 by the end of the year or Australia Day, same as the 100 drive last year. Hope to see you there at WP:AWNB/A and WP:AWNB !  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 05:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you going to try Anstey Hill for FA?  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 05:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Harikumarjm (talk • contribs) 01:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I'M SORRY
I ADMIT THE FACT THOSE IMAGE WAS COPIED FROM ANOTHER WEBSITE. NOT ONLY BUT ALL MY CONTRIBUTIONS ARE COPIED FROM ANOTHER WESITES INCLUDING THE ARTICLE 'DIANDRA SOARES' WHICH WAS CREATED BY MYSELF IS A XEROX OF ANOTHER WEBSITE

DELETE THEM ALL PLEASE

I AM SORRY —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harikumarjm (talk • contribs) 01:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Tasos90's back
Hi Peripitus. Tasos90 is back as SFO1990 after a short hiatus; identifiable by Brisbane-centric edits, 90 suffix on username and his so-called Californian connection. I'm sure he'll eventually learn. Mvjs Talking  05:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I suspect he's also back again as, as this user's edits to Tourism in Brisbane is suspect, changing it back to sound like a tourism advertisement. Not to mention unexplained multiple changes to Brisbane.  I've flagged the account as a possible sockpuppet. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 12:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Update. The mentioned user uploaded YET another copyvio, I personally think its obvious that it's HIM. . --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 12:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Australia newsletter,December 2008
This newsletter was delivered by TinucherianBot (talk) 06:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Little help?
Hi, do you mind looking through User:EugeSer 14's uploads? Most, if not all, appear to be copyrighted album covers that he claims he created himself. &raquo; \ / (⁂ | ※) 08:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

on Houshang Golshiri's photograph
Could you please restore the photograph? Mr Golshiri has died in 2000 and the photograph qualifies to be there on account of its subject being dead (there is a special copyright tag for this category of people - I just used that copyright statement as a temporary measure, in order to go and do something before returning and using the right copyright statement). I wish that editors decided to be more constructive and proactive; knowing that the man has long since died, you could have taken the initiative and adjusted the copyright statement, rather than just deleting the photograph (I have never understood the fun of contributing to the entropy of this world). It is the most frustrating experience to be constantly fighting on behalf of the dead people, caring that they do not become faceless on account of the misunderstanding on the part of some editors (such as you) that the rest of the world is out on abuse of other people's rights and copyrights. --BF 12:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Those so-called free images are also free of value, i.e. worthless (one is damaged - not to mention that the smoke of cigarette totally covers Golshiri's face - and the other does not show Golshiri's face at all), not worthy of Golshiri &mdash; you may not know Golshiri, but he was one of the iconic figures of his generation. Also, the specific copyright statement covers all sorts of photographs. Further, it would be very welcome to me if you resisted the temptation to lecture me; I am not on Wikipedia to be told what I "need to do", even though I have no doubt that you mean well (it is just a question of age - I stand with my foot in my grave, so feel indignant by getting lectures from all and sundry - specifically from total strangers). Please kindly restore the original photograph. I shall later ask User:Stifle to pronounce his judgement on it; if he decides that it should go, it will go. Kind regards, --BF 13:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)



Image:Analeigh09.jpg
Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia.

This image was not illegally copied from http://www.robertdahey.com. I spoke to Robert Dahey on the phone twice and recivied an email from him giving permission to use this image and one of Chantal Jones. I sent that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. If you looked on my talk page you would have sheen that I stated this in reply to SKS2K6 RevDan (talk) 13:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

My DRV
Per your request, I have uploaded three original images. .--98.213.141.241 (talk) 21:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Image:Lumet PR Dartmouth.jpg
An editor has asked for a of Image:Lumet PR Dartmouth.jpg. 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. Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Image:Roubini1.jpg
An editor has asked for a of Image:Roubini1.jpg. 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. Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Move request from Rasho Nesterovič to Radoslav Nesterović
Dear Peripitus,

I am requesting that Wikipedia change the title of the basketball player Rasho Nesterovič to Radoslav Nesterović (or even Rasho Nesterović). The correct accent mark that needs to be used for Rasho's last name is ć and not č as Rasho is Serbian and is only born in Slovenia. Serbians use the letter ć but since Slovenians do not have this letter in their alphabet and only have the letter č, they use the latter. On the back of Rasho's jersey for the Slovenian national basketball team, the letter ć was used (picture: http://i35.tinypic.com/21oo32v.jpg). They used that letter as that is his original, correct, birth name. The title of his wiki-article is misspelled and it won't let me change it. The title should be Radoslav Nesterović as Rasho is only his nickname. For example, the Stojaković article is Predrag Stojaković and not Peja Stojaković. In an interview with the April 2008 edition of Mi Magazin, Rasho clearly states the following:

"I'm born in Ljubljana, however both my mother and father are Serbs, and I'm a Serb from Slovenia."

"I grew up in Slovenia, but I'm a Serb, because I grew up as a Serb."

PS.

I hope I didn't annoy you with all these edits. Please get back to me ASAP.

I got a message regarding this issue from the user 8-Hype:


 * Alright, then go ahead and change it in all the templates and in the article itself, and move the page to the proper name. If somebody asks, link to this talk page. ● 8 ~ Hype  @ 16:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Sincerely,

Tempo21 (talk)