User talk:Peripitus/Archive6

Castle Oliver/mygodfrey
Hi, the reason for the various cameras is that I owned Castle Oliver until 2006. 2 of the cameras were mine at the time, 1 was my wife's, then some pics were taken by friends visiting who gave us many, many shots. I can't possibly remember who took every shot! I have subsequently visited the castle several times between 2006 and now and continue to take photos. None that I've used on wikipedia are taken from any other source, eg web, collections, libraries, etc.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mygodfrey (talk • contribs) 08:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

CarloHi
Hi Since you recently blocked User User:CarloHi and deleted his copyright violations: he is back, and has re-uploaded File:Sequim.jpg and File:Sequim1.jpg. Cheers, and Happy New Year, Amalthea  00:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Original author
I'm the original author as that is my website. Please, I'm sorry for all these edits that have been labeled as violations but trust they are not.

Tempo21 (talk) 10:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Michael Goodliffe portrait
You deleted the picture of Michael Goodliffe which I orginally uploaded and entered into his page on Wikipedia. This is a picture of my father. It is a photo commissioned and paid for by me with the consent of the estate of the artist. I have now restored it and should be grateful if you would leave it there please. Jonathan Goodliffe Jgoodliffe (talk) 00:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Charles Whitman Page - Connelly Image removal
I take issue with your removal the Connelly.jpg on the Whitman page. As Wildhartlivie noted on the idf page, it was never notified as being up for deletion, so no one knew. Do you just willy nilly according to your interpretations and dismiss input from other Wikipedians? I'll re-post the image again - this time if you have an issue, place the proper notification, or you will be reported to the appropriate committee! Victor9876 (talk) 06:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

IFD for File:Don't Love You (alternate cover).jpg
You seem to have closed this IFD as delete but haven't deleted the image. I'd do it myself, but would prefer to have absolute probity on the matter as I nominated it. Stifle (talk) 11:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Re image uploads by User:Manutdglory
I noticed in a brief search that File:CrystalCathedralTower.jpg was copied from where clearly the user Manutdglory is not the creator or owner of the image nor was it released to the public domain. You may find, and perhaps  relevant in evaluating this user's ongoing behavior issues with respect to Wikipedia policies. Mike Doughney (talk) 15:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Jumping in, I've been clearing out many of Manutdglory's invalidly licensed images. -- Zim Zala Bim talk  22:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Chemtoolbox Page - Asking for unprotection
I would like to create the Chemtoolbox page. I wouod like to know what are the conditions for you to remove the protection. Its french counterpart (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtoolbox) already exists since 2 months now and I would like to creat the english one. Julnicolas (talk) 20:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for File:Hlawvid.jpg
An editor has asked for a of File:Hlawvid.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. andi064 T. C 07:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Battle Casualties of WW2
This is a new article dealing with combat casualties of individual battles, not gross totals. Please do not redirect Thanks--Woogie10w (talk) 13:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problems with File:Лолита Милявская.jpg
If the picture is copyrighted, then why is it on the Russian version of Wikipedia? Lolita (Russian) Leor Natanov (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Castle Hotel, Halton
Saved; thanks for your prompt action. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

My Life Would Suck Without You (Kelly Clarkson single)
I draw your attention to this AIV report. He continued to edit-war the CSD tags after he knowingly recreated this article again, and he was at final warning for it.&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like Blueboy96 got it.&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problems with File:Balakrishna1.jpg
Hi peripitus,

I'm sorry, I misunderstood. All of the pictures that I uploaded into Wiki are from other websites. please delete them all. Thank you --Sasikiran (talk) 06:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * can you tell me how I can upload a movie poster onto wikipedia with out violating any copy rights? Because last time when I uploaded some pictures they were removed saying that they violate the copyright rules. Is it okay to use this image from this website?,   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasikiran 10 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I wanted to add this poster to the article about that movie  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasikiran 10 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you.. My other question is with the pictures of people/Movie actors. Can I use similar ratinale for those as well? Btw, You got a good picture there - Sasikiran (talk) 02:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I understood what you meant. In an article about an actor, for example, can I use his image from quoting that website as source? -Sasikiran (talk) 04:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You are so helpful. Now I understood why all of my earlier images violate copyright policies. I will get back to you if I have any more questions - Sasikiran (talk) 05:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Multiple album covers
Have you tried ? It might be a good first attempt before moving to IFD if it's unsuccessful. Stifle (talk) 11:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that -I think it will prove most useful. I decided to run the first few batches through IfD to gauge the reception as AWB tells me there are over 5K to look at. I'll probably bang a script together (perhaps mod twinkle for me) to make this all a bit smoother. Thanks again - Peripitus (Talk) 11:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool. I'll carry on with the music video screenshots (which I haven't had time to look at in a while). Stifle (talk) 11:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

IFD batches
Looks like the FFDs aren't going very well. I'm trying to post detailed, individual refutations of Grk1011's cookie-cutter posts where possible. This could become quite a big issue. For future nominations, it might be better not to do so many at once. Stifle (talk) 10:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it has stirred up a bit of opposition and I think some space between them would be good. It will be interesting to see how someone deals with this as the closures popup on my watchlist. I've tried your more passive suggestion - only 3 out of 30 contested so less feathers ruffled - and may try again in a few days. Sometimes I think we need a Wikipedia specific dictionary "Fair Use (noun) - You want to use it ?......That's fair" - Peripitus (Talk) 12:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. You can always FFD the disputed images. Stifle (talk) 12:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject opposition
Just to let you know that some opposition has been raised against your nominations (and my unrelated nominations) here, with the usual calls for desysopping. I think the best bet would be to discuss this with the WikiProject to get some kind of codified rule about not including alternate album covers unless there is meaningful discussion of them. J Milburn (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Consultation
Glad to hear you're open and reasonable, and accept the desirability of wider consultation.

In the meantime, as a reflection of that openness and reasonableness, can I suggest that until the results of that consultation are known, it would be appropriate to:
 * remove the "under the radar" dnfccs on images that have been nominated solely for being alternate covers. CSD is supposed to be used for non-controversial deletions -- not extremely controversial ones.
 * reinstate recently deleted images where you have closed IfDs solely on the basis that they were alternate covers.
 * withdraw the slew of current IfDs.

We should find where the lines are, before we start deleting things.

(And the test, remember, is whether they significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, not whether there is discussion of them. As I've noted in your IfD debate, we explictly recognise, as item #1 under "acceptable images" in WP:NFC, that it is possible for album cover art to pass that test even without any discussion of the art) Jheald (talk) 23:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

self made image question
Hi Peripitus,

I have a question. If a self made / photographed image is uploaded do I need to have a rationale or summary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasikiran 10 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, Undertood.. Thanks - Sasikiran (talk) 02:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Question .. copyright status of an image..
Hi Peripitus, I have a questions about copyright status of political party flags and logos. I found this in Commons and I am unsure if correct copyright tag is used. Does the license to belongs to uploader as stated in the license section of the file. I believe this should be owned by the political party. Please clarify.. -Sasikiran (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Trooper Mark Donaldson 2009.jpg
I have to admit to being a bit confused about this, my understanding is that as this image is provided by the Australian defence department as part of the a media release a claim of fair use can be made. Indeed the following is from their website:

Bona fide news media organisations only may republish and archive photographs and other material from the Defence web site for reporting news free of charge and without seeking further authorisation from the Commonwealth, subject to the following conditions: 1.Commonwealth copyright and Department of Defence origin must be appropriately acknowledged with status at least equal to other credits; 2.Users may not purport to license or assign copyright to other parties; and may not charge customers for its intellectual content; although they may charge for their production, research and retrieval, and distribution components of republishing; 3.Material from this web site must not be used in advertising, displays, other web sites, or in any public or mass media context other than reporting news, without specific written authorisation from the Commonwealth Copyright Administration; and 4.The Commonwealth reserves all other rights.

In your post you say that a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information - I fail to see how either of these assertions are correct. For a start as a currently serving member of the SASR it would be illegal for a media organisation to release images other than those approved by the Department of Defence, whilst secondly neither I, nor I imagine anybody else on Wikipedia, are in a position to chase this bloke down and ask him for a happy snap.

Of course feel free to delete if you wish - alternatively you could actually suggest how we might use this image (which clearly has historical signifance), with out violating copyright. Anotherclown (talk) 09:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Images - good work
Good work on image tagging (especially the no-permission tags). It looks like WP:ALBUMS has taken issue with us, though, on their subject.

Just to let you know, if you ever need an OTRS ticket checked or searched, feel free to drop me a note. Stifle (talk) 21:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Tasos90 back (January 19)
Hi. Tasos90 is back this morning editing with the IP address of 211.31.38.196. You had previously blocked that IP. Still doing the same edits as always. Just so you know. SEO75  [  talk  ] 00:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Might want to have a look at the recent contributions 211.31.44.53. I personally think it's obvious (and have tagged it as such), but he seems to be on a range where he's stuck on the same IP for a week or two before it "refreshes". --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 16:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Zoouscover.jpg
Thanks for the catch on that - thought the bot did that, but there's not that many closed as "keep" on those pages, guess it does not! Skier Dude ( talk ) 07:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Image deletions
Thanks for taking care of all the copyvios uploaded by. Abecedare (talk) 05:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

York Park
Thanks for your notes on the article. I'll try my best to fix these issues, although i'm a fairly inexperienced editor. This is one if the first articles I've edited substantially and I'd really like to see this become a good article, again Thanks. Aaroncrick  (Tassie Talk ) 08:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Image deletion
Thanks for clarifying the copyright issue, I was under the impression an image published on a public facebook page by the owner had an open copyright (not true). In order to add images to bio pages would one just need consent from the owners of the images, for example the publicists of the subjects of the biographies? Mabec (talk) 16:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

CSD for WP:NFC #8 deletions
FYI, I've raised the different outcomes of your and Stifle's attempts to remove alternate album covers via CSD compared with IfD, to ask whether CSD should be considered appropriate for WP:NFC #8 issues at all. Discussion at WT:CSD. Jheald (talk) 10:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Stalin Hitler photomontage.png
Good day! Can I dispute result of ? X-romix (talk) 10:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice one
On the block of DY71 recent hand-puppet.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  07:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

No Problem
I have been carried away of late. It is not a problem. :) PMK1 (talk) 12:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

copywrite issues of File:Index 017.jpg
Peripitus Regarding copywrite issues of File:Index 017.jpg. I took the picture. As far as providing evidence that the copyright owners have agreed to license their works, (which is me) after reading the copywrite violations statement, it is confusing and I admittedly don't have the capacity to correct this within wikipedia. You may have noticed multiple attempts at this. Please just delete it. Sorry for the trouble i have caused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikidog (talk • contribs) 21:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

How do I upload pictures that other people have taken
I am trying to figure out how to upload pictures that other people have taken that are already posted on the internet. I dont want to break any rules. Can you help me out? -gosugatena —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gosugatena (talk • contribs) 05:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the three you deleted came from the chicago bears website: http://www.chicagobears.com/team/player176.html

this website:

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://d.yimg.com/eur.yimg.com/ng/sp/p1/20080504/21/4166678850.jpg&imgrefurl=http://de.eurosport.yahoo.com/080504/74/iotl.html%3Fevent%3D&usg=__b0j9xuDtiMgc-9HgCvEVSu-2_Zo=&h=600&w=441&sz=32&hl=en&start=13&um=1&tbnid=dvt3Jgrltqe8nM:&tbnh=135&tbnw=99&prev=/images%3Fq%3Djoey%2Blarocque%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN

this website:

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/03Ll5zM4Zcb8Y/340x.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.daylife.com/photo/03Ll5zM4Zcb8Y&usg=__lXHyXJcvKz1kjevcU9nUIzpP6-8=&h=372&w=340&sz=35&hl=en&start=3&um=1&tbnid=bJ0A7ZCaed2EJM:&tbnh=122&tbnw=112&prev=/images%3Fq%3Djoey%2Blarocque%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN

and this website:

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0ccm7oZ0k20jP/610x.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.daylife.com/photo/0ccm7oZ0k20jP&usg=___UhZHAQii7L4oAV1juYr77-T-w4=&h=403&w=610&sz=59&hl=en&start=36&um=1&tbnid=rkuGbL6vj28Y9M:&tbnh=90&tbnw=136&prev=/images%3Fq%3Djoey%2Blarocque%26start%3D21%26ndsp%3D21%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gosugatena (talk • contribs) 05:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Picture removal of Miami Beach High
Why did you delete those images? I collaborate at my school with taking school pictures. The reason for different cameras is that other students use cameras and we have to cycle through all of them so i get a different camera for each occasion. In some of those cases, i had others take a picture with their camera, i don't see why having different camera is reason for deleting images that are license from me. Yes, they are also on a website that being the school which therefore are uploaded by our picture taking, we were sources of initial picture.

Just so you know because you dont go to my school or are associated with it, our photography club took those pictures for that website you claim, they wanted a few pictures for show on construction drawings and it doesn't give you the right to chase down all of those pictures because of your personal claim.

I repeat "mr. image remover", we all took those pictures, I GO TO THE SCHOOL. I CURRENTLY ATTEND IT. YOUR JUDGEMENT OF TELLING ME THAT DIFFERENT CAMERAS IS REASON FOR DELETION IS BOGUS, as i said before, we cycle cameras at our school and have asked others to take pictures with their cameras to feed back to me. I dont know about you but Im going to upload those pictures again because thery are ours. Capece?

as for the Marlins ones those are whatever i didnt take those pictures.

Fredler Brave (talk) 11:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Picture Removal of MBSH PT2
Okay, heres the load down Peripitus. The AOHT one i got from website so i admit to that one. Now the pictures of MBSH were taken by assignment of our photography club and various parts of our school, we were told those pictures needed to be of the new areas of school so that a construction group could have them, there are a few of which they took (night ones). Now, the others which include our principal, football team, navy squad, were taken by other students but i asked them to feed me the pictures or whatever they had so that I could upload them to the site which they agreed to do. Just because it looks professional, well its because we had to mount them on tripod and use a expensive camera. I would greatly apperciate if the pictures be restored, i have worked the hardest on restoring this page than any other on wikipedia. Thanks.

Fredler Brave (talk) 5:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Revisit
Hello. Would you consider revisiting Featured picture candidates/New Holland. Alternative photos without the issues you pointed out have been proposed. Thank you. - Flying Freddy (talk) 10:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback - Flying Freddy (talk) 10:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Head counting
I'm sorry but your closing rationale at Files_for_deletion/2009_January_28 was completly based on head counting. There's nothing on those "arguments" that exaplain why do we need to see that (notable) old-woman-on-a-wheelchair besides Senior Bush to understand the articles using that image. You should never use votes for establishing WP:NFCC compliance. (Am I being an insensitive clod in referring her as the old-woman-on-a-wheelchair? Yes, but so should be anyone willing to apply WP:NFCC). --Damiens .rf 16:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's nice to have someone accuse me of headcounting on the keep side - more often than not the disputes over my Ifd closures are that I deleted it when there were more on the keep side. I took on board the pertinent comments from the two participants other than yourself:


 * It is an important event in the life of Doris Tate, as the most significant form of recognition she received for her work as a victim's right crusader. (Noted by Rossrs in reference to the image rationale)


 * The event was also part of a documentary, which is also covered in the article. These circumstances are well covered in the article and this image is used to illustrate that


 * Here both people are saying that the event being depicted is significant and, from the language used, that the image is also significant for that understanding. The event is noted in the article (for Doris at least) and without refuting argument from anyone I have to take heed that two people have stated that the image is significant and why. With the (admittedly small) supporting text in the article I can't see how I can close it other than keep. Both participants addressed your deletion reason and stated, in what I read as a reasonable way, why it meets the specified criteria. Had anyone come in to refute their assertions it may have been closed differently. - Peripitus (Talk) 01:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "from the language used, that the image is also significant for that understanding" - I completely fail to notice that on the language used.


 * "Had anyone come in to refute their assertions it may have been closed differently." - So, you agree it's all about head counting? --Damiens .rf 01:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That is a baseless assertion putting words into my mouth. I do not close any discussion based on a headcount (see this example) and you are twisting things to assert I have. It is a discussion. You asserted the image failed NFCC#8 and two others refuted this in a way that I saw a relevant. Had others re-refuted their discussions we may have ended up as delete but it is never a head count - Peripitus (Talk) 02:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I must be missing something here. What on their "arguments" is a refutation of "Fails WP:NFCC#8"? That is, what exactly they said that you interpreted as an assertion that the image "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic"? From my reading, they just said the old woman was famous and that the event that made her famous was covered in the article. Nothing about how this image is essential for the understanding of the article. --Damiens .rf 13:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I clearly am not going to convince you I was correct here - you are welcome to take it to WP:DRV if you want - Peripitus (Talk) 02:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't like to open a drv based on "bad decision" just to have you to pop in and explain your reasons. Wouldn't you like to take the opportunity here now? (Of course you don't have to. I'm not a court. I just want to avoid to take it beyond where it belongs.) --Damiens .rf  03:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make any sense. If you're confident that the image should have been deleted, bring it up at deletion review and see if your claims hold up.  And if I might add this as a user who primarily wanders around the Wiki as an observer...I see your request that visitors to your talk page "stay cool."  That's indeed a reasonable request especially since you seem to get engaged in a lot of wars over deleting content.  Nobody likes to see something they've posted get deleted.  However, when many different people come to your talk page and are obviously irritated, it is time to consider that it might not just be their problem.  Your attitude might be a contributing factor.  Needlessly sarcastic edit summaries, for example, instantly set the tone of the discussion as a negative one.  It reminds me of a time in high school when a student complained to a teacher that somebody attacked him completely out of the blue.  Knowing the complaining student rather well, the teacher looked right back at him and said "no way, I refuse to believe you didn't done something to deserve it."  141.214.17.17 (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I really still wanted to hear from you about that, Peripitus. --Damiens .rf 12:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about feeding the troll, Peripitus. 141.214.37.125 (talk) 00:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
For reverting your edits to afd2. Creating a new template for use with the "must stay open..." after a relist following DRV for closing too quickly may be right, but somethings ought to be closed early. We have a hoax article that people were afraid to close early (myself included), so the hoax continues for 4 more days. But as I said, thanks for reverting. :-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand the problem and actually sympathize to a decent extent, but a goodly percentage of items at AfD are just a hair's breadth beyond speedy land and the grief and drama that we get for an incorrect speedy, even if the article is so bad that it could never survive AfD, leads many admins to dump closer calls into AfD where after two days with unanimous delete sentiment a WP:SNOW close is probably just fine. Example, CSD G3 for hoaxes, as you suggest. I agree, but such things have been overturned at DRV because the hoax is not so obvious that we need to take to Afd for confirmation. An article about Joe Blow that claims notability as the 58th president of the United States - good G3, an article about a non-existent newly unearthed fossil or some non-existent battle in an obscure war takes lots more eyes (in the opinions of the DRV regulars) to decide "hoax". Thanks again. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

non-english copyright info
How do I provide verifiable copyright info from non-english language sources? The image I uploaded is supposed to be free domain or something similar, because many images from that site is freely copied and redistributed in many websites, with a simple tag in the caption writing in the source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelsfang (talk • contribs) 05:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

CarloHi / Ccaj1995
Hi is almost certainly a sock of, who was blocked by you, from his editing pattern alone: started editing the day after CarloHi was blocked, has an interest in Sequim, Washington and Jordin Sparks, and uploads copyright-violating pictures for those. I can open an SPI case if you don't block him right away, but could you have a look at the deleted uploads from CarloHi? I'm fairly certain that the exact image Ccaj1995 uploaded for Jordin Sparks was uploaded by CarloHi before. Thanks & Cheers, Amalthea  11:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * two images (jordan and the lavender farm) matches the last two from Carlo. From this and the editing it's clearly him. Thanks for this find...indef blocked and the images gone now. Happy editing.
 * Thanks for taking care of it. Cheers, Amalthea  11:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Apology
I apologize for reverting your edit to American popular music in an attempt to revert vandalism to the article. I restored your edit (the removal of an ogg file). I originally left a "sandbox" warning here, which I have deleted. I am very very sorry for being so careless. Regards, &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 15:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Question
Thank you very much for your comments on images used in the history of graphic design. I have incorporated your comments in the images. Would you still want to remove those images from the article? Although I have spent considerable time to find them I do not have any qualms if you think those images should be removed. Otherwise, it would be nice to have them as a sample of the influnce of graphic design in modern life. All the best, and thank you again for visiting the page. --Artaxerex (talk) 20:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Don-omar7.jpg
woops sorry. Don't know why I placed "self-made". Wasn't sure if I placed the url at the time for some reason. :/ El cangri386 Sign! or Talk 21:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Lalah let go promotion.jpg
Thank you for noticing this error. I would also like to state that the wrong tag was erased from file and now has been corrected. Thank you!Tarysky (talk) 03:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Online Newspapers
FYI - http://ndpbeta.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/home.

I guess the days of the microfiche room in the State Library are over!--Yeti Hunter (talk) 11:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.
I thank you for your advice and your cronstructive crtiticism to my uploads. I will take your advice and halt my uploads until I have completley understood the uploading policies. But the main question I have is how do I get a ordinary picture I find on the internet on to here? According to my readings, the Non-free media seems to be the best solution but it looks like it is not. And speaking of Non-free media, what exactly is Non-free media? What are the requirements to be classified as it? And also, if you find an image online and if you modify it, is that considered to be your own work? These are my big questions that continuouslly stumbles me. I appreciate your help and guidance. Thank you. (Dominick1283 (talk) 15:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC))

Re:Files for Deletion
Hello. I do not see how File:ŌtaniYoshitsuguKessen.jpg could be replaced by free methods or fits the second criterion for non-free content. Please enlighten me in why it would.

You are doing quite a good job of patrolling files, by the way! -Blue Caper  (talk) 22:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Bluecaper, my argument for NFCC#1 is that he was alive until 1600 and there are either contemporary drawings of him or all images are simply made up. As a made up image it is no more or less relevant than any other possible freely created image of him. I can see what seems to be a statue of him - if correct a photo of this would do. Either the copyrighted image is based on a historical one or it is made up and thus of no more value than any other current image of a samurai of the same era. as for NFCC#2 - the non-free image is one that was created for commercial purposes and the copyright holder has the right to control copies. By hosting it here, not for discussion of the image itself but for decoration of an article on the image's subject, we are replacing their commercial right to control the image. This usage falls under the unacceptable usage points # 7, 8 and a number of other ones - Peripitus (Talk) 22:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * But it is not just a drawing; it is an official poster from the video game Kessen. It is something of popular fiction.  Many Wikipedia pages about historical persona in popular fiction have these kinds of pictures in the appropriate section.  It describes him in Kessen, not just a regular portrait of him.  Also, it is not of commercial purposes; people are not required to pay for these.


 * Besides, that statue is of Sanada Yukimura, not Ōtani Yoshitsugu.-<em style="font-family:Georgia;color:blue">Blue <em style="font-family:Georgia;color:black">Caper  (talk) 01:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Surely it is a commercial image created by Koei and either owned by them or Electronic arts. The fact that they don't sell this image does not remove its commercial nature. Advertising/promotional images are covered by the same copyright, and commercial considerations, as the object they are promoting. - see Non-free_content images section. As for the statue, the internet led me astray - Peripitus (Talk) 02:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It is neither an advertisement nor a promotional image. It is just an image related to the game.  It is owned by Koei and EA, but it is used non-commercially.  -<em style="font-family:Georgia;color:blue">Blue <em style="font-family:Georgia;color:black">Caper  (talk) 02:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Brendan Sokaluk
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Brendan Sokaluk. 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. Burning Ring of Fire (talk) 07:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

links
re: this edit. Hi Peripitus, First, thanks for helping clean up (mop), the article. Second: Is there a bot or script that I can run to avoid this kind of error in the future? I've seen mention of a whitelist and blacklist, but I haven't run across the lists yet. Anything to help improve my skill sets is greatly appreciated. Thanks, and have a great day/night. ;) — Ched (talk) 09:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks - good stuff! — Ched (talk) 10:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Possible sock
Hi, You had earlier deleted several copyvio images uploaded by and blocked the user for 48 hours. I think the user is back as sock and has resumed repeating same form of edits and uploading. See for example File:Skyline of Shimla City.jpg versus deleted image File:Shimla City.jpg, which are copied from. Let me know if you prefer that I report this to checkuser or ANI instead. Abecedare (talk) 01:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick response. By the way, wouldn't it be standard to block the sock account indefinitely, and apply the escalating blocks to the main account; else it simply allows the user to split their editing history to avoid scrutiny ? Either way, I hope the user got the message that discussion, rather than socking, is the way to go. Abecedare (talk) 02:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. The hope, as always, is that the user reforms and further admin action is simply not needed. I'll let you know if I spot any recurrence. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 03:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Fort Glanville
Just thought I'd say - very impressed re: your work on Fort Glanville Conservation Park. Had you been working on that for a while before I created the stub? It's got to be a GA candidate now. Is there a wiki collaboration of some sort regarding conservation parks and the like? I'd like to help out.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 00:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I started in late Jan after you created the stub. I liked my lead image and really wanted a longer article to go with it. As for GA I still have a few things I want to sort out (finish the top-down map, make the profile map showing the construction of the fort. Fixup ref45 which is missing information, some mos issues etc.) though some of these (the maps) are not required for GA. Not really a wiki collaboration for this though WP:Adelaide and WP:Australian History do cover this one. Someday I'd love to work with you on Marble Hill - if only I could find enough good written sources ! Local history and conservation parks are hard to source outside of sketchy web links and government management plans - Peripitus (Talk) 02:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Re:Marble Hill, I've been to the SLSA and found quite a few good articles in the microfiche newspapers (one from the opening in December 1879 is particularly informative - describing the parliamentarian's reactions and outbursts as well as the building and the drive up). I'm also reading Lady Tennyson's diaries, which are a fascinating insight into life at MH (they would only be borderline RS though - self published). A good proportion of the information since 1955 is unfortunately in primary sources and therefore OR (though there are a few self published booklets or webpages).--Yeti Hunter (talk) 03:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Pictures
Thanks for the message ill but the sources. Kyle1278 (talk) 16:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The 4 images of the building's in Edmonton i uploaded can be deleted i have looked on the site and they should not be here please delete them ASAP. I need to be more carefull about what i upload sorry about that. Kyle1278 (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * [[Media:Skylinescotiaplace.jpg]]
 * [[Media:TDtoweredmonton.jpg]]
 * Media:13914571.CanadianWesternBankPlacewintersunset.jpg
 * [[Media:198986 EXT 01 J.jpg]]
 * you may also remove this one sorry. Kyle1278 (talk) 17:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * [[Media:Qoso4l.jpg]]

DYK for Fort Glanville Conservation Park
why you delete the image of juninho????????--Babboleolr (talk) 02:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Flickr
Listen buddy each on of the photos i take from flick all have the a logo at the bottom of the page that reads some rights reserved with the exact same logo appearing in the creative commons. Instead of giving me shit why don't go teach me the right way of doing it when the image says Some Rights Reseved. 12:19 User:Alexcaban (talk)

OK thanks for that see now i get it. So if i find a photo that says and one of the green checks found on this page Upload/Flickr its ok to upload as creative commons.

Featured article candidates/Fedor Emelianenko
I invite you to add another comment to Featured article candidates/Fedor Emelianenko as to whether the use of the flag icons in this article is appropriate or not. Discussion at the articles related WikiProject did not provide consensus because, I believe, the editors involved are not a unbiased party. During the nomination, the flags were removed and then readded to the article. So your participation at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fedor Emelianenko do establish whether the icons should stay or go is needed. Regards, — <font color="DD0000">Moe <font color="0000FF">ε  22:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Image permission problem with Image:LattyYvonneap-1-.jpg
Hi Peripitus - I got your message about the image I uploaded, and I wanted to explain the situation and get your advice about what to do. I am Yvonne Latty's assistant, and I posted a wikipedia page about her and her work. The image I uploaded is a promo photo that is owned by her, and she asked me to include it on the page. I'm not sure what license/permission this would fall under. Please advise! Thanks Florafair (talk) 21:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Beat me
I was about to create a Tasmanian football Hall of Fame article, but you seem to have beat me to it :)  Aaroncrick (Tassie talk) 05:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Felines/Wikipedia
Nah not really there are more projects un cat tagged on wp than there are cat tagged - only if I could get out of lethargy and put my 3 or possibly 4 functioning computers on at the same time - I could wreak havoc on the discussion/talk pages of many an article with AWB like the legendary (how i hate that word in wp) over 100,000 edit weirdoes (not all of them weird - sorry hesp) who inhabit this place - however tassie is but a pimple on the bum of the huge great untagged anatomy of the whole project. Bet you didnt expect that answer :) SatuSuro 12:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Images non-free
I wanted to ask if the images that I had uploaded for this page: List of supporting characters in ER break any rules or the standard style. I notice that you removed all of the images claiming that it became excessive. How many photos per page is adviceble to have? Cheers. Takeit10 (talk) 16:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Image permission problem with Image:Andystrangeway.jpeg
Thank you for destroying my work. You asked me to provide proof that Andy had released this image into the public domain: I responded with a copy of the email from Andy to me doing just that. The image has been deleted anyway. Thanks - I won't bother editing wikipedia anymore or adding any more original content: you have convinced me that the real vandals are the admins - the new "parking wardens" of the Internet. The vision is dead as far as I am concerned - I simply have no time to play these silly games.

Stalking through the darkened undergrowth we find the fearsome Peripitus hunting down its prey. It traps its victim with a blast of poisonous goo from its slime glands. The goo goes to work straight away. The Peripitus then extends its tube mouth and sucks up the mushy remains. So watch out for the mighty Peripitus, terror of anything smaller than a jellybean!

Says it all really - the trolls are now in charge of the project.

Excalibur (talk) 20:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

- Excalibur - your image is not permanently gone and can easily be retrieved. Where did the email go ? was it sent to permissions-en@wikimedia.org ? ps: more an onychophora than a troll - Peripitus (Talk) 21:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

- Yes, well thats who you told me to write to. I did so. So IMHO, whoever took the picture away should now put it back, and if its so easy to retrieve, then they should do it. This is all just creating extra work for people, totally unproductive. Excalibur (talk) 09:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Carla Suarez Navarro
Regarding the image I put forth I'm just not sure how to obtain everything you wanted me to obtain in terms of copyright status. I believe the copyright status of the image is "rights Managed" but all in all I'm just very confused about the process of getting images to pass Wikipedia standards. I've included much more information on the images page. Please tell me what more I can do.Wanabedamned (talk) 15:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the deletion
That image cost me two blocks.What all I wanted was a discussion but was denied that.anyway I'm glad a discussion finally took place.And a consensus did developed. .User:Yousaf465 (talk)

Olivia and Natalia Forge a Friendship Possible Deletion
So the article is about two women as a couple on a television show. The storyline summary provides a written account, but by it's very nature, television is supposed to visually convey information. So, I would like a television picture from the show in each section. The storyline section in which the above described screenshot is found describes these two women having tough times and the two women being there for each other as friends. Though the screenshot is of the faces of the two women, it is a different type of screenshot which contrasts with the first photograph. In the first photogragh, they are both looking away into the distance and smiling. In this screenshot, they are not smiling. Olivia has a concentrated look on her face which conveys great concern for her friend. Natalia is visibly upset. There are different emotions being conveyed by these women in this screenshot and it contrasts with the first photograph. It also shows a specific moment from the storyline summary. Would a differnt description tag, one that ties in with the storyline, help with the fair use rationale?

The other screenshot in question I accept as needing to be deleted. I have another one that conveys a more pointed moment.

Loveoandn (talk) 10:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. Please delete the image. Loveoandn (talk) 18:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Olivia Consoles Natalia
Please delete this screenshot.

Thank you, Loveoandn (talk) 11:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

how to request only certain versions of a file be deleted
Thanks for deleting. Is there a way to request only certain versions of a file be deleted, whether speedily or at FFD, besides just mentioning it in text? Galatee (talk) 19:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Images about to be deleted
Hi Peripitus. Thanks for your message. I am very aware of the pictures I took and uploaded at Wikipedia. Others are scanned photos from my file which I took the pictures (years ago and recently). There are websites (like www.bohol.ph) where they have syndicated my columns credited my name for taking the photos. Please let me know if scanned or enhanced photos are not allowed to be uploaded at Wikipedia even though I took the pictures. By the way, the photo danlim.jpg was deleted though I took the picture. The subject was with other persons and I enhanced it only with the subject. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leoudtohan (talk • contribs) 05:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

York Park
Can you find anything else to improve in the article. Kind regards,  Aaroncrick (Tassie talk) 10:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for those edits. The lead probably needs a bit of a rework and then it should become a GA! =)  Aaroncrick (Tassie talk) 10:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Has become a GA. thanks,  Aaroncrick (Tassie talk) 11:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is being reassessed, for some reason.  Aaroncrick (Tassie talk) 03:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Also the ground manger has told me the Gunns stand has a capacity of 6,000 previously 2,500. I don't want to remove this info, but then it becomes un sourced.  Aaroncrick (Tassie Boy talk) 07:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Water fluoridation
Thanks for your comments; I followed up at Featured article candidates/Water fluoridation. Are you watching that page? If so, I won't bother you with further notices here. Eubulides (talk) 08:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Please undelete the last version of [[File:Fruit machine.jpg]]
Hi, the nom never notified me that the image was up for deletion. The logic was faulty and there was little input. I recreated the whole thing from scratch so please undelete the newest version. I believe I covered the policy issues that cover such an image. Thank you. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   21:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Raymond Aaron on Unicycle.jpg
I wonder if you were interrupted. You closed the deletion discussion as delete, and that you had deleted it, but it rather seems to be still present. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC) Ah it made it to Commons. I wonder why. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Water fluoridation 2
Have you had a chance to see my response to your latest (March 4) comments at the end of Featured article candidates/Water fluoridation? Eubulides (talk) 00:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Quickstar7
Insider is correct, and has been an adder/editor on MANY articles. Court cases filed are completely relevant and can been put on Wiki. The "TALK" page should not be "messed" with as you have been doing. Maybe you are new and need to be counseled on how to properly edit Wiki's. While I do not agree with Insider very much, he has given me advice and helped in restructuring articles for me and others. Advice, take some advice!
 * User:Quickstar7 - Like everyone I'm always learning. Unless the case is covered reliably elsewhere, the court documents do not suffice as sources. A judgement may, but allegations, no. --Insider201283 (talk) 03:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Image deletion
Hey Peripitus, I was wondering how the FfD for Files_for_deletion/2009_February_28 when there were 3 keeps and 3 deletes? It doesn't appear that there was any consensus to delete. User:Jappalang is very active in image-checking and supported my argument for fair-use.  Grsz 11  03:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Blagojevich image
I think I added the copyright tags to it but I'll go to that page, thank you. <font face="Thunder" size="2.0" color="#660033"> Nite Owl <font face="Thunder" size="2.0" color="#066cc"> II  19:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Re:
I've decided to re-add it because I've found the proper fair use tag for it. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs 02:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Rmcsamson
This person is using other accounts. He's behind User:Minala and others. Please investigate on him.Soapiamarz (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for this edit. Drmies (talk) 23:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Johnson image
I sent an email to permissions. They will take care of it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know Henry.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. thanks for the template.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Why are they asking me to move it to commons before they tag it?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The last email came from Joe Daly. I think he is confused on what I have sent him because his emails have seemed to be off point.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

category "Garlic"
I'm proposing to create a category "Garlic", by analogy with category "Onions". There are quite a few pages of different types of garlic, so they need to be brought together under a category. Category "Onions" has a large number of items under it.

Could we recreate category "Garlic", please? I can't do it right now, so maybe you can help. Dyuku (talk) 18:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

_________________________

Thanks for your reply, Peripitus. I left you a new message. Dyuku (talk) 02:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello, Peripitus. Please reply to my message. Dyuku (talk) 05:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello, Peripitus. Please reply to my message. This is already May... two months later!Dyuku (talk) 02:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Peripitus. I don't know how to look up such things, so I didn't realize you already restored this category... :) Now I'll add more items in there. Cheers, Dyuku (talk) 17:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

M249
Hey, I saw your excellent review work at M249 squad automatic weapon; would you mind having a gander at this? Ironholds (talk) 13:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That is quite alright; yes, it has attracted some people now. In regards to the M249, keep up the good reviewing work! Ironholds (talk) 13:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Patton t / c 14:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Little's law
Hi, can you explain why this is not valid? I'm not the one who added it, but the statement seemed plausible to me... is there an example where it's not true? Thanks, Shreevatsa (talk) 14:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Foxgirl.jpg
Why the rush? I asked Jimfbleak to restore it so it could for once stand a full discussion on its status. You could have asked either of us before deleting it again... -- lucasbfr  talk 14:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, I admit I do that sometimes, when stuff comes to AN or ANI we often overlook the causes :) Thanks for restoring it, I have restarted yet another PUI ^^ -- lucasbfr  talk 22:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the protection.
If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask me (either on my talk page or on the tipler talk page). Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}<sub style="margin-left:-4.0ex;">κοντριβς – WP Physics} 11:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * We may have crossed. I've just blocked user:Jamiemichelle. I think the article should now go down to semi William M. Connolley (talk) 12:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes semi seems appropriate. BTW, I've warned him/her about 3RR in the past for example. That account has also been used as an edit war sock puppet in the past, so it's really nothing new. Anyway, thanks again.Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}<sub style="margin-left:-4.0ex;">κοντριβς – WP Physics} 12:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, would you please help
Hello! I just saw your talk on the page User talk:Badagnani. Would you please help to mark the article Guoyue with under-discussion tag, and the content is suggested to be merged with Political musics in China and the article Guoyue is suggested to be redirected to Traditional Chinese music. Please see Talk:Guoyue. Just add notes or notice tags. Thanks. -Zhinanzhen (talk) 11:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, but your comment is highly inappropriate as insistent, POV-motivated massive blanking cannot be allowed, and you did not mention that in both cases my edits were in response to hyperaggressive editors intent on removing text, or, in fact, blanking entire articles (into which no administrator intervened). Our content is precious and pleading on "Discussion" for an editor to stop continually reverting was not efficacious in these instances. The solution is not to block one of WP's most productive, long-time, and sincere contributors, one who really cares about our project, without actually having the wherewithal to put a stop to the original behavior that elicits such a response. Badagnani (talk) 15:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry to intervene here, but Badagnani, you are not assuming good faith here, and you do not participate in these so called "discussions" anyway. If a user wants to make a bold edit, let them be, and stop your constant lecturing. This unneeded edit warring on numerous other articles is getting tiresome. And again, follow WP:CIVIL. Regardless of what you claim, you are still violating 3RR and continuing to edit war. I do not consider that very "productive and sincere". <font color="#002099">Eugene2x-talk 17:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, but WP:STALK is to be avoided. Certainly User:Eugene2x has the same problem the above editor has: a refusal to discuss collegially with fellow editors at "Discussion" before blanking huge areas of text in a given article. There's a very simple remedy for this, however: actually discuss in a thoughtful, deliberate, and considered manner at "Discussion" before removing huge areas of text from an article. We must be reasonable in everything we do at Wikipedia. Badagnani (talk) 18:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Badagnani, read WP:AGF, WP:BOLD, WP:OWN, and WP:CIVIL. Avoid words with negative connotations like being "hyperaggressive" and "blanking" when discussing with editors. Until you learn to stop frustrating other editors, stop violating policies, and assume good faith, I will regard you as nothing more than a nuisance. <font color="#006600">Eugene2x► talk 22:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Tasos90 again
He's back again as 124.191.177.53 editing various Brisbane articles without consensus, despite many of us asking him to request unblocking at his original account, he seems to pop up every few days to make random changes against the general consensus of the local editors. --Arnzy 15:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Image:Andystrangeway.jpeg
Hello, on March 1, 2009, you tagged this file with OTRS pending. For whatever reason, it was never processed and the file has since been deleted for lack of proof. Would you mind sending it again when you have a chance? permissions-en@undefinedwikimedia.org. Thanks.  howcheng  {chat} 23:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Photo of Laura, South Australia
Your photo is being targeted for removal from this Laura, South Australia article on Wikipedia as apparently it is a ? hoax, and not in fact of Laura at all! Two editors have asserted this. Please investigate and comment here: Cheers ROxBo (talk) 11:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Marble Hill, again
Hi Peripitus. Need outside comment on another Mifren edit war. Something about a native title claim that he has put on Marble Hill (it's referenced to his facebook page and a pay-for-a-press-release website). This one is a whole lot more clear cut than the last one, but I suspect he's more personally involved in the issue this time. The constant low-level abuse is a little tiring, too. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 00:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What I again find fascinating is how inaccurate YH can be in writing, "Something about a native title claim that he has put on Marble Hill". Where and how is such an amazingly inaccurate claim, jumping to a conclusion like that by YH tolerated by wikieditors? Also instead of personalising things YH by being suspecious, as I've previously indicated, you can see for yourself that Marble Hill has Crown Land and all that is within the 2000 Registered Kaurna Native Title Claim including MH and more recently Glenside are subject to the Kaurna Native Title Management Committee Agenda. Actually nothing personally to do with me at all. I wasn't even born in this country or raised in South Australia. Equally if YH feels abused then perhaps we need to formally acknowledge, accept, absorb and address his allegations. Mifren (talk) 09:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Peripitus I note that you have made no further comment on YH's erroneous concern/s about a native title claim on Crown Land including Marble Hill Registered by Kaurna nine years ago and somehow leapt to the amazing conclusion that I had. What actually governs wikiEditors abuse of logic and assumptive erroneous conclusions they may jump to and then projecting that back onto contributions by others? Like YH, I find the whole abuse of wiki due process a little tiring, too. What is your current perspective as I note you have not contributed again to actually help address the underlying errors in YH's logic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mifren (talk • contribs) 16:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please respond to: Where is the proof of the "clear consensus"? What was there on the Marble Hill Article Discussion page has been removed.

Also we really are only in a position to speak for ourselves and thus again there is no proof to the claim that "Those same three editors believe that the reference given for the more specific 2009 "claim" or "bill" or "sovereignty declaration" or whatever it is (ie, Mr Rossi's speech and Mifren's facebook page) is unreliable.'Again I repeat the questions, "Also that Consensus is no longer visible thus no longer clear on the Marble Hill Article Discussion page thus what is the basis for not restoring? Will perhaps meeting with FOI & Kaurna documentation will actually help "love to collaboratively complete the article"?'Mifren (talk) 01:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This discussion seems to be going on at my talk page. Just letting you know.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 01:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Peripitus, what from your perspective is the issue around adding:

Kaurna Native Title
- 	In 2000 a Kaurna Native Title Claim by Named Claimants from family descendants of 8 apical ancestors was Registered including all Crown Land at Marble Hill. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_native_title_claims#South_AustraliaMifren (talk) 20:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Panda picture
Hi Peripitus. Just to let you know that the disputed picture was put right back into Intelligent design after the debate was over. I don't feel like wasting my time on it anymore. I sometimes suspect that the anti-creationism editors here are really creationists trying to make the pro-science side look stupid and mean-spirited. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 17:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back
You seem to have been away for a while lately. Welcome back. Stifle (talk) 21:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Wbbc.png
OK...just noticed this was deleted. First off, no notice was given to me about its deletion. Second, just because there is a "newer logo" "used in the article" does not mean the image should be deleted as there are hundreds of other pages that have older logos on them. I request this image be brought back, replaced on the page and if you want to have a discussion about it...discuss. Don't go all willy-nilly and delete things without telling the uploader. - <small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 00:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Orangemonster2k1 was my old user name. I dropped it after having issues with another user and moved to this one....but I still follow all the images that I uploaded under that previous name.  Either way though, I would like to have another crack at the IfD discussion because I added under the image "Logo used from the early 2000s to April 2009", so the image was used for a little under 9 years.  Many other radio station pages have like images on the page, so the precedent is there for them to be used and all the images have the correct FURs as well. - <small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 00:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Galactus Edit War Mediation
Hi. I'm trying to mediate an edit war over the Galactus article here. Can you chime in with your two cents? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Invitation
Hello, I noticed you've made edits to University of the Philippines (UP) and UP–related articles and thought you might want to support our recent proposal to create the WikiProject University of the Philippines. We've recently revamped the proposal and started a drive to push the approval of this project. We have a lot of articles that may be under this project and we would like assistance and support for its approval. Hope we'll have a very positive response. Go Fighting Maroons!

P.S. You can look at the preliminary drafts of the project in here. Thanks!-- The Wandering Traveler <sup style="color:#0B7C08;">WIKIPROJECT UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES NEEDS YOUR SUPPORT!  04:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Pictures
Ah, just noticed that there was a copyvio of Amla competing! now DSQed! Oh and a few NE Adelaid suburbs have a crappy monkey photos in them now  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 01:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Twas a shame - was a nice copyvio picture. I saw those NE photos...they're not so crappy - looks like you took photos out of a car window on a drive through the suburbs. I think that the time on your camera is set wrongly ! - Peripitus (Talk) 02:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A pile from Cricinfo. I guess that means there is now 100% chance that my photo will stay. Yes they were all car photos on a drive across GJ Road up to Gumeracha. A bit ridiculous really, mostly just some visual verbiage to liven things up.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 03:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Zuma encrypted fax
Regarding your decision to delete the above image: Apart from the argument that the image is not necessary because the text can be quoted (which I am not addressing here), your decision seems to be based substantially on the view that the image is protected by copyright. It is very clear that it is not - see my 2nd last entry in the discussion. Would you concede regarding that part of your grounds for deletion? Zingi (talk) 05:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Question
I just want to know why the images I have uploaded on the List of Twilight Characters are being in the "deleted" sections. I don't think there's any problem with the descriptions of these images. Will you explain it to me? Thank you. - User:Weirdo82

Disagree with your closure of FFD - File:Bambino POTUS.gif
Hello Peripitus,

I must disagree with your closure of this FFD as delete. Only one other person agreed with the delete nom and there was no consensus, nor were my reasons for keep refuted. I submit that, at a minimum, a wider discussion should have transpired before this was so quickly closed.  JGHowes   <sup style="color:blue;">talk  03:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Orsi Kocsis - Image:orsi_2.jpg and Image:Orsi_12.jpg
Hello, I believe I have complied with your request by sending an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org with approval recieved by the owner Are you able to confirm that I've done it appropriately and if so can you let me know? Thank you Pete Rogers NYC (talk) 12:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Uet taxila Wikimapia.JPG
How this file: fall in Copyright violations catogory, Thanks. --<b style="color:teal;">Talha</b><sup style="color:teal;">Discuss  <b style="color:teal;">&#169;</b> 13:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, Thanks. if i want to upload a google earth image or image from google maps, then i think i should use this Licence: Non-free software screenshot

Am i right? --<b style="color:teal;">Talha</b><sup style="color:teal;">Discuss  <b style="color:teal;">&#169;</b> 12:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * But i have seen many images like these under Non-free software screenshot, like File:Royal Stables.jpg and many others. --<b style="color:teal;">Talha</b><sup style="color:teal;">Discuss  <b style="color:teal;">&#169;</b> 13:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Image permission problem with Image:Jenn Korbee Photo by TCKPHOTO.jpg
I'm sorry that the permission isn't "proper," but Tom Korbee, who owns TCKPHOTO, sent me a message asking me to put this photo of Jennifer Korbee up. I am unsure how to note the fact that permission was given to me by the photographer himself. If you could please let me know how, I will happily change the lisence on the page to avoid deletion. JennFan24 (talk) 15:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio images
Can you look at the recent image uploads of ? They all seem to be be copyright violations, and the account's conduct reminds me of and, whom we had discussed a few months back (see this and this). Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 07:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Quick work! My message proved to be unnecessary. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 07:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Again. I've deleted all of their uploads and will watch with interest. Given the timing, language style and editing interests I think that this is a different person....but time will tell - Peripitus (Talk) 07:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I suspect that it's the same person based on the types of images being uploaded and the forums they were being copied from, but since the user does not seem to be using multiple accounts simultaneously sockpuppetry is not a a significant issue. However, has continued uploading copyrighted images with false tags, despite all the previous deletions and multiple notices that this is bloackable conduct. See File:Mumbai at night2.jpg. Abecedare (talk) 04:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Chevy image
Hello- Yes. It's a mistake. The automatic created line line should have been deleted. I used wrong upload form. Image from site is in public domain but site was notified of image usage regardless. File:65 Chevy.jpg correct source and licence added. Vegavairbob (talk) 12:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The site has a notice that the info and images are entered into public domain.Vegavairbob (talk) 01:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks.Vegavairbob (talk) 02:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Dale thomas 3455.jpg
You have earlier deleted this image, I am not sure that re-upload with a fair-use rationale is any better. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 02:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Project invitation
You may be interested in joining WikiProject Copyright Cleanup. Stifle (talk) 18:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Images uploaded of RTÉ Performing Groups
Hi there.

Thank you for informing me that I have to provide proof that I have been given permission to uploaded the RTÉ Performing Groups. I was in contact with a PR Executive in RTÉ Performing Groups via email. I have forwarded those emails on to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, but have heard nothing back. What do you suggest I do?

Thanks

CargoK user talk 09:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Machine slides
Hi Peripitus - I'm a little confused as to why you deleted the Machine slides page. I'm the one who wrote the copy for the original info page at IQS Directory, and I posted it with IQS' permission because I saw that there was a gap in Wiki's information (i.e. there was no copyright infringement, which is the reason that was given for its deletion). Following the same criteria, I also posted XY tables, which has been tagged with several suggestions on how to improve the article. The action taken on XY tables seems much more reasonable to me. Why wasn't this same action taken on Machine slides instead of outright deletion? I've read all Wiki's guidelines, and I don't see why Machine slides couldn't simply be tagged for improvement. Am I missing something? Thank you - Industman (talk) 18:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

My image
Hello, i see you have placed a speedy delete template on my photo of, i was the one who took the photo of the school, i put Poland Union at the bottom of the picture, after that i went to Photoshop and took off that text. Sadly on the site there is no proof of who taken it, so just wanted to let you know about that. RandomGuy666 (talk)  6:03PM EST 6.4.09  —Preceding undated comment added 22:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC).

Sorry!
Don't know what I was thinking. I really wasn't paying attention I guess. Sorry about that! <FONT COLOR="#000000">freshacconci</FONT><FONT COLOR="#B22222"> talk</FONT><FONT COLOR="#2F4F4F">talk</FONT> 03:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Sverker Göranson
According to the policy of the Swedish Armed Forces, stating that "De flesta bilder tillhandahålls utan kostnad för media och ickekommersiellt bruk under förutsättning att källan anges" ("Pictures are at disposal without cost for media and non-commercial use under the condition that the source is stated"). This information can be found at, however only available in Swedish. If I forgot to state that, I am sorry. Please let me know how you think. Dissimilation (talk) 09:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Image deletion
you deleted the image at Junaid Jamshed. Can i kindly know the reason?Muhammad Hamza (talk) 20:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

your talk page seems full of complaints against deletions. But anyways... thanks for clarifying about junaid jamshed image. sincerely appreciate that. Hamza [ talk ] 13:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Kindly dont take it offensively. But seriously man. I ain't the only one who is complaining about you not using the article discussion page for mentioning the reason. May i kindly suggest that people will find it more appropriate if you avoid deleting anything until you've written notes on discussion page. It just gives the image of completely ignoring one's efforts. As i said... please don't take it offensively. Hamza [ talk ] 13:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Image:Freeonedlover.jpg
This is not an attack but a question. Why did you tag the photo. A fair rational use was already explain why the image was irreplaceable. What the point in a stupid act like that? Lovejonesfly (talk) 02:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Arilang1234 say Hi
Hi, thanks for informing me on the uploaded file. To tell the truth, I still not fully understand all these wiki rules, I just upload them and hope that no mistake has been made. Please feel free to point out my error. <font style="color:white;background:#008000;"> Arilang  talk  12:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Elizabeth
I deleted the line about The City of Freemont being a sister city to Elizabeth. Because on the official City of Freemont web site. http://www.fremont.gov/index.aspx?nid=152 There is a list of sister cities for Freemont and Elizabeth is not on the list I asume they were sister cities 40 years ago when they named the lake in Freemont Lake Elizabeth but not anymore. Yellow wiggle (talk) 16:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Machine Slides
That does help, quite a bit. Sounds like the easiest thing might be to change up the copy a bit and document my resources while writing. Thank you, Peripitus! Industman (talk) 13:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!
. Dismas |(talk) 02:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Wholesale Deletion
Hello, you removed an entire section of a page for no reason at all. Please have the decency to put your rationale for this on the talk page instead of the cursory explanation you gave. I will revert in the absence of any reasonable discussion. Thank you, --Scarmudgeon (talk) 05:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

You also deleted all the pictures on the page which had no copyright infringement issues. I find your editing to be entirely unwarranted and in the poorest sense of 'bad faith'. Please do not edit this page again in this fashion or I will ask that you be sanctioned for vandalizing my work. --Scarmudgeon (talk) 05:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Hannah Montana 2 RockstarEdition.jpg
O.K. I edited File:Hannah Montana 2 RockstarEdition.jpg and all the other media to what I think is what you meant. Is it correct?--Ipodnano05 (talk) 16:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The images might not be the primary, but they are quintessetial to the article. The 3rd image is the cover of the Rockstar Edition CD, which is the second release of the soundtrack. The fourth and fifth represent the Artist Karaoke Series albums that were released, both of these include songs from the CD and would probably not meet the notability guidelines to withold an article of their own, so it is better for these to be merged into the original and primary album. I think these images ARE needed and DO meet the criteria of being associated with the work. They have to remain in the article. --Ipodnano05 (talk) 22:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Muhammad and slavery requesting unprotection
You have edited the article by removing most of the sources and a great deal of referenced content rather than updating what has been notified for correction on the article talk page. It is time for you to unprotect as it also appears you have exploited that protection to edit war with User:SchnitzelMannGreek124.170.56.113 (talk) 01:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD
regarding Articles for deletion/ABCDE FC, what's the hurry? Was there a reason for not waiting the 7 days as per policy? Ω (talk) 13:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Arilang say Hi
You have mail on my talk page. <font style="color:white;background:#008000;"> Arilang  talk  16:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Paparazzimusicvideo2.jpg
a. Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. Both images are different, showing completely different sides of the video, so how one image could be equivalent to the other?  Sparks   Fly  17:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Different images will always be....well....different; and that difference is, of itself, insufficient justification for additional images. What is the usual interpretation, and mine and others in this case, or "equivalent significant information" is that all significant information that an image conveys to a reader can be covered by the existing image. None of the keep arguments showed how having this additional image conveyed such significant image. What a failure of NFCC#3a usually means is that the additional image adds little or nothing to reader's understanding and certainly does not add significant additional understanding of the article's topic - Peripitus (Talk) 06:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the music video has nearly eight minutes of length, I know that is not a good reason to add new images, but it's certainly sure that one image can not convey all the meaning of this topic – in this case, the music video. I still did not understand your point; the image deleted portrays the artist lying in a pool blood which is the climax of the video – I think that you are saying that it does not add significant additional understanding of the article's topic, is that right?  Sparks   Fly  16:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Das Ansehnlisch
I don't object one bit to the block you set on this user, but after a brief chat with them, I personally don't think we're going to have that sort of problem, again. Would you be willing to consider a block reduction or removal, on the basis that further problems would lead to an immediate reblocking? – Luna Santin  (talk) 05:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool beans, thanks for having a look! – Luna Santin  (talk) 06:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have some concerns with this unblocking, given that it is the second time the user has been blocked for creating the same offensive redirect. Following the first block (where he claimed not to have made the redirect), he should have been well aware that it was not appropriate - and yet he did it again. He's also been making a fair number of problematic page moves, despite warnings, and as such I find the claims that led to the unblock somewhat suspect. Just my two cents. --Ckatz <sup style="color:green;">chat <sub style="color:red;">spy  08:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding your reply: "'I see this unblock as either acknowledging a now valuable editor turning over a new leaf and positively contributing to the site...'"I could understand if he had made a significant change in his approach - but there was little or no change following the first block, several other problems requiring warnings, and again we have to remember that he has repeated the exact same action that led to the first block less than two weeks ago. --Ckatz <sup style="color:green;">chat <sub style="color:red;">spy  08:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Pine as Kirk image
As you added the tag to the image, was wondering if you could check the summary now; it should be okay. If you think so too, could you pull the deletion tag? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  23:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Album art and NFCC
From my personal experience, album art typically can't fail WP:NFCC. I bring this up because it seems that here you used that as a deletion reason on some album art.--Rockfang (talk) 02:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah. I forgot about the replaceable by text part and went to just thinking free image, not text.  Thank you for refreshing my memory.--Rockfang (talk) 05:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

DRV on Ibn Shaykh al-Libi corpse.png
On Deletion review/Log/2009 June 19, your closing of the FfD Files for deletion/2009 June 10 has been challenged. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 07:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation
made a demand to remove a block on the very editors who have been blocked here for sockpuppetry but they also left a link on my talk page to Sockpuppet investigations/Passportguy which has you listed. I thought that you may like to know. Bidgee (talk) 11:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Same accounts have been used on Commons which I've indef blocked for (and deleted all files). All they have been doing is reuploading copyrighted images so they can use to disrupt Wikipedia. Bidgee (talk) 02:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Doverpro's copyrighted images
Hello Peripitus - as you are now aware, the images you deleted with your quick trigger finger have now been re-uploaded. This is because, as indicated in the descriptions these are images I WHOLLY CREATED AND OWN - you have no authority to remove MY images - do it again and I report you as a vandal. Next time ASK FIRST before deleting. I highly doubt you remove images from larger company's don't pick on mine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doverpro110 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

reply
WRT your note, I too considered whether a deletion review was in order. I would however have tried to conduct a civil dialogue with the closing admin first. Per AAGF I would always do my best to strictly follow the guidelines, and make sure my questions of the closing admin were respectful of their being a volunteer, trying to do their best.

I am sorry to inform you that you and Stifle are mistaken if you think this is always useful. In my experience some administrators can't be bothered to make any effort to respond to question. Many other administrators give pro forma replies that are basically just a big Foxtrot Oscar. Geo Swan (talk) 23:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

How can I use Photos that aren't mine?
I don't want to break any rules or laws, but I just want to find out how to submit photos that I don't have the copyright to. I think that the photos could really aid the article and want to find a way to do it. I would appreciate your help in this matter. Thanks.

P.S. I'm new to wikipedia in case you haven't noticed.

Midas6489 (talk) 02:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)Midas6489Midas6489 (talk) 02:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi
You have mail at User talk:Arilang1234 <font style="color:white;background:#fe0000;"> Arilang  talk  08:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for File:Crayola.jpg
An editor has asked for a of File:Crayola.jpg. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

I am respectfully requesting a review of your decision to close the debate for the deletion of this file and delete it. -- Dougie WII (talk) 04:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleted image: [[File:1859balloon.JPG]]
I see that you recently deleted a bunch of non-free images incorrectly uploaded by User:Sedna10387. I just wanted to check about the deletion of this specific image, which the user specifically claimed to have taken him/herself. (diff here) Is there something you found elsewhere that lead you to delete this as an unambiguous copyvio, or was this a mistake (and if the latter, can it be undeleted)? Thanks, cmadler (talk) 15:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation! cmadler (talk) 15:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Man, don't delete the images!
Oohh why you have to delete the fuckin' images on my articles? I made that for help wikipedia and you delete... Stop, please.

Dantasu

Hey Stop!
Why you tray to delete my photos? I take on the exhibition at the Department of State. Please tray to make more wise things, like play whit a Wii or your Kangaroo! ,and STOP delete my images!!!! Thank you. Rumpelstinkin (talk) 02:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess what the user is trying to express is that he took the photographs at the Puerto Rico Department of State's first and only public exhibition of the state-owned portraits of Puerto Rico's First Ladies. During the opening of the exhibition, the Secretary of State invited the public and the press to photograph and disseminate the portraits since, once the exhibition ran its course, they would be returned to a part of La Fortaleza that is not open to the public.  Thus, they are free images. Perhaps User:Rumpelstinkin should record this fact in the file he created of each of these free-use images of publicly-owned portraits. Pr4ever (talk) 02:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Marble Hill - "Welcome to Country"
Internal links to Kaurna and Peramangk were and probably from past revert experiences will be removed recently on the basis of "Welcome to Country" not being wiki policy. I've reverted on the basis that a discussion could be had without a simplistic one line cryptic reason. As you have some awareness and perhaps insight and did not remove these links previously I'm curious to learn your consensus perspective.

On another angle Kaurna are rallying on SA Parliament House Steps 1-3pm Monday June 29 for the 130 year back rent bill 90 day payment due from March 29 when the original was given to our SA Governor & he followed Vice-Regal Protocol and gave it to our Government of the day. Something you may like to see as Media have expressed interest or even attend.

Thanks very much for considering yesterday's Kaurna SA Parliament House Rally and Marble Hill. You may find the following Coober Pedy Regional Times Article of interest too? When's the next Adelaide wikimeet? Mifren (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hm... okay
I just want to help in wikipedia about japanese football... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dantasu (talk • contribs) 20:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

VivaNorthCyprus
... is back. This time called User:RealitiesOnly. At the moment he is only editing Foreign relations of Northern Cyprus‎ but this is bound to change very soon given his past behaviour. Passportguy (talk) 18:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

SD decline
Hey mate,

I'm writing in reference to the article New English School (Jordan) which you declined to delete. It might not be obvious at first, but almost all of the content there was written by me; besides my current account Aua and occasional editing without logging in, I have also edited with this account AuaGood and this account AuaAua1. Not sockpuppetting since I don't believe I have ever used those accounts simultaneously, and have no access to the latter two since I lost the password way back in time (in fact that was the reason to start new accounts, I kept forgetting the password to the previous one).

In any case, you will notice all of the good current content was added by me, even the very pictures (all of them) were added by yours truly. Please have it deleted.

Cheers mate!

<font size="2.5" color="blue">&Lambda; u  α  (Operibus anteire) 19:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do not speedy delete (or regular delete, for that matter)
I stumbled across the page for the New English School in Jordan yesterday and have been working to tidy it up. I do not understand, but user Aua seems to have some sort of burning desire to have it deleted. Please see my comments on the talk page for that article. Yesterday the page was (almost) totally blanked, tantamount to a deletion without discussion. The user only uses as a justification for removal that he/she created the page, though this justification is only meant to be used in very narrow circumstances--a much higher standard of justification would be required for the blanking of this particular article. There are definitely some citations lacking in the article, but none likely to be challenged as controversial enough to be summarily removed (by anyone other than Aua). I have removed quite a bit of the unencyclopedic text and claims, and, I will admit, I have added even more "citation-needed" (and "clarification") tags, but nothing in this article is as egregious as to be pulled without a chance. Yesterday, I added eleven references (there were zero to start with), from reputable sources, including Cambridge, and some other outside sources, inluding the European Council of International Schools. This article has been discussed for deletion once (though it definitely wasn't speedy, which is completely inappropriate in this circumstance), and the decision was a unanimous keep by seven out of seven editors. I really want this article to be acceptable to user Aua, but I don't know who to ask to help me tidy it up so that it can be up to Aua's standards. I'm sure the best resources for referencing this article are off-internet print sources, but I don't have access to these. The thing that stumps me even more is Aua's response to me on the talk page, where he claims both he wrote the whole article and thus he can justify its deletion, and he is deleting it because it isn't verifiable. This seems oddly contradictory. If he wrote the majority of the article, as he claims, he either made stuff up or got it from some source (though probably not internet-based).
 * 66.183.69.201 (talk) 20:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, I've discovered a few gems. Like user Aua's removal of a table [] with the justification "someone wanted to promote the school with false ad" (the included claimed awards which I was easily able to source, fairly reputably: Cambridge University).  The amusing key here, however, is Aua added that whole table [] about a year before.  I might just give up on this one, because on deeper inspection it is patently obvious something weird is going on with user Aua and this article.
 * 66.183.69.201 (talk) 21:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete images
You can delete the following images. I uploaded them under the wrong license. I re-uploaded them at Wikipedia Commons under "It is entirely my work". Lovejonesfly (talk) 16:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Image:LalahTwilight.JPG
 * Image:LalahHathawayTwilightRoom.JPG

Talkback
–Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Still a typo in MediaWiki:Filedelete-success
See Village_pump_(technical). Since you've edited that page before, you might know how to fix it. Thanks, <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 05:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I think we got it fixed last night. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 14:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

SemiColonInSentence sockpuppet
Hi, I saw you blocked the above user earlier for sockpuppeting. Can you have a look at User:Near Optimally, as he appears to be quacking pretty loudly? Thanks,  Them From  Space  23:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Image licence migration
Why are all of the licences for images on wikipedia being changed?

Is there a good reason for this?, or am I just being cynical when I think that this change in the image licencing is just being used as an excuse to purge wikipedia of images that the administrators don't like, and also being used as a power trip to show that they are in charge?

Please can you resond to my usertalk page as soon as possible. Dreamweaverjack (talk) 00:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * P.S. this isn't meant as a personal attack on you, more a generalisation of the fact that so many images are now diplaying licencing issues on their pages by wikipedia adminstrators over the last week or so. Dreamweaverjack (talk) 00:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Please read the article Image license migration if you are unsure about this, I found the link on the user page of the administrator User:Drilnoth under the heading "What am I doing?". It says "I control User:DrilBot to do various tasks, such as Checking Wikipedia and updating files in accordance with the image license migration."


 * Does this clear things up, and now do you see where I am coming from with my confusion over the image licencing issues. One administrator is telling me one thing, and another is telling me something different. Please respond - Dreamweaverjack (talk) 01:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (from Drilnoth) No images are getting deleted because of this... the notice is just saying that they may be more easy for others to use. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Personal "Attack"
Hello. I Said on the Page DipSTICKS, I don't really like to use profanities. And why do some people not edit pages and just delete them? I'm just trying to help make the site filled with more information.--Das Ansehnlisch (talk) 01:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Abuse of image
I would like to bring to you the attention of this photo being used as a decoration on the Sol-Angel and the Hadley Street Dreams page. The image was uploaded under the album cover license but is not being used as an album cover. Lovejonesfly (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

VivaNorthCyprus sock
FYI, a likely sock of VivaNorthCyprus (Nilpotencial) is claiming on Talk:Northern Cyprus that, among other things, you've vandalised Wikipedia. I thought you had the right to know of this. Cheers, <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 08:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me!!!!! Why the heck r u touching my beutiful site. I worked hard when i was a kid to ask my great grandmother these myths and u just delete them. I am emailiing wikipedia and u soon will be fired

Singing Fools image copyright
Hi, I am the copyright owner of the photo, I posted it on UKScreen. I am Kevin Murphy. I am a Singing Fool and own all the rights (except performance royalties)to Singing Fools Music and "Chelseamorning2006". It is a publicity photo taken by me (with a malfunctioning shutter timer). I am a lawyer (but don't hold that against me). Please let me know if you need further authentication of this issue. Thanks.

P.S. In accordance with your previous instructions I have sent an email to info@wikipedia.com from the UKScreen.com website where this image originated confirming that I am the copyright holder and granting permission to reproduce the image. I trust this will be satisfactory.Chelseamorning2006 (talk) 18:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

P.P.S. Thanks for your patience and guidance. Realize this is one tiny grain in the Wikipedia universe but it is quite impressive how intricate and conscientious the editing process is. I have learned a little with a lot more left to go. You were all most kind. Merci beaucoup.Chelseamorning2006 (talk) 01:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

A recent FfD
Howdy. I have a question about you closed. I agree with moving the file to commons and then deleting the local version. I'm just wondering if you should have done the moving, deleting, and closing as you participated in the discussion.--Rockfang (talk) 19:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. Thank you for replying.--Rockfang (talk) 19:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

heads up
Please see a file you nominated for speedy deletion sent on to FFD. Spartaz Humbug! 19:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

My Images uploaded to wikipedia
Why have you just went and grouped all of the images of cars that I have uploaded onto wikipedia for deletion? Is this a personal vendetta against me due to the uploading of the image Morris Minor MM Series which I misunderstood to be my copyright due to the editing of it by me prior to uploading onto wikipedia, as most of the images that I have ever uploaded are from pictures that I own and NONE OF THEM are sourced from magazines scanned into my computer!!!

I regard this as an abuse of your position as a wikipedia administrator, who seems to think that if you don't like something, to hell with anyone else's opinion, you delete the image or article.

Please respond to my usertalk page as soon as possible!! - Dreamweaverjack (talk) 10:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Please try to remember that all of the images that I have ever uploaded onto wikipedia were put on the site in the spring of 2007, just months after I found out about the website when I joined Glasgow Caledonian University. This was due to the fact that we were told to look at the website as one of many possible sources of information about the topics involved in the degree that I was studying for (BSc in Networking and Computer Support).


 * Prior to this I hadn't heard about wikipedia, and when I discovered about the wesbite, I thoght that I could share some of the knowledge that I have with others, to help them learn about the topics that I knew information about which I thought might be useful to others, that is why I created a user profile to allow me to create these articles.


 * At this time I didn't realise that all uploaded images required a metadata section on them, as none of the pictures that I looked at to learn about uploading to wikipedia had one on them either, and I uploaded my images in the same way. As no-one told me about the problems with the image licences attached to my images, I didn't realise that there was anything wrong with them as they were done in the same way that the other licences were shown at the time.


 * Please can you respond to this at my usertalk page, thanks - Dreamweaverjack (talk) 11:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, why do you fully rely on the web programme Tineye, and then in the case of the Renault Clio MkI facelift image, say on the Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cliomk1 facelift.jpg page on Wikipedia Commons - "image taken from a website by enwiki uploader who has proved confused about "self made". I cannot identify the exact source but tineye shows me higher resolution versions. This appears to be a professional promotional shot" - and still put a copyright warning on it, even though the web program has proved that it is not the same image resolution or in fact the same image. You should also see that there can be more than one image of a car, which will look very similar, but in fact be from a different source, as in this case!! - Dreamweaverjack (talk) 13:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Adam Wilson (The Young and the Restless) Chris Engen image
Hello, Peripitus. Would you mind explaining why you felt the Adam Wilson Chris Engen picture is better off deleted? I am not seeing how J Milburn's argument beats out the majority of votes and valid reasoning for the image to be kept. In fact, I really am not seeing how his argument, seeing as he was the main one arguing for deletion, was/is stronger than ours (the ones arguing against the deletion). How would having two images of fictional character Adam Wilson in both of his adult physical incarnations, for example, be that different than showing the different physical incarnations for Jabba the Hutt (which are also all fair-use images)? The 30-images scenario does not "fly" with me. As I stated there, I highly doubt that all 30 actors would be notable/significant enough as the character to all be displayed. And even if that were the case, we would not list all 30...but rather go by the most well-known in the role (which would be limited to two at most in regards to fair-use rationale). Flyer22 (talk) 01:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It would be best if you reply here instead of at my talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 02:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Race911 to Peripitus
Thanks for advice will keep that in mind from next time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Race911 (talk • contribs) 12:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

This is for Peripitus from Race911
Those images were from news papers and from free lancers and some of was mine and let me tell you that in Women in militry whatever i uploaded was history of India and everything is public, nobody can take proprietary or patent for history and historical events please check your sources. and dont tell me that Columbus has patent for American history. No website can claim patent on any country's historical event.

Peripitus : "I have just noticed you took lots of text from indianetzone dot com which is a (c) copyrighted website and pasted it into Women in the military"

P.S "History is never patented by anybody nor will be"

Message
Did you get my message about an uploaded picture? SidaneSidane 4:05 pm, 30 July, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by SidaneSidane (talk • contribs) 20:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Image checking
I've noticed you're doing some great work checking new image uploads. I'm working at the other end of the timeline, checking through the oldest images on the site. My aims are to filter out obvious non-free use violations, check that the source/license info is OK and if possible to shift them over to Commons. If any of this sounds interesting to you, I'd be glad to have you as a collaborator! Papa November (talk) 22:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Papa November/OldImages

Anstey
Pity about that. It should be resurrected.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 02:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Meetup/Adelaide
Hi Peripitus I see from Meetup/Adelaide that you seem to be a fairly common denominator so am wondering when the next could possibly be as I'd like to attend and potentially invite others.Mifren (talk) 20:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Lemogfog
U stinkin fowl retard. Deletein my site like that... u have no authority. u r just a stinky old man on the internet! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.203.214 (talk) 15:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

AdSteam
Thank you! But please don't forget User talk:Spy007au Pdfpdf (talk) 13:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Images uploaded by User:Dreamweaverjack on wikipedia
Why are you automatically presuming that due to the fact that I made a mistake with one image that I uploaded to en.wikpedia.org, that I am suddenly some corrupt user who steals photgraphs that are copywritten by other people.

Is it not ironic that wikipedia is trying to (supposedly) remove images of copyright violation, that the orgainistaion that runs it are trying to fight a legal challenge by the UK National Portrait Gallery due to the fact that they are will known artworks.

In the UK it is seen as theft, yet in the US it seems to be all right to do this due to the fact that the pictures are on display in an art gallery in an other country.

Why are you not hounding that user for copyright violation but are harrassing me due to the fact that I misunderstood the image copyright issue for ONE uploaded image. - Dreamweaverjack (talk) 11:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

File:PeterPan1.jpg
Hello. I'm contacting you because I see you have been involved in the resolution of other image deletion discussions. This one is still pending at Files for deletion/2009 July 9 (the only one from that day not yet resolved), with seven votes to keep and two (including the original nomination) in favor of deleting. Could you please take a moment to settle the issue? Thank you for your assistance. <font face="Tempus Sans ITC">LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 14:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Protection on "Brianna Stewart" page?
Can we put a protection on the page? Some IP address (who I believe is probably the same person) is continually posting that they think that the movie "Orphan" is based off of BS's life or used as an influence. Now they posted a link to IMDB where someone posted their hypothesis that the movie is based off of BS. I'm guessing that the same person who has been putting in the bit is also the same person who posted the theory on the IMDB page. Can we protect this for a while so this person won't be able to keep vandalizing the page with their unsourced claims? Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Tokyogirl79
 * I also looked up the episodes that were claimed to be related to the BS case. Neither has anything that even remotely comes close to the BS case. This person either is very delusional about what qualifies as "inspired by" or they are trolling the page. (Sorry if I sound angry, but I've had to alter that page a few times because they keep changing it back to suit their opinions.) Hopefully you can put a protection on the page until that person's interest has waned? Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Tokyogirl79


 * Can you do something about the BS page? There's an edit war brewing between me & this other guy on there & now there's a user who is claiming that the IMDB trivia page is a verifiable source when I KNOW that the info wasn't on there previously. (I'd bet money that the person who added in the info added in the trivia on IMDB so they could post their info on the site.) Even with the IMDB link the information is still hypothetical. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 21:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Tokyogirl79

Boxing245
You blocked User:Boxing245 @ 07:50, 23 July 2009 with the comment "Another copyright violation - not getting the message". Just a heads up - same user then uploaded same (ie most recent) copyvio image to Commons @ 15:44, 24 July 2009. 58.8.9.37 (talk) 10:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Very similarly for Special:Contributions/Daballack → Commons:Special:Contributions/Daballack. —teb728 t c 05:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

slight update on BS page edits
I tried to be nice about it & left it as a "possibly inspired by" as a way of making peace, although I know that theory isn't really supposed to be up on Wikipedia. I also wanted to make you aware of one thing- I'm 99.9% sure that the user (Emlodik) is the one who posted the trivia up on the IMDB page. He's a user on the page itself & was actually the first person to post anything about the Brianna Stewart/Orphan comparisons on the IMDB page. I think he made the post on IMDB because he wanted to claim it as a verified source to prove that he was right. To date, there is nothing else on the web to back up his claim on that nor on either of the two episodes that he claims is also based on this person. I don't want it to seem like I'm turning it into a peeing contest, but I just dislike that I'm having to compromise with this because some guy thinks that his opinion is enough to warrant a change to an article & is posting his opinion on other sites & claiming them as a verified source. It just irritates me. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Tokyogirl79

Needs a Second Look
you blocked him a while back, and he's since amassed quite a collection of warning tags, but no one's done anything about him for a while. <font color="#006600">R <font color="#0D8147">ad <font color="#009966">io <font color="#009999">pa <font color="#1E99CC">th <font color="#67B2DE ">y  •talk•  01:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfree image now on commons
At Possibly unfree files/2009 July 19 you just deleted File:First Lt. Daniel Choi.jpg and it now has appeared on commons. I have nominated the commons version for deletion at --Blargh29 (talk) 08:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Das_Ansehnlisch
Hello there

I’ve started an ANI thread (here) on User:Das Ansehnlisch who you blocked temporarily some weeks ago. His user page redirects to another user, so here’s a link to the contribs page.

regards. --Merbabu (talk) 22:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problems
Hi, a file you deleted as a copyvio was reuploaded: Files for deletion/2009 January 6. I nominated it for deletion and found the user had uploaded a lot of stuff from the same tainted flickr account that is full of copyrighted material. I made a list but I don't know how to list this properly in a single request (unlike on Commons), can you look over these:

File:Danja.jpg, File:Spencegabor..jpg, File:Almamy 2.jpg, File:Spencegabor.jpg, File:Nite Club.jpg, File:Niteclub.jpg, File:Jennycanto.jpg, File:Cazwellonstage.jpg, File:Sylvester portrait .jpg, File:Santogold.jpeg, File:Santogold1.jpeg, File:The Cool Kids.jpg, File:Kenna(2).jpg, File:Like You Do remixes - EP 1000x1000 ArtworkCover.jpg, File:The Sexy Boy EP...L.Y.D. artwork 1000X1000.jpg, File:The Sexy Boy EP...B.M.D. artwork. 1000X1000.jpg, File:Dangerous muse.jpg, File:BDC Logo.jpg, File:Seelenluft1.jpg, File:Seelenluft.jpg, File:Almamy....jpg

The uploader also has lots of non-free use images on userpages, isn't that problematic? Thanks! Hekerui (talk) 01:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Images
Hi. Is there a policy/guideline page that lists criteria by which how an image can significantly add to a reader's understanding of the topic? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 17:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see why you'd find such a thing amusing, nor why you think my question might've been rhetorical (or even "retorical", as you put it). Such decisions should be based on policy, and not contradictory "precedents" that are not evidently documented, nor the subjective judgments of button-pushers who don't seem to take the discussion into account. Can you point me to these precedents? Nightscream (talk) 22:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's okay. And I apologize myself if I reacted badly to your initial message. Your explanation on Plastikspork's page is appreciated, and I responded to it to explain why I disagree, and to ask you about the consensus that you mentioned. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

ROL3 and FOL3
Hello Peripitus. Could I get you to have a second look at and ? It seems as though there was some disagreement over interpretation of the word significant in NFCC #8. I was not aware of any guidelines in this regard when it comes to low resolution full cast photos. I am aware of guidelines when it comes to individual photos of living individuals. I thought I would see if you could take a second look before considering doing something more formal, e.g., a review. Thanks in advance for your consideration, and best regards, Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 23:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I responded on my talk page. By the way, I believe that this particular case may have been tainted due to history between the nominator and the uploader.  The uploader has now been blocked by the nominator.  I probably would have asked another admin to do the blocking, but that's me. In any event, I am mostly worried about a precedent being set without a clear community consensus. Thanks. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)  17:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

WizFolio
Hi Peripitus. I am trying to revive this previously deleted page Wizfolio. I have rewritten the page and would like to ask you to have a second look. Thank you for your time. Kendric Apple (talk) 07:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Please help me delete an image, Peripitus
Hi Peripitus!

I uploaded this image on July 19, 2007 but I have changed my mind and would like it deleted and no longer in any sort of public domain. I hope this is possible. Please help me!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dragoslav_Sekularac_-_photo_property_of_BelgradeArt.png

Mita Otrov (talk) 21:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Peripitus hasn't been around for a few weeks, so I have done this. Kevin (talk) 21:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Heinrich Himmler and Gudrun Burwitz.jpg
Hi. You once demonstrated remarkable knowledge, identifying the photo as taken by Friedrich Franz Bauer, Himmler's personal photographer (copy held by the BPK archive - image#30010944). Ref a question on the image's talk page, do you know, or know if sources exit, where the photo was actually taken? Thanks, Power.corrupts (talk) 09:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

York Park
Thanks! :)  Aaroncrick  (<font color="#FE2712">talk )  Review me! 04:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Castiel image
Hey, I'm not sure how the deletion process works, so sorry if I shouldn't be posting this here. Anyways, the Castiel image that you said should be deleted is of the character. The free image that you cited is of the actor at a convention, which does not depict the character. Ω pho  is  20:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Kevorkmail
Hey, what do you think, I have my own sources, I am Armenian and I have a lot of encyclopaedias, I've scanned them from my books, and to prove that I will scan another one.

Sorry for missunderstanding and thanks for the explanation.

Orphan that may be killed
I don't see how it's not "free use". I can make the same thing my self in photoshop. But no worries, you can go ahead and remove it. Btw, I just used it on my user page. -- Mike Allen talk · contribs 03:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm still a "newbie", and I thought I could upload that "spread Firefox" button and then use it as a link to download Firefox (like you would on a webpage). But, yeah WP doesn't allow that -- so I just used it like I did, since I don't know how to remove it or get a file removed.  I figured someone would come along rather soon and remove it. Hehe. Also, I'm still learning about all the copyright rules. :-\  Thanks for being nice about it.  -- Mike Allen talk · contribs 21:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Fallout3 brokensteel.png
I added the licensing - sorry about that. I must have missed it. --Teancum (talk) 14:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

A Question
I would like to take the following and crop the guy on the left in order to use it as a picture for his article, Jean Genet. What exactly do I need to do regarding the wikibureaucracy? Thanks. Evenfiel (talk) 02:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot! Evenfiel (talk) 13:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I have another question. I've contacted Stephen Greenblatt, and his assistant sent me a professional picture, saying that "Dear André, Please find attached a photo of Professor Greenblatt. If you need one with a higher ppi ration, I have one. The credit line should read Bachrach. Best wishes, Emily". The problem is, the picture was taken by "Bachrach", so I guess that I'll need to ask him for the license, not Stephen Greenblatt or his assistant. Is that correct? Evenfiel (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks again! I've managed to solve the issue with him and got the permission to use the picture. Evenfiel (talk) 15:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm wondering if you could add to the Lévi-Strauss picture that it was me who first uploaded it, just like you did with the Stephen Greenblatt one. My ego will be grateful! ;) Evenfiel (talk) 03:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I had no idea that his picture was such a rare portrait here. I didn't even know that pictures could be nominated to become featured! That would be cool. :) Evenfiel (talk) 12:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you forgot to change the info about the Lévi-Strauss picture... Evenfiel (talk) 14:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

McLaren assitance
Yes please can you help me I'm new to wikipedia and I don't have much idea about what's going on with images. (Wiki id2 (talk) 09:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC))

Oakwood
I think I've addressed most of your concerns. I had a couple questions too. Thanks for putting the time into reviewing.  upstate NYer  04:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Ngo Dinh Diem presidential visit to Australia
Thank you. Hopefully they'll find something else to do. --NellieBly (talk) 01:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Magazine Covers and Modeling for Krystal Meyers
I read this and it leaves it up to your interpretation so you can basically remove any image you want and there is nothing anyone but God can do about it. "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."

All I can do is recommend this: You need to leave two of these in there. I am getting married to Krystal Meyers so if you remove them I will put them on her site and link to it from the words in the article. I feel they add to the article. I will compromise with you now if you wish and I will leave File:AERA-ENGLISH-with Krystal-Meyers-2.jpg and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Uniqlo-with-Krystal-Meyers.jpg because it makes a better article. I have already made these changes.

I'd also like this one left available for later use: File:AREA-ENGLISH-with-Krystal-Meyers.jpg I will talk to Krystal and see if she would rather have it than File:AERA-ENGLISH-with Krystal-Meyers-2.jpg on her page.

Scheduled for deletion:

File:NYLON-with-Krystal-Meyers.jpg

File:AREA-ENGLISH-with-Krystal-Meyers.jpg (keep for possible later use)

File:AERA-ENGLISH-with Krystal-Meyers-2.jpg (keep)

File:BOUNCE-with-Krystal-Meyers.jpg

File:Uniqlo-with-Krystal-Meyers.jpg (keep)

If Krystal and I get permission from the copyright holders can we include that when we upload the next time and keep the images online and free from deletion?? I am sure it's just an email away to get that.

Thanks that is very helpful. I let Krystal know. And, thanks for the congrats. We are getting married this Wednesday; then off to Honolulu.

SP_Vaid_IPS.jpg
Actually, the image you deleted was as you said is from the source: http://www.jkcivildefence.org/newsletters/images_06feb/igp_jammu.jpg but was originally captured by my team for this organization. The website does not talk about its copyright status either, so what I request is, that if someone objects then go ahead and delete it. As for now, I can probably upload it as my own work if you allow. *Truth* (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC).
 * So, what do you say? *Truth* (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC).

Image copyvios from User:Psamtik 1
Hello. Just saw/edit conflicted with your note to and wanted to let you know that I have already started deleting any of his images that have watermarks and/or obviously invalid licenses. Depending on his response to either of our messages, I suspect that we may need to delete everything he has uploaded. Your thoughts? — Kralizec! (talk) 21:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Having just gone through deleting all the obvious image copyvios and tagging the rest, it may be worth noting that quite a few of the images had been previously uploaded (using the exact same license verbage) by and/or .  Also, not that there was much doubt, but the proof of duplicity from Psamtik is in the images themselves; in File:Giza 7.jpg he states "I (Marwa Morgan) created this work entirely by myself," while in File:Port Said 29.jpg he claims to be "Waleed Montaser" and in File:Shobra Kheima 1.jpg he is "Alaa Awaad."  — Kralizec! (talk) 00:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * A second-chance offer has been put on the table . What he does with it is up to him, but regardless I will be putting his favourite articles on my watchlist so that I can closely monitor what is going on.  Since I only deleted those images that were unambiguous copyright violations, more than a hundred of his uploads are currently winding their way through the di-no permission, db-unksource, and puf process.  Should we let them go that route, or delete the images now ourselves since there is little doubt that they were all uploaded improperly?
 * Full-discosure #1: While I have helped with a few image copyvio issues in the past, Wikipedia image law is not exactly my forte. As such, I would gladly defer to your more experienced wisdom on the issue.
 * Full-disclosure #2: I deleted so many freaking images last night that my mouse-clicking finger hurts today. As such, the prospect of deleting another hundred images has my finger twitching in fear.
 * As always, thank you for your time and assistance. — Kralizec! (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The editor is indefinitely blocked now, and all of his uploads are deleted. Thanks for the Special:Nuke pointer ... it was scary to use!  — Kralizec! (talk) 01:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Drowned world tour 2001.jpg listed for deletion
I completely missed that! I'll work on it right away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Resbusha (talk • contribs) 02:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deleted image
Hi Peripitus. Whrn you have a second, could you please explain what the deal is/was with ? It's use on Albert S. Ruddy would seem to be a clear-cut NFCC instance to me, so I'm slightly confused as to the reasons for it being speedily deleted is all. — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 05:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Kaurna & Peramangk Sovereignty over Marble Hill, South Australia
Hi Peripitus, in good faith I have sought to ask a question at Talk:Marble_Hill,_South_Australia could you please respond?Mifren (talk) 11:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi mate, thx for the new pics
I see you have changed the pic in the NMB article to a better one, you can actually see details of the Achilles sarcophagus!!! thank you for that. do you happen to have any shots of the Eshmun Temple too?? Eli +  11:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * why are you in Lebland so often, are you in the UNIFIL ??? Eli  +  20:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * so you're Leblandese? well the eshmun temple is not so impressive especially when its covered by a thick coat of vegetation, nevertheless i felt mesmerized by the site, it had a magical aspect i had never experienced anywhere else... its a weird place, very desolate yet very poweful Eli  +  20:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Kwinana
Haha, I missed that entirely! I'd guess it's some junior high school kid's idea of humour. :| Orderinchaos 04:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)