User talk:Skier Dude/archive/archive Jan 10

Razziapostercrp3in.jpg
Thank you for picking up on this as we REALLY need some help on images. We are the owners of the copyright of the film Razzia in Sankt Pauli by virtue of a decision of the Bundesarchiv-FilmArchiv, the official German body that decides these things. The film is recognized as important, in fact we found a posting on the net that picked it as the posting author's choice of Weimar movies he would love to have on DVD. We actually wanted to post the image of the movie poster in the film infobox on the right but it came up too large and then we "lost" the image on Wiki and just gave up. So questions 1. Where is this image on the wiki site so we can retrieve it 2. How do we reduce the size to  fit the box as it now is. 3. There are other images which we want to post but we cannot find the correct answer in the "licenses" box... how do you license yourself 4. where do we find instructions to "word wrap" when we do post these images. 5. Do we still need to post "hang on" in view of the links etc created

Looking forward Justinsophie (talk) 14:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

OTRS for wikisky
I ' m an OTRS volunteer, I closed that ticket and I'm the referent for this ticket. You can see the e-mails here and here (in english). Bye. -- Roberto  Segnali all'Indiano  19:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

McDonald's Corporate Logo
The logo was of McDonald's Corporation, not the one used by the restaurants it was claimed as being redundant to. There is a back story on this and it is that the person who uploaded the "new" logo has been trying change the logo to one which he created for over two years now; every time he does he gets slapped down as the logo he is proposing is one he created himself and not one of the company. When he tagged the old logo with the speedy tag, he failed to notify any of the people who had confronted him in the past, start a discussion or any perform any of the required processes that have been established on WP. He posted one message on the McDonald's talk page and went a head and put the speedy deletion tag on the image immediately.

If you could, could you please take the time and restore the image? --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 01:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Urgent question
You have deleted two images, what I have uploaded before: Empyrrean 1.jpg and Empyrrean 2.jpg. You said it is orphaned, because it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. The page, is under development by me, and will be moved from my private page to the normal articles, when I finish it. So this means I cannot use any uploaded images on my private page? This is ridiculous. It isn't worth while. I am out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mogzyx (talk • contribs) 18:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

My photo of 1972 Israeli Olympic team
Thanks for the heads-up about this photo. The reason it was "orphaned" was because the article was considerably vandalized, a situation that has since been rectified. The photo, which was the source of a considerable amount of controversy when I uploaded it, has apparently been cleared under various Wiki "fare-use" standards.

BassPlyr23 (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

hi who are u —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomsmith54 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Image size
What is the max. image size in articles? Is it acceptable to set size to 1000px? Vilnisr (talk) 18:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

in case you might wish to know...
An improved version of the article about the Fred movie is currently at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Fred: The Movie. Over the next few weeks it can be expanded, sourced and further improved so that when it is returned to main pages, it will meet the inclusion requirements set by WP:NF. Please feel free to check in. Best,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Aris Thessaloniki F.C.
Aris Thessaloniki F.C. was moved to Worms Jerusalem FC in a move to vandalize the page and user:Materialscientist in an effort to fix this, mistakenly moved its corresponding talk page to the main page. Can you please try to fix this? Also, this is the reason why my image File:Arisfc.png is orphaned... So, if you restore that page, you can remove the deletion template from that image, too... :D After all, without that article, it's only logical that my image is orphaned, much like the manchester united logo would be without the manchester united fc page here... Heracletus (talk) 12:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
For cleaning up after me with deletions after I run through some images with Non-free reduce on them. There don't seem to be many admins that delete them.--Rockfang (talk) 06:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:SCI logo.svg
The svg image file was not displaying correctly and can be deleted. I have replaced that svg file on all related articles with a png format file.--Tal Bee (talk) 17:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Pictures
Hi, I got your notice about the pictures I uploaded on my talk page. Do you have any suggestions on finding copyright for pictures taken with the PrtSc button from Youtube?

Thanks Ob4cl (talk) 18:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
 Gongshow  Talk 20:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

File:RabbitEarsLogo.gif
You marked the above file as being orphaned and not used on any page, this isn't not completely correct. The image page shows the image is being used on this page. I have removed the deletion template from the page and ask you be more careful in the future. -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 07:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please note that non-free images are allowed only in article space and not in user space/sandboxes (i.e. this one). The user has a grace period of a week to get the image/article into the article space or the image will be deleted.  Even if this is the case, and the article is created later, any sysop can restore the image for use in the correct (article) space.  Skier Dude  ( talk ) 07:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * According to the FUR is says "I wanted to make this logo CC-BY-NC-SA but that does not seem to be an option."....so it seems that all needs to be done is the removed of the Fair Use template and the addition of the CC-BY-NC-SA template. Shouldn't be hard. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 07:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Would cc-by-sa-3.0 cover the CC-BY-NC-SA that the user wanted? -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 07:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think so: "CC-BY-NC-SA" is "Creative Commons, by-attribution, non-commercial, share alike" which is not compatible with the CC licenses used herein becuase of the "non-commercial" restriction. He's either going to have to release this under a wiki-compatible CC license or keep it as non-free (with the restrictions that entails). I'll bump it IfD for further discussion and hope the uploader clarifies the situation.  Skier Dude  ( talk ) 07:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A note should be dropped on his talk page to let him know that CC-BY-NC-SA isn't an option Wikipedia allows and another option needs to be made. That would probably move this along quickly to a resolution.  I would also recommend an email as well in case the user is offline for awhile. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 07:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I included that in the note at IfD - I don't use e-mail any more due to massive harassment problems in the past. Skier Dude  ( talk ) 07:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late reply, I took sometime away from Wiki to catch up on my reading. Anywho, I noticed the post.  A good way to keep the harrassment down to nil is get a seperate account for Wikipedia emails.  That is what I have done and if there it a problem, I just filter the problem emails into the trash immediately.  Gmail is pretty good at filters.  I have run into the user in question on different forums besides Wikipedia and he has been nothing but professional, so I don't think an email to him would be a problem, but I respect your decision. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 09:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am the uploader; I have commented on the discussion in "possibly unfree files" about this matter. If you would prefer to discuss it here instead of there, do let me know.  Also note that I will be away from my computer for much of the day today starting in about an hour, so I would request that no action be taken until I am able to participate in a discussion. Thanks for any help. TripEricson (talk) 15:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Invitation for the typeface collaboration
I hope you can contribute in this section. Happy editings! - Woglinde 02 (talk) 07:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned Picture
Ahh, well, I looked at the page and it seems as though it was replaced. I'm going to need to get ahold of all the licensing data again (oh joy). Thank you though, for doing your part in making Wikipedia a better place for researchers everywhere. Jacob S. grafitti 20:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

EDIT: My mistake, it still exists. Hooray!

User talk:The does
I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you're talking about. --The does (talk) 05:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Aha. Sorry then, if that's not allowed. --The does (talk) 05:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Duffty-Bowie.jpg, File:Duffty-McLaren.jpg, File:KDandNG.jpg
A permission to publish letter was sent with relevant licensing info to permissions-en@wikimedia.org for photos in question. Please do not delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hdsears (talk • contribs) 15:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey dude!
Hey, I just fix some of your deletion proposals. You were arguing that some images, mostly single covers, were unused, but, in fact, they were used. Those covers that you propose for deletion were, and are, being used on their respective song's article. So please, be careful the next time and thake some time to read the licenses, cause also I found a couple of covers with the license, and, not only you were arguing that those covers were unused, moreover, you were arguin that those covers did not have their licenses. So please, be careful next time. Fortunato luigi (talk) 06:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You should learn how to read a page's edit history if you're going to make accusations... just picked 4 at random:
 * File:NAG Single.jpg - orphaned as of 05:46, 2 January 2010 - put back on article by you 06:42, 5 January 2010
 * File:DLMBTLTK.png - uploaded with no source or license 13:06, 31 December 2009 - tagged by me as such 01:23, 2 January 2010 - you added information on 06:01, 5 January 2010
 * File:Lucky Britney.png - orphaned as of 05:56, 2 January 2010 - restored to article by Aaa16 00:22, 4 January 2010 - noticed by you on 05:46, 5 January 2010
 * File:Britney-Spears-OopsI-Did-It-Again.jpg- was removed from article 02:27, 29 December 2009 by Jonnyt 123 - marked orphaned by me 05:51, 2 January 2010 - put back on article 23:55, 2 January 2010 by The Rogue Leader
 * Please note that the admins that deal with Category:Orphaned non-free use Wikipedia files find lots of these images that are orphaned for various reasons (ofttimes vandalism), tagged as such, and are put back on the articles without the image description page being updated. We just remove the outdated template and move on. Nothing unusual here.  Given that I tag hundreds of these a week, it's not unexpected that many of them are restored to the articles within the seven day 'grace period'.  Skier Dude  ( talk ) 03:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

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

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. 82.116.91.134 (talk) 20:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I realize you're not the original uploader, but as it looks like he's gone I figured I might as well notify you. Cheers, 82.116.91.134 (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, sorry for templating. I'm aware of WP:DNTTR but forgot :\ 82.116.91.134 (talk) 20:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

My Salmon Picture
Hello! Ya! I just needed to upload it, so I could access it to use for a school assignment! You can go ahead and delete it now! I couldnt figure out, how to delete it myself! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Podruznik (talk • contribs) 23:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Dennis Luginbill
An article that you have been involved in editing, Dennis Luginbill, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. --BaronLarf 00:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

protection level
I was told to contact you over this matter. Would it be possible if you could change Template:Newpage/doc from full-protection to semi-protection. There is still a chance that one or more established users will in good faith want to make minor changes, such as adding to "see also." Still, it should have a warning to all editors similar to that of WP:YFA, stating it is not the place to write a new article. Sebwite (talk) 06:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Skier Dude  ( talk ) 03:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

File:"Over Da Rainbow" (Film) One-Sheet.jpg COPYRIGHT STATUS
Hello, you've added the "possibly unfree file" tag to the File:"Over Da Rainbow" (Film) One-Sheet.jpg. I am the director/producer/graphic designer etc. for the film, and I own all the copyrights. What other guarantees or assurances do you need so that you may please restore the image to its original status. Also, the image became "solarized," or oddly black and white, after the "puf" tag was added. I suppose this will also be remedied once the "puf" tag is removed? Thank you very much. MaxLightning85 (talk) 04:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

File:DOUCHEBAG.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:DOUCHEBAG.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

 * Your work is very much appreciated. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)