User talk:TLSuda/Archive 8

File:Ernest Hartsock, undated photograph.jpg
There is a ticket concerning image you deleted: 2014060710004722. Could you look at it? Ankry (talk) 08:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No license was given, but everything else seems to check out. I requested a license and as soon as that comes in, I'll be happy to restore. Thanks for letting me know.  Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 10:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Fredcopeman.jpg
Could you please explain why you've just deleted this. It had a valid NFC claim for the Fred Copeman article. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The file was nominated for deletion for the following concern: "Invalid FUR: the header mentions two articles, so it is not clear which one of them the FUR refers to." And it wasn't touched over 7 days or fixed, therefore it was not fully compliant with WP:NFCC. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 00:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * So why not do something constructive and fix the paperwork? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * While we're asking dumb questions, why didn't you just fix it before it was deleted, instead of complaining now? I don't know what the uploader intended. It was actually completely missing the actual FUR, it doesn't have anything but a web address source and links to two articles.  TLSuda  (talk) 00:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * When I last saw this image, when the lynch mob was gathering over Cheeseladder, I didn't see any issue with the file. Is it also now policy for you to take this "Ha ha, too late now sucker!" approach?  Have you forgotten WP:NOTBUREAU completely and are now too busy in explaining your infallibility to consider that there's an encyclopedia here? Are you really claiming that a portrait photo for a biography is either inappropriate, or beyond your skills to provide a FUR for? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It is my policy to respond in the same manner as I am approached. Fire with fire.  TLSuda  (talk) 01:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for File:Fredcopeman.jpg
An editor has asked for a of File:Fredcopeman.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. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Bacone15.jpg
Hi TLSuda. A friend contacted me a while ago about the deletion notice on the image that he uploaded. I am the photographer and will re-upload with a proper license. --BladeBronson (talk) 20:21, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

PUF question
File:Godfather stars.jpg This file from March 11 came up in discussion at MCQ recently. It's been around so long, I had to replace the links showing identical photos. While doing that, I noticed that there are also some undecided files for March 10, 12 and 13th. Did I find an "oops"? :) Thanks, We hope (talk) 20:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Good catch. Somehow the bot removed those from pages that are ready to be processed. I've noticed that the bot does that sometimes for WP:PUF. May be time to change to the bot that WP:FFD uses. I'll look at them now. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 20:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Never had anything at either spot so long that the links "wore out" for them as they did for the Godfather file.:) Thanks again! We hope (talk) 20:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * We used to have a great database report resource (Database_reports/Old_deletion_discussions) that we could use to prevent this from happening, but that's been broken due to the toolserver/labs move.  TLSuda  (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * So strange that the bot dropped the PUF segment from March 10-13. This looks like it was a good tool--too bad it's gone now and I guess there's nothing to replace it on the near horizon. We hope (talk) 21:05, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The bot does that from time to time. When I log in to do some administrative tasks, usually deletion of images from PUF, FFD and CSD, I have a process where I check all of the boards daily. Or I check past days if I don't log in. Those days were right after I got the mop, so I didn't have my pattern in place. I believe you'd be hard pressed to find another issue like that since April.  TLSuda  (talk) 21:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Bots may never sleep but it looks like they take a nap from time to time. :) Thanks for the barnstar!!! We hope (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Your deletion of this file
Can I please ask why you deleted it, especially when it was uploaded with the consent of the owners with their contact info provided for confirmation?--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * In this instance, you listed the file as non-free, meaning that there was not permission to release the image under a specific license. As a non-free file, it could be replaced by a freely created version of the device (therefore failing WP:NFCC). You were given instructions on your talkpage on 13 June 2014, about how to contest whether or not it was replaceable.
 * However, based on the text of the description page, and on your comment here, you claim to have permission to use the image. If you have permission to use the image under a free license, then it could've been kept with evidence of permission It is up to the uploader to provide evidence of permission. Listing an email address is not evidence of permission, and is frankly a little disrespectful to the privacy of the copyright holder. You were also given instructions on how to have the copyright holder provide this evidence of permission, which has failed to happen.
 * Basically, either the copyright holder has not released the file under a free license, in which case we cannot host it, or the copyright holder has, but no one has provided evidence of permission through the proper process. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 23:00, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Side note: The same process is about to happen with File:Juno 100 robot.jpg.  TLSuda  (talk) 23:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Juno 100 robot can be deleted as it's size and angle are not suitable for the article. However I must strongly disagree with you on the issue. If had plastered their email address all over wikipedia as opposed to simply adding it in the permission form, which I did, only then I'd be disrespecting their privacy, which is clearly not the case. And your suggestion to share a private email exchange without consent is clearly not a respect of their privacy. If I uploaded it under the wrong description, then I offer to correct that mistake if you undelete the file. Only thing was I was informed only about 29 minutes before the file was deleted. If I offered contact for confirmation, I'd be shooting myself in the foot if I didn't obtain their consent. I'll re-fill the form with the right info as mentioned. Problem is I spend only a certain amount of time on wiki per day. Regards--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 17:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * You are completely misunderstanding me. 1) By posting their email address online anywhere, anyone can sell that to spammers, or spam it themselves. If you did that to my email address, I would be very upset. That's why I think that is disrespectful. 2) I'm not asking you to forward a private/personal email. I'm telling you that you have to have the copyright holder send an email with permission. If they send the email to you, you can forward it for them. 3) You cannot upload a photo that you did not create without the copyright holder submitting a statement of permission (usually through the process with WP:CONSENT). If someone else owns the copyright to the image, they have to submit this statement of permission to WP:OTRS. The other alternative is unless they've can explicitly released the image under a specific free license on a website (such as their official website, or Flickr). If you re-upload the image without having permission supplied, it will be re-deleted. If you have them submit permission, I will personally restore the image, but we need permission under a free license.  TLSuda  (talk) 21:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I can understand if I posted it all over but I wouldn't do that. I'd also hesitate to post private messages even if it's only restricted to the form because somebody has to read the form. Since my best option is correctly filling the form I'll opt for that.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 17:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * We will have to agree to disagree on posting the email address. Once again, the best and only option is for the copyright holder to follow the instructions at WP:Consent. Cheers, and good luck.  TLSuda  (talk) 00:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Doctor Balli.jpg
You closed the non-free content review of with the explanation "Image is being used within policy." Could you please elaborate on how you reached that conclusion? --Holdek (talk) 03:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, the FUR was updated with more specific information, therefore meeting the requirements that Wikipedia sets for non-free files. So the file meets the requirements of WP:NFCC and WP:NFC and United States Copyright law under fair-use doctrines. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 03:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It fails NFCC# 2 because, per the FUR, El Sol de México Monterrey Newspaper claims the image, contradicting the FUR. --Holdek (talk) 03:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I noticed that you have now removed this information from the FUR. On what basis have you deduced that El Sol de México Monterrey Newspaper does not actually claim authorship or copyright?  --Holdek (talk) 03:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The uploader says it came from "Internet" and listed that newspaper as the source. That newspaper does not have a website. They do have a Facebook page, which I reached out to, and the owners don't seem to know anything about the photo. I've reached out to the newspaper, but no response since this situation started.  Since we cannot yet verify the listed source as the newspaper, but we can verify the other web sources (pre-upload dates). As soon as I get a response back, I will let you know.  If the response back is that the photo originally came from the newspaper, I will delete the image immediately. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 00:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, I just didn't know that was going on behind the scenes. Thanks for reaching out to them.  --Holdek (talk) 06:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I should've said something sooner, but I was hoping for a response by now. I've requested a response in both English, and through Spanish (using a translator). Thanks for your patience.  TLSuda  (talk) 13:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries. --Holdek (talk) 10:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

NFCR at ANRFC
Would you mind if I combined the three NFCR request on ANRFC into a single section? Cheers, Armbrust The Homunculus 14:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course I would not mind. You can always combine sections from NFCR. BTW thank you for your work in clerking ANRFC and keeping it cleaned up. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 14:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. ✅. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Bleed It Out - Linkin Park.ogg
Why did you remove the di-missing article links template without addressing the problem? There is still no separate fair use rationale for each article as the single fair use rationale mentions multiple articles. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Mainly because I wasn't paying attention. It is done now.  TLSuda  (talk) 15:52, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Yesterday
Can you please provide a link to the talk page discussion that you believe justified the (highly impactful) move of Yesterday? It is not on Talk:Yesterday, and I don't where to look for it. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * @R'n'B: You can find the discussion here: Talk:Yesterday (Beatles song) — Jaydiem (talk) 17:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jaydiem for posting the link. Also, you undid my addition to Disambiguation pages with links, which I made per the instructions at Requested_moves/Closing_instructions. If I didn't post that to the correct place, could you please point me in the correct direction? And also, update that guideline to point administrators to the correct listing place? Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 18:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know how that got in the guideline, but I've removed it as it was not good advice. There really is no need to list a moved page manually, since it will appear automatically on [//tools.wmflabs.org/dplbot/disambig_links.php] within 12-24 hours, unless all the links have been fixed in the meantime (as those to Yesterday have been). --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of As Ira in Romancing the Stone (1984).jpg
Hi TLSuda. I just signed into Wikipedia for the first time in a while, noticed that you had deleted a photo file I had uploaded onto an article I wrote about actor Zack Norman, and saw this message: 00:43, 3 June 2014 TLSuda (talk | contribs) deleted page File:As Ira in Romancing the Stone (1984).jpg (F7: Violates non-free content criterion #1). However, I believe this deletion was made in error, as there is no free equivalent with which the photo can be replaced, and therefore the photo does in fact fall within the first non-free content criterion. I realize the image is owned by 20th Century Fox (it is in fact an official studio publicity still) and shows my subject in character as Ira in their feature Romancing the Stone, but that is precisely the point of including this particular photograph: to show Mr. Norman as he is most easily recognized by the public, which is as this particular character in this particular film. Of course I could replace the image with a photo of Mr. Norman as he looks in everyday life, but that would defeat the purpose. There, I would like to request that you please reconsider and reinstate the file as it was prior to your deletion. Thank you so much! Best regards, Matzohboy (talk) 01:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey Matzohboy. The image does fail WP:NFCC for the exact reason that you specify, it could be replaced by a free photo of the actor. It was used in the infobox purely for identification. Any photo could identify the actor. There very well may be certain photos that would identify him more specifically, but it is still replaceable. For instance, in my mind this photo (non-free) is what I first think of when I see Bill Gates, and yet we have to have a free image of him instead. It still identifies him either way.
 * The second thing to note is every non-free file has to meet ALL of the criteria of WP:NFCC. In this case the image failed WP:NFCC (as discussed above, and WP:NFCC as it was not the subject of critical commentary. The exact image/scene would have needed to be discussed in the article with attribution of third-party reliable sources. Even then the image would not be able to be used for identification.
 * I hope that clears things up a bit. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 01:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi TLSuda! Thank you so much for clearing that up. I fully understand now, and have replaced the image with an original photo. Thanks again for the help, it is much appreciated! Matzohboy (talk) 23:09, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

NFCR
Can you please close ? Thanks. Werieth (talk) 14:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 June newsletter
After an extremely close race, Round 3 is over. 244 points secured a place in Round 4, which is comparable to previous years- 321 was required in 2013, while 243 points were needed in 2012. Pool C's was the round's highest scorer, mostly due to a 32 featured pictures, including both scans and photographs. Also from Pool C, finished second overall, claiming three featured articles, including the high-importance Grus (constellation). Third place was Pool B's, whose contributions included featured articles Russian battleship Poltava (1894) and Russian battleship Peresvet. Pool C saw the highest number of participants advance, with six out of eight making it to the next round.

The round saw this year's first featured portal, with taking Portal:Literature to featured status. The round also saw the first good topic points, thanks to and the 2013 Atlantic hurricane season. This means that all content types have been claimed this year. Other contributions of note this round include a featured topic on Maya Angelou's autobiographies from, a good article on the noted Czech footballer Tomáš Rosický from and a now-featured video game screenshot, freely released due to the efforts of.

The judges would like to remind participants to update submission pages promptly. This means that content can be checked, and allows those following the competition (including those participating) to keep track of scores effectively. This round has seen discussion about various aspects of the WikiCup's rules and procedures. Those interested in the competition can be assured that formal discussions about how next year's competition will work will be opened shortly, and all are welcome to voice their views then. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. and 18:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Files for deletion/2014 June 16
I disagree with your decision to delete this file; you weren't very specific in your reasons for doing so. I believe the image is integral to the encyclopedia; since the subject is dead, no possible replacement is available. I disagree with the nominator's opinion that it fails WP:NFCC for the same reasons stated by the uploader (there is no separate article on the subject); since I can't see the description of the file, I can't dispute the WP:NFCC "failure", but the uploader did comment that all available information was in the description. Further, the uploader, Tutelary, voted "Keep"; another editor, Mandruss, did not formally enter a "Keep" vote, but did contribute to the discussion with information and a reduction in image resolution in an effort to prevent the file's deletion. I'm not sure how you concluded that consensus was to delete. More information, please? Thanks.&mdash; D'Ranged 1  VTalk  02:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * When admins interpret consensus it is not simply a "vote," rather it is an interpretation of consensus based on policy and the validity of the arguments. In this case, we have to follow the policy of WP:NFCC which applies to all non-free media. We generally have an unofficial policy that allows for non-free files to be used for identification purposes of deceases individuals, but only when there is a separate article. For WP:NFCC to be satisfied, there absolutely has to be sourced third-party critical commentary about the image. There is no discussion about the image that warrants needing the photo. "...and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." This is specifically talking about the text itself.  Can you understand the article about the murder and killer, etc, without seeing the photo of the killer? Yes absolutely.  There are many articles about the murder in newspapers and online that do not include a photo at all, and yet the information is understood. I hope that helps clarify. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 13:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification. I still feel that WP:NFCC is too rigid; yes, the article is understandable without the photo, but that understanding is, in my opinion significantly increased by inclusion of the photo. Inclusion of the photo negates the necessity of reading about the description of the perpetrator's physical appearance, for example. My understanding is that the image was included in the infobox about the perpetrator; surely that increases understanding about the perpetrator? I think this might be an instance where WP:IAR-abg is quite applicable. It just makes common sense to include an image in the article; it is highly unlikely that its copyright will ever be challenged because of fair use principles. Nothing personal, but I think both you and the nominator are "picking nits". The outcome fails to meet the requirements for a deletion review, however, so your decision will stand. Thanks!&mdash; D'Ranged 1  VTalk  20:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The thing about WP:NFCC is that it has two parts, the first part it meets "used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic" but the second part it does not "its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Nothing about the photo is discussed in the article. No sourced description of the killer, (which probably would not be notable), nor is there any content about why we need to see the killer. It was purely used for an identification purpose. If it had been in the article for any other reason, I might agree with you about it being necessary. But, it has been my experience that few articles with images of killers like this, survive with keeping the image. If there were an article about the killer, an image used for identification would be more appropriate. But the killer would have to independently pass WP:N, to have a separate article. With respect to WP:IAR it generally does not apply to matters of copyright or BLP situations because these have legal ramifications. Also, fair use law and Wikipedia policy are completely different and we are much stricter. This is due to our mission to promote free content. That brings me to, of course, one last option.  If you can get the copyright holder of the image to release it under a free license, then this would not even be a situation. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Heads up
You have been involved in this issue so I think you should see Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents Werieth (talk) 15:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Fredcopeman.jpg
Hello, Would you mind restoring Fredcopeman.jpg, I'll get an appropriate fair-use statement written for it within 24 hours of it being restored (assuming it gets restored by Wednesday night). Sorry for the delay, work and a short vacation were busier than expected. But I've some free time over the next day or three. Hobit (talk) 17:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey Hobit. If you want to drop the fair-use statement here on my talkpage, I will restore it for you. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 00:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * One problem is that I can't see the image, making it hard for me to write a FUR in good faith. Could you point me to a copy of the image (I assume there is one on-line somewhere). Is  it?  Hobit (talk) 12:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Its hosted here. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 17:47, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Deleting charmcaster.png
Why did you delete the image of Charmcaster. I was not given a reason. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Files_for_deletion/2014_June_24. The image fails WP:NFLISTS. Your argument had no bearing on the discussion because the WP:NFLISTS guideline is part of a larger policy. We make deletion decisions based on policy-backed consensus. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 22:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Requested move: Yesterday → Yesterday (Beatles song)
Greetings. I see that you closed the discussion of Talk:Yesterday (Beatles song) a few hours ago, with the conclusion to effect the move from Yesterday. While I don't object to the result, I would submit that the closure may have been premature, there being insufficient demonstration of consensus. I also feel that the summary of the discussion could be improved, particularly in that it frames the debate entirely in terms of whether or not the article was the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the term Yesterday. I presented very carefully documented evidence and reasoning that the article was indeed the primary topic, but nevertheless expressed modest support for the move for reasons unrelated to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC; I also presented a compromise proposal to effect the proposed move while leaving Yesterday as a redirect to the moved article, in respect of the strong empirical evidence that it is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as that editing policy is presently defined. Yet none of this is noted in the discussion summary. ~ Respectfully yours — Jaydiem (talk) 17:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I came here to make a similar request. While I like the song and opposed the change, my goal was primarily to make sure the discussion was clear.  I used to be a big DAB page contributor and have thought through a lot of these arguments and would like the reasonable interpretation Jaydiem provides included in the history.  Failing that, I hope he will append it to the page.  Thanks for contributions both!  --John (User:Jwy/talk) 18:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * 5 days ago at WP:ANRFC a request was made for closure of the move (now archived here). When I read through the discussion, three times as I do, I felt there was sufficient consensus to close. I also independently read the previous move discussion, and I felt that that discussion had a difference consensus than the close, so I tried to be extra careful.


 * The first of the three primary guidelines that appear at the top of WP:ANRFC states: "The default length of a formal request for closure is 30 days; if consensus becomes clear before that and discussion has slowed, then it may be closed early. However, editors usually wait at least a week after an RfC opens, unless the outcome is very obvious, so that there is enough time for a full discussion." However, as you say, you executed the RFC a mere five days after it was posted. I have difficulty seeing how the discussion had reached a natural conclusion that was "clear"—much less "very obvious"—at the time of your closure. While I don't doubt that you acted in good faith, it appears to me that the quickness of your closure was greatly in excess of what is called for by the WP:ANRFC guideline, and did not allow sufficient time for the discussion to develop further consensus organically. — Jaydiem (talk) 15:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The root discussion was primarily about the interpretation of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in relation to Yesterday. I felt this was an editorial based discussion as opposed to a guideline application or policy-backed discussion. As such, I weighed all of the discussion and everyone's opinions, and came to the conclusion that there was consensus to make the move.


 * I agree that most of the discussion up until the time of your closure concerned whether the subject article was the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the term "Yesterday". If such a discussion is not about "guideline application", however, then I can't imagine what is. That you evaluated the discussion as being merely "editorial" rather than "policy-backed" indicates to me that you did not apply the standard called for at WP:Closing discussions, which states: "The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, those that show no understanding of the matter of issue." — Jaydiem (talk) 15:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * As for your particular contributions to the discussion, I did absolutely consider those in my close. You are correct, however, that I did not include them in the closing statement. My reason for that was partially an attempt to not be overly verbose and partially parts were already covered, albeit not directly. I also felt that the closing should be an overall summary, and anyone could look at the discussion for more specific information.
 * When it comes to the application of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of this article title, there was evidence, including yours, on both sides that the article could be considered on either side. Both sides had documented evidence, and you had a fancy table of statistics, which were frankly, and no fault of yours, biased. The only way you could accurately use pageview statistics to show what viewers prefer is to have pageview statistics for the song article being at Yesterday and a separate statistics for it being at Yesterday (song). You would have to have this data from the same period, and you would have to account for the people who are attempting to go to the final page, but go through Yesterday first (ie subtract a calculated percentage of the pageviews for people who want to end up at Yesterday (Toni Braxton song) but had to first go through Yesterday, then click the link to the disambig page Yesterday (disambiguation) then to their final destination. I felt that if I had included in my close about the statistics, that in all transparency, I would have to include that information.


 * With all due respect, I must strongly disagree with the claim that there was equivalent empirical evidence presented on both sides of the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC question. The pageview stats I compiled were objective and very clearly relevant to the criteria given in the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guideline; this is not true of the minimal evidence provided on the other side. In addition, your claim that the pageview stats were "biased" to the point of being inadmissible is demonstrably false. Referring to the data in the table: Even if we were to stipulate for the sake of argument that every one of the 3,061 views of the disambiguation page was an instance of a reader who first viewed the article about the Beatles song but was actually seeking one of the other "Yesterday"-related topics, and we therefore subtracted 3,061 non-destination views from the 61,479 total views of the Beatles song article, the remaining 58,418 bona-fide destination views of that article would still constitute 64.6% of the total—a mere 1.2 percentage points less than the figure in the table. In other words, even if the stats were "biased" to the maximum possible extent of the way you describe, the effect would be negligible and have no impact on the conclusions to be drawn from the data. — Jaydiem (talk) 16:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * As for your compromise, it gained no traction, and hardly was discussed. It was completely different from the underlying discussion of the application of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I did not feel that it added in any way to the discussion's outcome, so I felt no need to include it in the close.
 * I hope that helps give you a little bit of insight into my thought process and my reasoning. If you disagree with the close/move, I'm always open to any uninvoled administrator undoing my actions (with discussion following) or you can take it through the Move review process. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 18:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the trouble to close this difficult move discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I thank you as well - both for the going ahead and closing and for your fair approach. And I am content with your discussion above that you considered the DAB page nuances as well.  It will be interesting to see how the statistics work out now.  --John (User:Jwy/talk) 23:53, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm having a hard time following your discussion because you've intermixed it with mine. Please, in the future, just add your discussion to the bottom so I can follow more easily. That being said. Your argument about WP:ANRFC having discussions up for thirty days applies to WP:RFCs. Remember this discussion was for a requested move, which only requires seven. It was open for 24, and only had three comments in the last 3 days. It was time to be closed.
 * With your comment about what the discussion was about, it was purely a editorial discussion on what editors prefer and why. Both sides correctly used the same policy/guideline to argue their side, so we cannot say one side was more right than the other, just that there was a consensus for one way over the other.
 * With your statistics, we are just going to have to disagree. I've had to take many courses on statistics, and rarely are they ever unbiased. This is why scientific and/or trade journals' articles often don't agree with other articles in the same journal. Where is your control group to show what normal counts are like? Or your group to show what counts will be like now that it is moved to a different name? Etc etc. You gathered some great information, but it is hardly enough to come to full fledged conclusions. But regardless, I digress. Your data had no baring on my interpretation of the consensus of the discussion; rather I only felt it wasn't worth mentioning in the close.
 * Aside from that, I don't think there is any further discussion to be had. I've given you multiple options if you think that my close was made in error (not that you disagree with it). Please take advantage of those if you feel the need. I'm not perfect, none of us here are. I can make mistakes. This time, though, I'm confident in my closing. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 22:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * It seems we will have to agree to disagree about this. Per your suggestion, I have opened a move review, which can be found here. Best regards, — Jaydiem (talk) 00:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

File:US Senators' Responsiveness to Income Groups (107th-111th Congresses).png
Hi, I'd like to use File:US Senators' Responsiveness to Income Groups (107th-111th Congresses).png e.g. at. While the American Political Science Association or their authors own their annual meeting paper copyrights, the idea that either would ever object to the use of a chart appearing in one of them is, well, I would just say it's very profoundly unlikely, around the one in a million level. Would you please restore the graph? EllenCT (talk) 14:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The graph would fail WP:NFCC so I cannot restore it. The graph could be recreated as a free file.  The source for the content comes from here. You could get someone from the WP:Graphics Lab to create you one if you can't or you could reach out to whomever did File:Senate_Income_Votes.SVG (similar file). Good luck, Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 00:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If I use it in a current version of an article, then can you restore it? EllenCT (talk) 02:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No. It fails WP:NFCC and cannot be uploaded. If you get a new, free version created, that could be uploaded.  TLSuda  (talk) 17:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there any way that permission can be obtained from the author? EllenCT (talk) 04:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The original source is here and you'd have to get permission from the author Thomas J. Hayes. That permission could be sent via WP:CONSENT. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 22:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Soliciting comment...
Hi! Would you care to review my FA nomination for the article Of Human Feelings? The article is about a jazz album by Ornette Coleman, and the criteria for FA articles is at WP:FACR. If not, feel free to ignore this message. Cheers! Dan56 (talk) 08:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Windows XP
Since you've chosen to delete images that were used in Windows XP, could you please "finish the job" by making appropriate edits to the article that now contains several redlinks. As it was your decision to delete the files, it really shouldn't be left to other editors to fix the mess that you've left in the article. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Consensus determined that, I just implemented. There's a bot that will come behind to clean it up. You don't have to do anything. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 17:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily that there was a valid consensus but, that aside, the table you edited needs fixing. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 17:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The removal of the images by the bot would've cleaned it up. But, just for you, I've made it more workable.  TLSuda  (talk) 17:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well no, because the table needed to be reformatted as a result of the files being deleted. The bot wouldn't have done that. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 18:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Without the deleted images, the table column the top image was in would've shifted. It may not have been perfectly centered, but it would've been okay.  TLSuda  (talk) 18:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Files for deletion/2014 July 7
Hello, I'd like to request that the file LeAnne_Howe.jpg be undeleted. An appropriate and corrected permissions request has been forwarded to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and should be pending review now. In the mean time, I thought I'd put the needed "OTRS pending" to keep the file from being prematurely deleted. Please let me know if there are additional steps I should take to replace this file. Thanks! --Taylorjhodges (talk) 19:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey Taylor! In the future can you put new talk page messages at the bottom of the talk page? That's traditionally where people look for new information. When the file was deleted, I could not quickly and easily find a permission statement by searching. I did not go through every pending email, though, so it is probably there waiting to be processed.  As soon as the email is received and processed, the image will be deleted. I'm currently out of town, but if I get the chance, I will try to go through some emails and get it processed. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 03:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Esterel Technologies Logo
Hello, you download the ET logo but you have trunckated half of if. The official logo have the ANSYS part. Could you upload the complete image ?213.30.139.86 (talk) 09:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Genes, Brain and Behavior
Hi, thanks for your review of this article, it's my first GA :-) As for other GA articles including abstracting and indexing services, there is currently only 1 other GA journal article, The Accounting Review. It's in only 3 databases (far as I can see), so the section is smaller and not presented as a list. I also just noticed that I didn't respond to 2 of your questions... "Does any source include the reason why the journal went to online only?": I happen to know that it was for financial reasons (not enough paper subscriptions any more), but although the person who told me that certainly is reliable and "in the know", that still is not an RS in the WP sense... I'll keep an eye out for a source, perhaps the society will post some minutes or something like that. "In the reception section, the journals that cited it the most often, it lists this journal itself". That is indeed correct and almost always the case for specialist journals in a smaller field. This journal gets citations from many different journals (it's rather interdisciplinary/multidisciplinary, so that too is to be expected), so even though it is itself one of the top 5 "citers", the proportion of self-citations is actually pretty low (3%, I've seen journals go over 50%...). Of course, although all these figures can be reliably sourced, their interpretation is mine, so it cannot be included in the article. That's generally a problem with articles on academic journals, because preciously little is written about them (as opposed to articles that appeared in them, but that's a different thing).

BTW, can I pick your brain once more? The bot notice on my talk page mentioned that having been promoted to GA, the article is eligible for DYK. I was thinking of an appropriate hook, but all I can come up with is "...that Genes, Brain and Behavior has developed standards for the publication of mouse mutant studies?" which strikes me as a little bit boring. Do you perhaps have a better idea? Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 15:09, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the answers to my questions. Neither of them were specifically required to pass the GA review, so I was fine with leaving them be. I can completely understand the plight of trying to find sources in a situation like this, as it is extremely tough.
 * That hook actually is interesting to me, but its only mentioned in passing. I would include more information about this in the article, if you are going to use it as the hook. I'm not so good with DYK hooks, I've only successfully done 2. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 15:14, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Jeff Dexter promoting The Twist 1962.jpg
Hello, I think you erred in deleting this file. This was a picture of Dexter as a 14 year old dancing the Twist as discussed at length in the article. Dexter is now nearly seventy so clearly no free equivalent can now be produced of this image as his appearance has changed beyond recognition. Could you undelete it please? Thanks. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree that the image isn't replaceable. I also don't think that the image passes WP:NFCC. But, as it was speedied, and there is still disagreement about such, I've restored it.  Being so, I'm pinging both  and, so one or the other can take the file through the WP:FFD process. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 22:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

File:CasinoCards.jpg
Hello, TLSuda. I uploadad an altered version of an image you deleted a couple months ago. I would like you to review the image to make sure it's okay. If you don't think it's okay, feel free to delete it. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 02:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Halil Jaçellari
Ilir Jaçellari (the author of photo) had sent a message in wiki's email permissions-en@wikimedia.org on 3 July 2014. Also i have this picture in my email,which i received from Ilir AlbertBikaj (talk) 10:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Googlelabel.JPG
Hi. How do you do?

Hope I am not catching you in a busy time.

Looks like File:Googlelabel.JPG is badly downsized. If I had a larger version, I could crop out Firefox and downsize it properly without making important parts unusable. Could you please see if it is possible to restore one of its past revisions?

Thanks in advance.

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've restored the larger version. Let me know when you resize and I will re-delete.  Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 17:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I am done. You can delete the whole JPEG image now. It is orphaned anyway. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Done! Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 18:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

CSD and non-free
Hi, I don't understand this. Did my note on the file talk page not make sense? - Sitush (talk) 15:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey Sitush. There were a few things wrong with the nomination. Db-f3 is for files that have an incompatible license, (generally just not "free" enough) not non-free files. For violations in relation to meeting WP:NFCC (what the copyright tag alludes to), you would use Db-f7. We do, however, generally allow for one use of a poster or cover for a video or tv show. This includes cd covers, video game covers, etc.  Although, in this case, the article doesn't seem to have any content, and probably is not necessary. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 17:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Worse, the article was created by someone who has admitted to promoting the movie/director/actor. I still think that this is yet another example of the dreadful handling of images on Wikipedia: I am far from being a stupid person but your explanation does not tally with what the file templates said, as I explained on the file talk page. I'm not saying that you are wrong but there is a distinct difference between what you say and what that template says. It really is confusing and it really isn't acceptable. The licence was incompatible and NFCC is a sideshow and a contradiction. I honestly think that those who specialise in images are often making up the rules as they go along, as often also happens with those who specialise in the arcane area that is categorisation.


 * I know that I could take it to FFD but while the closed shop persists there really isn't much point. As with the Article Rescue Squadron, you're going to support your own even in the face of logical fallacy. - Sitush (talk) 19:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but you have a misunderstanding of copyright. That CSD tag that you added is for when the copyright license is incorrect, invalid or incomplete. A copyright image's license is copyright and the tag matches that. You are interpreting it as the tag is being used inappropriately which is what the speedy tag I told you is for. I'm not saying it shouldn't be deleted but that I'm just not going to delete it for the wrong reasons or incorrect criteria. Neither should any other administrator. -- TLSuda (public) (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Admiral Tahiliani.jpg
You recently deleted file File:Admiral Tahiliani.jpg I would like to know, have your reviewed the WP:OTRS token? C ute st Penguin ''' {talk • contribs} 07:38, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I did delete it yes. The deletion nomination was: Possibly_unfree_files/2014_July_9. I also did review the OTRS ticket and checked the comment by the OTRS volunteer who is handling the ticket. There was not sufficient information to verify permission. Further permission information was requested, but no reply has been received. If this information is received the image can be restored. If the OTRS agent contacts me, I would happily restore the file for him. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 13:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I am trying to fix an appointment with Admiral Tahiliani and if possible I will take a photograph of him. Thank you for reviewing. C ute st Penguin '''  {talk • contribs} 13:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Help
Hi, you said that the nomination was not set up properly could you please help me to achieve this, cheers. Lukejordan02 (talk) 13:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There are explicit instructions at WP:FFD, specifically under the heading "Instructions for listing files for deletion". Its in a big purple box. If you follow those instructions specifically or use WP:TWINKLE, that is all that you need to do. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 14:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Constantin Brâncoveanu University
Hello TLSuda. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Constantin Brâncoveanu University, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to schools. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Fermattalogo.jpg
Hello TLSuda, How have you been? Can you please restore the mentioned file? OTRS confirmed therefore i need to transfer it to the Commons. Thanks you in advance!   ~ Nahid    Talk  11:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey Nahid, I'm well and I hope you are too. I've restored the file, but put a deletion tag on it. I saw the pending ticket and I'm not sure that the email address is a good one to accept the copyright from. The logo is from a college in Mexico (their website) but the email is from an entertainment group with the closest office being Los Angeles or Las Vegas. Normally, I would be able to WP:AGF that maybe the entertainment group created this for the college, but it includes a crest, which usually predate any sort of outsourced graphic design as such. Also, their website uses a slightly different (better in my opinion) version of this logo. It might be best to keep it as non-free unless we are absolutely positive about the copyright release. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ah, my bad i've missed the official site and thanks for pointing it out. Anyways, i'm totally agree with you and gonna ask the sender to send it from one of the address listed here :) Regards!     ~ Nahid    Talk  17:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Draft:List of Minister of Education and Culture of the Republic of Cyprus
Hi. I found that List of Ministers of Education and Culture of Cyprus exists. I created a redirect at List of Minister of Education and Culture of the Republic of Cyprus. I guess I shoudl ahve looked more thoroughly. In any case, I have updated the existing article to clean it up and bring it up to date. Is Draft:List of Minister of Education and Culture of the Republic of Cyprus eligible for WP:G6? Thanks. - Whpq (talk) 04:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Probably not, but I've deleted it regardless. Thanks for the note. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 11:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. -- Whpq (talk) 11:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

World Resources Institute logo
I noticed that you deleted File:World Resources Institute logo.jpg as unused non-free media. However it was in use (I restored the older, non-copyvio history of the World Resources Institute article). I just wanted to check with you to see if there was any reason why I shouldn't restore the file. Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 19:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I restore it. I don't know why it was showing no use (I checked the links). Everything should be good to go. In the future you don't have to ask to undo my actions, I trust you, just let me know. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 19:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It's showing up as unused because someone helpfully removed the link after it was deleted - which is how I noticed the deletion. I always prefer to err on the side of caution when it comes to NFC. (Bad experiences in the distant past.) Guettarda (talk) 04:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant it showed up as it was not used in any articles when I deleted it. Looking at the article history it obviously was, but there was nothing on the "What links here" page. Either way, we've got it taken care of. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 10:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Invisalign
Your name was top of mind because you did the GA review on Fluor Corp. where I have a COI and closed out an image issue related to Paxata, where I also have a COI. I also have a COI on Invisalign and have prepared a draft here that should make it almost GA-ready, except that it will also need a summary of what is said about it in medical journals before it's done (next on my To Do list). I don't know if this kind of thing interests you, but if you have time to review the article and respond to the Request Edit it would be appreciated. CorporateM (Talk) 23:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This isn't usually an area I work in, and I generally have more than enough tasks in the areas I am familiar. I've decided to read it and give it a try. After reading both your draft and the main article, yours is a major improvement, and is much more encyclopedic and polished well. I agree with your concerns on the talk page about the advantages/disadvantages section (far too much is unsourced or irrelevant), but I believe the Scientific studies section should be included in some form. That is relevant information (in my opinion) and seems to be at least decently sourced (may need a bit of work). It is not 100% relevant, but the sentence "Align paid OrthoClear $20 million and it agreed to end its operations." which company does "it" refer to? I also assume that you will include the non-free media File:Invisalign software user interface.png after the changes are done?
 * I'm glad that you were able to engage multiple editors while working on your draft. I'm very impressed every time I see your work not only due to quality but how to go about achieving that level of quality. Let me re-read it again tomorrow, and I'll handle the requested edit for you. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 01:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oops, good catch. I fixed it just now so it specifies that Orthoclear was the one that agreed to end its operations. I can't use non-free images in user-space for copyright reasons, but typically I restore them afterwards as a "non-controversial edit" allowed by WP:COI. For the peer-reviewed journal content we're on the same page. Whether you delete it as cleanup of poorly-sourced medical claims, or just tack it on to the bottom for now, in either case I'll need to work on a more polished section for it before it is GA-ready. It is probably the most important section of the article and also the most difficult, which is why it warrants special attention. CorporateM (Talk) 03:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey, I have another one coming up on BabyFirst. I wasn't sure if I should pester you about additional articles or not. Some people enjoy dropping into random articles and reviewing someone else's work (like the GA process itself really), while for others it's annoying and may feel burdensome. CorporateM (Talk) 01:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I just processed the requested edit at Invisalign. Everything looked good there and I left a note/explanation on the talk page. I'd be happy to look at that article/draft too. Just let me know. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 02:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

BabyFirst
Thanks! Once I finish that last remaining section of the Invisalign article, it will be on the road to being our first GA on a medical product. For BabyFirst, I've shared a draft on the Talk page just now. Though realistically in most cases these articles are abandoned, I think it is good practice to let a suggested draft stew for a couple weeks in case someone else wants an opportunity to have input. So definitely WP:NORUSH. Besides, the GAN queue is already overwhelmed with my submissions ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 04:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the Invisalign article is already very close to being GA status. I saw your list of submissions, and I thought about reviewing some of them. My concern is that if I review too many of your articles (either COI review or GA review) without others reviewing, it may look like I'm helping you out. And while I can sleep at night knowing that I wouldn't be doing anything unethical, it still could cause drama that neither you nor I want nor have to deal with. I'll start looking at BabyFirst, but I agree its good to give the opportunity for input before proceeding.  Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 10:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The community can be paranoid about secret alliances between volunteers and paid editors in order to game the Bright Line or consensus building processes. I share their paranoia. The amount of manipulation that takes place here, especially by paid editors, in order to game the system and push a point-of-view is nauseating. However, I think the cloud of speculation and drama that follows COI is just something that comes with collaborating with me. Whoever does those GA reviews will probably be someone I've known longer than you and collaborated on more articles with, and whoever does them will be exposed to the same risk of drama-mongering. Editors that try to prevent being seen as my ally tend to disagree with me arbitrarily (even when I'm right) just to avoid being seen agreeing with me too often. It's all just garbage. CorporateM (Talk) 13:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Believe me when I say that I agree that it is all garbage. I believe that there is more inappropriate/unethical gaming of the system by just volunteers than there are for most COI editors. That part of the system is highly flawed and I think editors like you catch more flack than necessary. I have no issues collaborating with you on anything; your work is high quality and you are patient and easy to work with. You are open and up front about everything. I wish I had the skillset that you have, but I simply don't. That being said, I hope you understand that if I don't work on something, its not personal. I enjoy working with you, and I don't want that to stop, but I also will ride the fine line to prevent issues from arising. I started looking over the BabyFirst article and it looks good, I've only noticed a few minor issues (none related to "typical" COI issues. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem, just making conversation. CorporateM (Talk) 15:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Conversation is good. Unfortunately, talk page conversations are limited. And I cant figure out how to use IRC.  TLSuda  (talk) 15:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean, but the Wikipedia help channel IRC can be accessed by clicking here. The "Email this user" feature is activated on my account if you want to contact me off-wiki. CorporateM (Talk) 16:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I just mean we collaborate with some pretty cool people. IRC and I don't get along well. It would be nice if there was another way, through the Foundation, to contact each other. I might have to take you up on that offer.  TLSuda  (talk) 16:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

StereocardCarabao.jpg
Hello, I was away from Wikipedia for a while. You deleted File:StereocardCarabao.jpg - (F4: File without a source for more than 7 days) was the reason stated on April 25,2014. I need to work on the file again, but don't remember what parameters were missing since image was on Carabao page for several years until someone replaced it with a modern picture. Is it possible to undelete image temporarily at this late date, so I can see the original. Thanks &#45; Athrash | T a l k 00:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If you send me an email via Special:EmailUser/TLSuda then I can reply with an attached image. I can also send you a copy of what the description page looked like. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 12:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Already replied.  TLSuda  (talk) 14:31, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

ISROorbitalvehicle.jpg
It is not replaceable with a free equivalent. Please do not delete fair-use images that you have not found a free equivalent for. I do not check my wikipedia account daily.--Craigboy (talk) 19:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * First, it is replaceable. It is an artist's rendition of what the vehicle would look like. Anyone could, with the specs, create their own rendition and release it under a free license. Second, this not how WP:NFCC works.  A free equivalent does not have to exist or be found for a file to be deleted. It only has to be able to be created, then it fails WP:NFCC and then we delete it.  Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 19:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Yateesh M. Acharya
Hi,

May I know the reason to remove the picture from Yatessh M. Acharya page? I've taken a written permission from the artist to use the picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jatilsharma (talk • contribs) 09:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * You have to show evidence of permission where the original copyright holder of the photo (not the subject) who is usually the photographer is releasing the rights under a free license. See the process at WP:CONSENT. The file was tagged as non-free so it was deleted because it could be replaced, therefore failing WP:NFCC. It would have still be deleted as no evidence of permission as we have no proof that the photo was released how you claim. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 11:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Mark Lawrence (bishop)
Hello. You recently deleted a photo that I added of Mark Lawrence, bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina. I got the photo from the photo gallery on the media room section of the diocesan website, where a caption describes each photo as "shared publicly." I tried to provide adequate information about this in my upload. It certainly sounded to me like the photos had been released into the public domain for purposes such as this. Can you help me figure out what I need to do differently? Thanks. Dunncon13 (talk) 14:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "Shared publicly" is not the same as release into the public domain. We need evidence that the image is released into the public domain. You could reach out to the Diocese and see if they would follow the directions at WP:Consent or by including a statement on their website that the file is released into the public domain. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 14:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Harassment?
Regarding this warning, I wonder if that user's continuing campaign against me would have any relevance. If not, fine, I'll just work on developing thicker calluses. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see any "campaign" against you. I think you just need to listen to what is said at WP:ANI. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 23:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

BabyFirst
The draft has been stewing on the Talk page for about a week now and I was wondering if you still had an interest in considering the material. CorporateM (Talk) 19:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. I'll take another look at your draft and then probably move it soon. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 19:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And it's done. I've left a note on the talk page explaining that its done and why I did it.  Let me know if you need anything else.  Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 11:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Taken care of. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 17:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! (The Photo of the B-50 at Biggs AFB)
Hi, TLSuda,

Apparently you received my message regarding my inadvertent uploading of the photo of the B-50 at Biggs AFB. As soon as I realized my mistake, I notified the folks at "Media Copyright" as soon as possible.

As you know, I was just trying to learn how to upload a photo. Well, I guess I learned "too well!"

Apparently, you are the person who actually deleted my inadvertent uploading. Thank you.

I admit that I am fairly new to editing or making any "edit requests." And, today was my first try at learning how to upload a photo. Heck, I still get confused as to which "talk" page to use in corresponding or to get replies! (Yours, mine, or someone else's?)

As a clear example, I happened to stumble into your brief message saying that you had deleted the photo. I found it by looking back at my “Contributions” page and clicking on the "Media Copyright” contribution that I had made earlier. (That is, it wasn't on my talk page, Eeekster's talk page or your talk page.)

Golly, if someone writes to me, how am I to know without a lot of “digging?”

Nevertheless, the photo was indeed deleted per my frantic request. Yet, I was sorry to see it go. (My Dad was a SAC bomber pilot, and, we were stationed at Biggs AFB for a while. While at Biggs, Dad flew B-29s, B-50s and B-47s.) But, as I admitted earlier today, I had not yet checked copyright issues.

Rest assured that I will be much more careful in the future. Hopefully, one day I can upload that photo again. I know that I am prejudiced when I say that I think it is a pretty darned-good photo, not to mention its connection to Dad.

Thanks again for your time and attention. Oh, no reply is needed, OK? (Besides, how would I find it?!)

Sincerely, Rob

BeatlesVox (talk) 01:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey Rob! No worries on the photo, you handled it quickly and professionally. I've "pinged" you so you get a notification that I mentioned you.  This is usually the way people find out that there is a discussion. If you are eager to learn about Wikipedia and how to edit, I would suggest particpating in the The Wikipedia Adventure. Its a bit cheesy, but it does  teach you some of the basics. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 10:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, TL (if I may),

Thanks for your message. Yeah, you better believe that I handled the issue of the inadvertent uploading of the B-50 photo quickly. I was in a panic! ("What have I done?!")

As I'm fairly new to editing (MINOR ones) and "edit requests," please allow me a question. I admit that it sounds a bit paranoid...

When you wrote that you "pinged" me, you said that I will get a notification that you mentioned me. My question: you mentioned me to whom? (A particular discussion group on mutual topics?)

Also, is this related to "Watch this page?" I don't think I've used that feature yet. Perhaps, I should since I have admitted that I have trouble knowing that someone has replied to me, especially when their reply is on their "talk" page.

Also, when you said that this is usually the way people find out that there is a discussion, are those discussions dealing with what I have been writing about? Such as, this article or that article? Or, this photo or that photo?

I hope that you don't mind my questions. But, I am trying to learn. I have been trying to do so on my own by reading certain "instructions pages." But, heck, even on the simplest things (to me), there are two or three pages' worth of instructions. (!!) Thus, I usually just give up.

Well, thanks again for your time. Please write back when you get a chance. Thanks in advance!

Rob

Oh, I'll check the box for "Watch this page." Hopefully that will help me to know that you have replied. (I hope you do.) :-O

BeatlesVox (talk) 19:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "pinging" is using a template that mentions your name (see the @BeatlesVox at the beginning of this sentence) that tells our software to send you a notification which displays at the top of your screen. I assume that is what brought you here. I "pinged" you to let you know that I had replied here. "Watch this page" adds a page to your Watchlist. You can check your watchlist where it will show you the most recent edits to those pages that you add.  You would see all edits to that page.  Most people use it when they are trying to follow a conversation (like here) or are watching out for vandalism (on articles). I hope that helps. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 22:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, TL,

Thanks for your latest message explaining more to me about the "pings" and the "Watchlist." Oh, thanks for "pinging" me in that last message to me. (So much easier to know that you wrote!) And, yes, that's how I knew that I had a new message from you earlier today as well. As a result of your latest message, I now have a better understanding. Thanks for the info!

When I get a chance, I'll write to an online "friend" of mine who sent me that photo of the B-50 at Biggs AFB. I'll see if he can tell me any copyright and other necessary info. If so, I'll plan to upload the photo again. Then I plan it as a replacement to the one in the "810th Air Division" article. I've already written to the provider (RuthAS) of the "misplaced" B-50 photo in that article, and, she gave me her blessings in terms of replacing her photo with mine. I hope that I can do so one day. Then a plane from Dad's unit (the 97th Bomb Wing, one of two wings in the division) will be properly displayed in the 810th's article.

Well, I guess that's it for now. Thanks again for your time. Take care.

Rob

BeatlesVox (talk) 02:18, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited BabyFirst, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ABC Network. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of File:Forrest (as Hachi) walking.jpg
The file was deleted because of alleged copyright violation! That makes NO sense. It is a single image from a movie that is 93 minutes long (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hachi:_A_Dog%27s_Tale). Similar images from the movie have been used in blogs and reviews of this movie elsewhere.

The purpose of adding this image was to create an entry for "Forrest", one of the dogs that acted in the movie. And to convert the corresponding entry in the main page (on the right hand side of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hachi:_A_Dog%27s_Tale) into a hyperlink so users could navigate from there and see the Wikipedia entry for "Forrest" that would have this image.

The "copyright violation" was probably flagged by some automatic software. Please review this and restore the status of the file File:Forrest (as Hachi) walking.jpg

Thanks!

Sudhindranath (talk) 14:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually it is absolutely a copyright violation. The movie (and every scene from it) is copyright to the production/distribution company. Even just one clip that you've screenshot is owned by that company. By uploading it and claiming it as your own, you are violating copyright, which is illegal. We cannot host the file due to its copyright status.  Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 14:48, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

MfD backlog
The MfD backlog is getting quite large. It would be nice if you could take a look at it. Armbrust The Homunculus 07:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I went through and closed everything in the backlog except one. That one needs more attention than I can give. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 14:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * very much for your effort. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

File:East Wind Over Weehawken, Edward Hopper 1934.tiff
In February you File:East Wind Over Weehawken, Edward Hopper 1934.tiff from a non-free file to a free per. However during the discussion the size of the file was reduced, and the original removed from view. Could you restore the original file? Armbrust The Homunculus 10:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Restored. Thanks for letting me know. Since I became an admin, I generally try to do this by default, but it doesn't always happen. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 11:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! It was a bit backed up. I don't log on as much as I should, but when I do I attempt to knock out the entire backlog.  Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 15:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Files for deletion/2014 July 28
Thanks for taking care of that mess, but I think I missed one. I tagged File:LEROYTHORPE00000000018.jpg but it seems I never added it to the mass deletion discussion. Can you delete it or do I need to open a new discussion? Meters (talk) 03:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I had wondered about that one. I went ahead and deleted it, but if the uploader requests, I will restore that one and a deletion discussion will be necessary. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 11:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. If it reappears snd it still serves no purpose I'll start the discussion. Meters (talk) 16:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Leeds.png
Could you please restore this image? It looks like it was removed from the article Leeds Rhinos for no apparent reason. J Mo 101 (talk) 06:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ I've restored it as is no longer orphaned. I'm happy to handle things like this, but you can also request at WP:REFUND. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 11:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Will do. Thanks for your help. J Mo 101 (talk) 17:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:MCQ
I've just amended your comment by adding one word which is what I think you meant "Your photos are not in danger of being removed, simply moved to where they can achieve even more use" - by adding the word not. Apolgies if I've misunderstood and feel free to revert. Nthep (talk) 11:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh my, thanks! That is absolutely correct, I don't know how I missed such an important word. Thanks for changing it for me, and so quick! Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 12:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Image of Leslie Benzies.jpg
Hi, I was hoping to get some information on the File:Image of Leslie Benzies.jpg i uploaded recently. I found this image on Flickr with the CC tags: Attribution which i gave a link to the original source in the upload and NonCommercial which was for this purpose. Was the licensing i listed on the image upload incorrect? If not what steps should i take to upload this image?

Thanks, Jhona43 (talk) 16:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The "Non-commercial" part is not free enough for Wikipedia. We do not allow any license that have non-commercial or no-derivatives. Basically from Flickr we only allow CC-by-SA & CC-by. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 17:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

BabyFirst
I just got a note from them saying they felt the following sentence: "As of 2014, it has 81 million viewers[23] and is broadcast in 33 countries, in ten languages.[24]" would be better off in the "Distribution expansion" section. Wondering if you had an opinion on it. CorporateM (Talk) 18:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't truly have an opinion, but it does seem like a good place to put it. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

File:ARCserveManager.JPG
Hi

File:ARCserveManager.JPG has suddenly vanished from its article and its seems it is deleted.

Do you happen to know why? (I thought you might, given that you removed the defunct code from the article.)

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The editor who uploaded the file requested that it be deleted. I wasn't really sure why, but I WP:AGFed that there may have been some inaccuracy or other issue. I'm happy to restore it for you if you want.  Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 12:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, please do restore it.


 * The author request for deletion reminds me of WP:CSD, which does not apply in this case, because several other editors had contributed substantially to this page.


 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 15:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Only one editor ever worked on the file until it was tagged for speedy deletion as orphaned fair use by another editor. The original uploader then requested it be deleted. And it was only two editors who had edited the article before it was deleted. Since you think it is still useable, I have restored it, but if there are any issues with it, let me know and I can re-delete it. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I see. You are right. Stefan2 and LegoBot do not count as substantial. Thanks. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey now, I never said Stefan2 wasn't substantial! He, like you, works in specific niches that requires a specific experience and knowledge. But for real though, I assumed that there was some good reason to remove the image, so I WP:AGF and removed it. This is a "mistake" I will probably make in the future. The good thing is, if there is no good reason to keep it deleted, I will always happily restore it. Let me know if you need anything else, even if its completely unrelated. I'm always happy to work for editors who are dedicated to Wikipedia's mission like you are.  Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 18:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Commons talk
Have a look at your Commons talk as soon as you get a chance. Thanks. INeverCry  00:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Just saw it and responded. Thanks again!  TLSuda  (talk) 01:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

File: Football Federation Australia logo
Shouldn't https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Football_Federation_Australia_logo.svg be reduced in resolution as well? Holdek (talk) 03:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, you can just tag it non-free reduce I don't currently have access to SVG editing programs to change the scaling. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 11:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Will do. Thanks!  --Holdek (talk) 04:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Files for upload/January 2015
There seems to be a "nowiki" end tag missing here. You should probably fix this yourself so that the signature is expanded correctly. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing that for me. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 16:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Hong Kong Macau Zhuhai Bridge
Hello there, I noticed you deleted this image stating that it violated "non-free content". Am not sure what you mean, I am the author of the photograph. I gave my permission (stated in the copyright excerpt). For your reference, here is the image you deleted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload?wpDestFile=Image_of_the_HKG%E2%80%93Zhuhai%E2%80%93Macau_Bridge_under_construction,_june_2014.jpg James 07:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheJae (talk • contribs)