User talk:Maxim/archives/jan08

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Question about your recent image deletions

Maxim: I appreciate that you are going through the images and deleting invalid fair use rationales per CSD I7. I do wonder, though, about the rate at which you are deleting these images. For example, during the minute of 16:50, 29 December 2007 you deleted 54 images (almost one image a second) and the deletion log shows you have been keeping up this pace for quite a while. Are you using a bot to do these deletions? I also hope you are verifying that BetacommandBot accurately labeled these images as violating CSD 17 before deleting them. Best, --Alabamaboy (talk) 17:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

And please don't take my query the wrong way. I've deleted quite a few articles in my own time and appreciate every admin who helps clean out the trash around here. It's just that while BetacommandBot is a useful tool, it has been known to mislabel images on a regular basis.--Alabamaboy (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
The bot is correct, about 99.9% of the time. ;-) The JavaScript I use, located in User:Maxim/simple.js, shows me if an the tagging is disputed (simply put, if the bot is the last editor, the concerns have not been addressed and the image is safe to delete. I can tell you for a fact the stats of this run - the category contained 727 images, of which 23 where mistakenly there, and I split the run of 704 images into two, the first being of 439 images, and the other of 265. The rate of deletion is high because it takes less time to do the work of which result can be achieved by going through 704 manually. And that'd take a week. :-p. This took a 15 minutes. Maxim(talk) 17:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
(ec) I didn't. I advertised that in my deletion summary. :-p BetacommandBot is almost always correct, the problem is the communication between owner and uploaders, which gives the bot the unfortunate reputation, but it's dead useful. Maxim(talk) 17:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I was mainly curious how you were able to hit such a high rate. I agree that BetacommandBot is pretty accurate, but even at 99% accuracy that leaves a few mistakes per 1000 images. But it sounds like you're handling things well so that shouldn't be a problem. Keep up the great work.--Alabamaboy (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I know I make mistakes, but very few of them. But I fix them and admit them, so I don't think it's a big deal, no? ;-) Maxim(talk) 17:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Broken category link

Hi Maxim - I noted that you recently fixed a hyphen in an article into an en dash. Unfortunately, this had the effect of breaking a category link. Actually, all aircraft articles will be vulnerable to this, so could you please be alert to this if you're making similar fixes in future? Thanks :) --Rlandmann (talk) 20:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Noted of course, and I apologize for that little problem. Maxim(talk) 20:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Simple English Wikipedia

Hey there! I've noticed you a couple of times on the Simple English Wikipedia, and I would just like to say that I am looking forward to seeing you come back and start editing the Simple English Wikipedia again! We are always on the lookout for more active editors, so if you can spare some time, please feel free to come back over to the Simple English Wikipedia! Thanks, Razorflame (talk) 21:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Dashing Maxim

Hey, just a little something I thought I'd point out to you - a clever idea but not always appropriate - this diff on the article Norman Buckley. Three changes were made - the first good, the second to a film name and the third to a category. The name of the film was just unlucky and problems like these may not be able to be fixed (I know close to nothing about scripts and bots) but the change made to the category probably should be fixed. Thanks! :) •97198 talk 05:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, the category seems to be O.K. --Maxim(talk) 14:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
It is now, I've reverted it, but if you look at the revision from that diff you'll see a ", Texas" at the end of the external links section and the article would have (I've reverted it now; it's not possible to look at an old revision of a category) been listed under P (for "People from Fort Worth", as was changed) instead of B for defaultsort "Buckley, Norman". •97198 talk 08:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Image restorations

Hello. I just wanted you to know that I was in the process of editing a number of images (on military insignia) to remove some speedy tags and I got edit conflicted by your deletions. I was removing the speedy tags as I am of the opinion (I also consulted in -admins) that these images are worthy of some discussion at PUI of IFD instead of being speedy candidates. I hope that you don't mind my bold restoration of these. Please let me know if you want to discuss further. --After Midnight 0001 18:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I don't mind admins restoring my deletion for such reasons, it saves me the work. :-p Maxim(talk) 15:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Gm card.jpg

Hi. You deleted my image Gm card.jpg on the basis of "invalid fair use rationale." Might I ask how my rationale was invalid? With respect, your reason is a fiat, not a reason. Please let me know what information I can offer you to defend my fair use rationale, as I am quite sure the image is not copyright protected. J P M7791 (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You had uploaded under a claim of fair use and with no rationale at all actually. If you own the copyright, feel free to relicense it under a free license. --Maxim(talk) 15:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

"Concerns addressed"?

I notice that you've removed the {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} tags from images used on 2005 UEFA Champions League Final, and the only reasoning you've given is "concerns addressed".

Now, I understand that you are an admin and you have the final say in the matters, but I simply don't see how the concerns that I expressed are addressed at all, and I'd like to hear your justification for removing the tags without a more thorough explanation.

For one, the "historic" tag doesn't apply to these images since the images themselves aren't iconic, and they don't depict historic events, just an annual sporting event. There's no rationale given, and their replaceability is described as "All other images would be on Google", which doesn't make sense at all.

More importantly, how on earth do these images satisfy WP:NFCC#2 and WP:NFCC#8? --98.204.112.111 (talk) 04:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a rationale, however, they are abusive on second glance and I think I'm going to delete most of them. Maxim(talk) 15:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

RfA !votes

Have you decided to blanket oppose anyone who agrees to be open to recall? I don't disagree that recall is a pointless mess, but I'm not sure you want to imitate Kurt by putting essentially the same note on each RfA. Avruchtalk 01:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

At least consider reading their recall policies beforehand. Not all of them are equally pathetic, and some might even work. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 01:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I haven't thought this one out properly. Although I don't agree with AOR, it's certainly not a reason to oppose. Really misguided thinking by me. Apologize. Maxim(talk) 03:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Hestia tapestry.jpg

You deleted Image:Hestia tapestry.jpg the image I created, because "CSD I8 - Image has the same name on Wikimedia Commons". using TW). Shouldn’t the Wikimedia Commons list me as the creator and have link to my user page? I know these are public domain images, but it seems in poor taste to take credit for someone else's work of scanning and uploading. And I think they supposed to say where the file came from, in this case English Wikipedia. (Doktor Faustus (talk) 10:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC))

Fixed, I believe. --Maxim(talk) 13:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Requested moves

Hi mate, Thanks for helping out. You might want to archive the debates using a template, it looks a bit more professional imho - see my posting on AN for a link to the instructions and an example of one I just closed (the only one so far, I'm a lot slower than you!). It is however your call.

If you action a move don't forget to check the incoming links as in most cases there will be double redirects to fix.

I don't need a reply. Cheers! --kingboyk (talk) 14:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

Is it really possible to make a personal attack on a robot? Gam3 (talk) 17:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

AN

WP:AN#Return of Ome Henk vandal. —Random832 16:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Ome Henk deletion

I am not an admin, so I can't produce links to verify this. However, I believe the talk page of the above named article contained references to instances in the past when an anonymous IP vandal used the same tactics to try to get the article deleted, saying it was a copyright violation and that he was owed money. These statements got at least one IP address blocked. I have reason to think that the same tactics may have been taken this time. How would it be possible to try to restore the article? Admittedly, it may be more trouble than it's worth, but it does seem notable. John Carter (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

In CSBot we trust?  :-) I've undeleted the article and semi protected it to avoid more spurious notices in the future, but a good rule of thumb is that CSBot only places warnings on new pages— if there is more than one or two edits before the template then it could not have been placed by the bot. — Coren (talk) 16:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Mary Burns

Sorry - what notability does Mary Burns (US Civil War soldier) assert? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

A civil war soldier who's a woman disguised as a man. And a citation. You can PROD or AFD it as well. However, you are an admin, so there's no need to tag, it right? ;-) Maxim(talk) 17:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed nearly unanimously with 46 support, 1 oppose, and 0 neutral. Thanks for supporting me!

-Djsasso (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

ML - Master Lists

I am trying to follow up regarding the ML - Master Lists. I have expanded the previous draft of the descrption of the ML Master List concept, also a reference for it was provided on September 21, 2006, tinyurl.com/2e3xoq. Jonathan00 —Preceding comment was added at 18:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

dated. Maxim(talk) 19:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh?

What are you doing? →AzaToth 20:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Split up the sysop scripts from the regular scripts. I hope you don't mind..? Maxim(talk) 20:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Amanda Seyfried

Make sure when you do a revert, that you don't revert TO vandalism.  :) Corvus cornixtalk 00:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Free Republic

Maxim, I was reverting the unilateral edits of Eschoir, a banned Free Republic member who is demonstrating that he has a serious WP:COI problem by defying consensus. This individual has turned the article into his own personal blog, accumulating everything he doesn't like about Free Republic in one place. It's one big NPOV issue. Please look at the article carefully before intervening again. 68.31.191.215 (talk) 01:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Image:Structure and interpretation of computer programs.jpg

You've recently deleted Image:Structure and interpretation of computer programs.jpg, which was created before this "rationale for every page" requirement was created. As far as I know, there is no actual fair use violation with the image -- it is a book cover used to illustrate the article about the book -- it simply did not meet the new requirement of having a Wikilink to the article where it was used.

Given that (and assuming it was the only problem), would it be okay to undelete the image and fix the rationale? Also, with the unmanageable rate at which old images are being tagged, could you be more lenient in your handling of old images (perhaps correcting the rationale instead of deleting them)? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 03:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Images being deleted early?

Maxim, are you deleting images from Category:Disputed non-free images as of 1 January 2008? I was just about to add a rationale to Image:Aplusmachines ep.jpg -- the tag on the image says that it is not due to be deleted until after Tuesday, 8 January 2008. Bláthnaid 15:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Some a bit early, yes. They're missing rationale outright, so I thought you only wanted to fix the obvious 10c problems... --Maxim(talk) 15:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Please don't until at least the 8th. It doesn't take long to add an entire rationale. I'm working through the category, albeit slowly. Thanks. Bláthnaid 15:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
OK. Can you consider telling me when you're done, and for the January 2 mess, use the subcats, going from 1 to 12 and telling me when you're done, OK? :-) Maxim(talk) 15:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll let you know about January 1st. For Jan 2nd's mess, the problem is that other editors are working from the lists of images divided by category, rather than the subcats. Although maybe I could quit my job for a couple of weeks so I can work through the subcats :p Bláthnaid 16:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for undeleting the album image, by the way. However, I've just read the article about the band that released that album, and they don't appear to be notable, so I'm going to take the article to AfD. Sorry for wasting your time on that one :-) Bláthnaid 16:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I've gone through most of the category and fixed a lot of images, so you should be OK to start deleting on the 8th. For Category:Disputed non-free images as of 2 January 2008 is there somewhere to ask for the "grace period" that was discussed on Wikipedia:Task of the day? The category currently stands at more than 10,000. Bláthnaid 21:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Help with image upload

Hi - I just wanted your advice on an image that was speedy deleted based on your comments. I have reloaded it with what I think is a suitable fair-use template (in the first version of this image file I used another Brisbane school's logo image page as a starting point). Can you please check and make sure I have covered all the bases or if I need to include more information? Thanks Awinkler (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't help you if you don't give me a link to the image. I can't remember about which one exactly you're talking about, as I delete a lot of images. :-( Maxim(talk) 21:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, what an idiot!  :) The image is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CHAC.jpg. (sorry I couldn't figure out the internal link) Awinkler (talk) 03:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK

May I please know why my DYK nom was sent to the holding bay? -- Whiteandnerdy111 (talk) 21:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Because all those hooks would have taken too much space on the main page, and the dyk part would be at least a couple inches below the end of the news. Don't worry, though, as it will be on in the update after this one. --Maxim(talk) 21:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK

Updated DYK query On 7 January 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article List of players with five or more goals in an NHL game, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Pages undeleted

This situation is all fixed now, but just to let you know: you deleted some archived talk pages on the grounds that there was no corresponding article. Actually, the article existed and had been renamed. Maybe you didn't notice they were talk archives because they were incorrectly named with no slash in the name (i.e. Talk: Nazarene Archive1 rather than Talk: Nazarene (sect)/Archive 1). If you had noticed, I think you could have found the page they belonged with by using "what links here" or perhaps by checking the various pages linked from the disambiguation page Nazarene; or by looking at the beginning of the page history of Nazarene, where it logs a page move to a page which redirects to Nazarene (sect). --Coppertwig (talk) 03:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Disputed non-free images

Yes, go ahead. Thanks for asking! Bláthnaid 20:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Article deletions

Hi there! I noticed you deleted dozens of articles in less than a minute (mostly expired prods). Please reassure me that you actually looked at the articles before deletion. Thanks!--Fabrictramp (talk) 01:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Reassured. :-p This script simply saves me the trouble of going to the deletion screen and clicking delete. It also took care of the redirects for me. :-) Maxim(talk) 01:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Good to hear! :) --Fabrictramp (talk) 13:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The 10000 image backlog

Here are some subcategories that are ready for deletion. These lists have not been updated and contain both images that have been fixed and ones that should be deleted, but you should be OK to delete anything that still has the delete tag on it:

  • Promotional images -- full of replaceable images of living people
  • Book covers
  • Historic images
  • Stamps
  • Web screenshots
  • Software screenshots

Thanks. Bláthnaid 14:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Misssio.jpg

If you'd be so kind as to restore this image I'll do my best to create a rationale for it. (I assumed someone else would, or that an administrator would actually look at the image and the article that uses it and not just delete it. It's a book cover and is used to illustrate this article The Missionary Position (book).)

Thanks. --RenniePet (talk) 05:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:MikeWilks.jpg

Hey, that image wasn't Fair Use any more! I specifically got a non-copyrighted image from the subject, and replaced the original image!

What should I do now? Re-upload the image? --Slashme (talk) 05:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I've decided to upload on Commons. Please drop me a note on my talk page if this is a mistake. --Slashme (talk) 05:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

"Image:Libertineback.jpg" ‎

Hi. The deletion summary says this was deleted for the lack of a valid fair use rationale. In fact I wrote a rather extensive and specific one several days ago, linking to the article, explaining about the significance of the image, etc. (IIRC I both filled in a template and wrote an additional one to make sure the arguments were thoroughly covered.) If there is some reason why this was insufficient or invalid, I'll be surprised and just slightly annoyed, but it looks as though the deletion was semi-automated and gave an invalid reason for the deletion, i.e. that there was no rationale for the article. Could you please look into this? I'm thinking if the process missed the existence of the rationale, then there may be others as well. I'm specifically wondering about your deletion of "Image:Madeleine L'Engle.jpg", which I don't recall checking for a rationale. As she is no longer a living person, a free image is now exceedingly unlinkely. Having spent the entire evening last night checking over, writing and upgrading rationales on images I uploaded myself, I'm a little worried about the possibility of their being deleted in error. Thanks! --Karen | Talk | contribs 05:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 2nd and 7th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 1 2 January 2008 About the Signpost
WikiWorld comic: "John Lasseter" News and notes: Stewards, fundraiser, milestones 
Wikipedia in the News WikiProject Report: Scouting 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Volume 4, Issue 2 7 January 2008 About the Signpost
From the editor: Stepping in after delay 
New Wikipedia discussion forum gains steam WikiWorld comic: "Goregrind" 
Wikipedia in the News Features and admins 
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Amiga Workbench 1 0.png

Hi, I am wondering why Image:Amiga Workbench 1 0.png was deleted? The problem that there wasn't a fair use rationale listed for each article was fixed by me. I believe that the image was fair use in all the articles it was used in, so if there was still some problem with what I'd done, I think that should have been dealt with letting me know and/or by retagging the image, so editors had a chance to fix before it is deleted. Thanks. Mdwh (talk) 12:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Image deletions

Maxim, did you delete every image in the lists I linked to above? As I said, those lists contained both images that had been fixed and images that should be deleted. I said to delete any image that still had a delete tag on it, not every image on the list. Some script or bot might have malfunctioned somewhere and caused everything to be deleted without you knowing about it, because a couple of images like Image:Nabokov-Beheading1.jpg that should have been deleted were removed from articles by ImageRemovalBot [1], but still exist. Bláthnaid 14:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh oh, I didn't read your message well. I thought that yes, every image was to be deleted... I obviously have a huge load of work to do, now... Maxim(talk) 20:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
That's OK, it's understandable because there was so many that you had to delete. I'm just heading out my door now, but if I can help you out in any way tomorrow, please let me know. Bláthnaid 21:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Logo stuff

Because he volunteered. lol. DMighton (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

 :-) Maxim(talk) 21:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Rollback

Thanks! szyslak 02:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

RfR

Yes, you did give a longer and good reason. Heh. :) Acalamari 02:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Image:Guru meditation.gif

I had thought I placed a fair use rationale on that image including linking the pages it used on. Why was it still deleted anyway. Is this in error or do you have a reason. I spent all the time I could on writing the fair use rationale for this only to have it deleted still yet? What in the heck is going on? Sawblade05 (talk to me | my wiki life) 06:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Images from Disney's DuckTales

Hello,

I would like you to ckeck out these articles:

I uploaded screenshots from the DVD and put the proper "fair-use" tags, but I'd like to know whether or not the images Launchpad_McQuack.jpg and ElCapitanDT.jpg have good enough fair use rationales. Do they check out? New York Dreams (talk) 14:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly. I suggest you check out this page and take a look at this template. Maxim(talk) 13:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

Thanks! I'm about three-quarters way through your list. I'll be finished it soon. Bláthnaid 16:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I've put every image in your list back into their articles. Rollback is very useful! User:SkierRMH added rationales to book covers, so if you look at his recent deleted edits you might see some other images to restore. You can re-delete Image:Boytownsoundtrack01.jpg. I think that will be most of the problem fixed. Bláthnaid 16:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you to all involved in resolving this situation. --RenniePet (talk) 18:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

NASCAR Fan24's Secret Page!

The Secret Page Detective Award
This user has found NASCAR Fan24's secret page! Congratulations!

NF24(radio me!) 02:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Restoring an image

An image that I uploaded (Image:Football_encyclopedia.jpg) got tagged for speedy deletion and you zapped it about 48 hours later. No complaints about the process, but it happened over the holidays, and since I was away I didn't get a chance to add the appropriate rationale in time. My question is whether it makes more sense for me to ask that it be rolled back and tagged, or to upload it again? Anson2995 (talk) 03:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I zapped it seven days later, but that's kinda irrelevant now. I've restored it, and you can fix the issues. Maxim(talk) 13:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Orpheus RPG cover image deletion

16:11, 10 January 2008 Maxim (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:OrpheusRPG c.jpg" ‎(Deleted because "CSD I7 - Invalid fair use rationale; every non-free image must include a rationale for its use, and per WP:NFCC#10c, the rationale must include the article in which the image is used in". using TW)

I though I understood non-free content criteria, but apparently not. What was the reason for the deletion of the cover for the Orpheus RPG?

Lack of a fair use rationale, outright (and consequently the lack of the article the it is used in. Maxim(talk) 21:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hockey Hall of Fame

Since you think it still has issues, would you mind copyediting it? And, I couldn't find any quotes that needed a citation, so could you please be more specific about that? Thanks, Scorpion0422 05:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I just did a huge copyedit of the entire article, do you think it's better now? -- Scorpion0422 17:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but I'm still taking a look at it and I'll post some stuff on the talkpage in a couple days. I'm ridiculously busy now, unfortunately, so it might take some time. Maxim(talk) 02:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Image lists (again!)

This is just a note to say that User:East718 has deleted the lists of images that I mentioned on Task of the Day. Thanks for deleting the earlier ones, and kudos for tackling the huge backlog. Bláthnaid 20:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

FUR deletions Image:Journal of the American Oriental Society.gif

You deleted this citing it needed to provide an article for which it was used--which it did in the template. I have used a free replacement image which is suitable for now (although the FUR claim can still be made for a new cover to represent the magazine). I just want you to be more careful since it did follow FUR guidelines... gren グレン 18:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Your comments on the Angel David RfC

First off, I apologise for saying that your opinion on the case made you unfit to be an administrator. I realise it was uncalled-for, and I'm certainly not going to advocate your desysopping or anything of that nature. As Friday correctly pointed out, honest disagreements between reasonable people are possible, and we shouldn't make this personal.

With regards to myself, though, I was quite hurt by your suggestion that I am guilty of "wikilawyering" (a term I detest). It happens that I am a law student in RL, and that probably influences my general methods of thinking; I like policies to be clear, precise and consistently applied, and I distrust unfettered admin discretion, for the simple reason that ordinary users need to know where they stand. Accordingly I oppose blocks that are not backed up by established policy and practice. This is my opinion, but you are entitled to disagree.

I also don't believe that I refuse to exercise "common sense". Users can disagree in good faith about what constitutes a "common sense" approach to a problem, but in cases like this I don't believe there is one. I personally believe that, as contributors are our most important resource, we should exhaust every possible approach before even considering blocking any good-faith user. Yes, obviously, we should block people for vandalising, or for disrupting discussions or processes and preventing others from working on the encyclopedia. But where someone is making some helpful edits, coupled with a large number of less useful edits, we shouldn't be prepared to block them unless they are actually causing a serious problem. I personally believe this to be common sense.

I have nothing against you personally, and I don't want a conflict to develop out of this. I apologise for personalising the issue, and I hope we can discuss things rationally. WaltonOne 21:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you miss this note? (Apologies if you just haven't had time to reply yet.) WaltonOne 21:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Yup, I did. Lucky it didn't get archived, everything older than 48 h goes here because sometimes get complete floods (40 in 3 days once). I see why conflict between us may develop, as I'm all for admins having more power(s), and that includes blocking through WP:IAR, as I feel that the trolls are controlling the admins. I personally believe that there have been very many attempts to help David, yet they haven't worked, so I think it's time to resort to a block. I apologize for some of my statements, I got overangered/carried away. Maxim(talk) 23:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. You are entitled to disagree with me in good faith. But I don't see that "the trolls are controlling the admins". Those users who are just here to disrupt the encyclopedia typically get blocked very quickly; the difficulty is always with those people who make constructive contributions, but mix them with incivility and POV editing, and those are the people we should not be quick to block (and if we absolutely have to, it should be decided through consensus rather than a single admin's judgment). I don't think Angel David is even really one of those; he's very civil and mild-mannered and clearly a nice person, he's just very young and doesn't really understand how Wikipedia works. But I think you're right to some extent, in that there have been a lot of attempts to guide him along the right path and they haven't worked. Perhaps he should be advised to take a wikibreak for a while; however, I still think a block would be overkill. As much as we say that blocks are preventative and not punitive, they are usually seen as a punishment by the people on whom they're imposed. WaltonOne 08:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Logos of ACCESS (TV channel)

If i were to be able to place the appropriate copyright and fair-use image tags on the images that were deleted from the ACCESS (TV channel) article, would you be willing to undelete them? RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 05:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I've delete the logo in question. --Maxim(talk) 20:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I mean, i'm asking if you could restore them. I'd be willing to place proper source and copyright status information on the images. I just think they would be additive to the article. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 22:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Gah, I meant I restored Image:Access Television.png for you to fix. Maxim(talk) 22:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
No need to worry about that. I already have added in a fair use rationale for its use in that article. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 23:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
So, i take it the older 1970s and 1980s logos are not allowed on wikipedia? RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 20:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I juat wanted to thank you. I was blocked from editing this site a few months ago and you gave me a second chance. Since then, all i have done is look for ways to help Wikpedia cheesepuffsaretasty!!! (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 14th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 3 14 January 2008 About the Signpost
From the editor: A new weekly feature 
Special: 2007 in Review Wikimania 2009 bidding ends, jury named 
Controversial non-administrator rollback process added Supposed advance draft of Jobs keynote surfaces on talk page 
WikiWorld comic: "The Nocebo Effect" News and notes: Fundraiser ends, $500,000 donation, milestones 
Wikipedia in the News Tutorial: Fundamentals of editing 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

deletion of Equanimity cover FNL.jpg

I would like to contest the deletion of this file, which is the cover of my CD, which I own the copyright to. Additional use of this image can be found at www.diemjones.com. In accordance to your template:

Fair use in Equanimity cover FNL.jpg ===

   Though this image is subject to copyright, its use is covered by the U.S. fair use laws, and the stricter requirements of Wikipedia's non-free content policies, because:
   # It illustrates an educational article about the entity that the logo represents.
   # The image is used as the primary means of visual identification of the article topic.
   # It is a low resolution image, and thus not suitable for production of counterfeit goods.
   # It is not replaceable with an uncopyrighted or freely copyrighted image of comparable educational value

Many thanks in advance for your attention to this matter.

la luz,

diem jones aka sufiwarrior —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sufiwarrior (talk • contribs) 08:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Y Done Maxim(talk) 20:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh, hey there...

I believe you deleted two images; one called "Chomper.jpg", the other "Ruby.jpg". I noticed that the reason was a disputed fair use rationale. I remember those images clearly. Do you think you could restore them for about twenty minutes? I believe I could fix their problems. If you decide to do this, please notify me on my talkpage that they've been temporarily restored. Thank you. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 01:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, scratch that. I'd rather they be restored and then you wait until I notify you that I got your message, as I might not be on the computer at the time you reply. Thanks for understanding. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 02:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Snowball delete

Greets, Maxim. When you threw snowballs at the 2008-09 Team season pages, you forgot to throw one at the 2008-09 Montreal Canadiens season page. You got the rest of them, though. -Pparazorback (talk) 15:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

And now it's been "hit". :-p Maxim(talk) 15:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion already?

Hi Maxim. As you can see from User:Carcharoth/Image clean-up galleries and User talk:Carcharoth/Image clean-up galleries, I've just been making a start at cleaning up some images. But now I see lots of the images I had been looking through on a preview screen have now been deleted. I thought we'd agreed here to give me (and others) this weekend to look through the categories? You said "I'm kinda glad we can sort of agree on that you can't save eveything. :-( As I understand, I should start deleting around 00:00 20 January?" - maybe there was a misunderstanding here, but I meant 23:59 UTC Sunday 20 January, which is 30 hours from now. What's going on? Carcharoth (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

ANI post. Carcharoth (talk) 18:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Maxim. I see you are back online. I'm not going to be around again until later in the day, but do you think you could possibly find the time to respond here and at the ANI thread? Just something to indicate that you are aware of the threads and whether or not you will hold off on image deletions (I see you are dealing with articles at the moment) until after midnight, Sunday (the time now in big, bold text at the top of the category and subcategories)? Carcharoth (talk) 12:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
And another ANI thread. Don't know where that IP came from. Carcharoth (talk) 12:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK

Thanks for nominating Cape Perpetua for DYK spot--always nice to have people read/appreciate work.--Orygun (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Update

Hi Maxim. I'm going to make one last attempt to get in touch with you. The list I've eventually come up with can be seen at User talk:Carcharoth/Image clean-up galleries. As you can see, some are deleted already, some aren't. Some have already been fixed by others, some haven't. It will be inconvenient for me to undelete (and sometimes difficult to find the articles the images were used in). I don't mind doing this, but I'm leaving this message here in the hope that you will see it and feel able to reply to me. Thanks. I'll be offline in about an hour. Carcharoth (talk) 02:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

And a third ANI thread. Please note that I only started the second and third threads because I couldn't get any response from you. Carcharoth (talk) 02:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Dude, people are talking, and, well you ain't. This might be a good time to take a break from the image stuff and talk. Tiptoety talk 03:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Johnnewtonchance.jpg

Why did you delete Image:Johnnewtonchance.jpg with the log summary "(Deleted because "CSD I7 - Invalid fair use rationale; all non-free media must have a rationale for its use; per WP:NFCC#10c, the rationale must include the name of the article the media is used in". using TW)" ? It had an extensive fair use rationale, including a link to John Lymington, which (at least right now) is the only article using the image. Gimmetrow 06:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I have also reviewed the image description page, and I don't see how it qualifies for deletion (let alone for an immediate speedy deletion). If you dispute that the image qualifies as fair use, it would have been more appropriate to list it at images for deletion or a similar process. I strongly recommend that you restore the image; barring that, I will nominate it for undeletion. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
    • If I may? What has happened here is that a huge backlog of images has been cleared. I agree that Maxim should have seen the rationale, but from what I know of how he works, he will have spent some time reviewing the images and removed the ones that had been fixed (at the same times, I was visually checking the category and looking for ones that could be fixed easily, or were the more obscure types of fair use). Maxim would then have started a script running to clear the backlog (this is generally accepted among those dealing with the image backlogs, as there are periodically very large backlogs to clear). From what I can tell, he made a modification to his .js page at 6 minutes past midnight, and his script started running at 00:20, and ran until 02:24, presumably clearing the backlog of around 1500-2000 images. It seems that the rationale got added to this image during that run of the script, which is unfortunate. I'm sure that Maxim will undelete once he sees this. For what it is worth, I had spotted that image, and it was on my rescue list here (under section 7). The primary issues seem to be communication (I've got an ANI thread going about that at the moment) and avoiding this sort of "rationale added after the backlog clearing starts" situation. This has happened before, and I thought Maxim had tweaked his script to avoid this. Maybe he will explain this when he logs on. Carcharoth (talk) 10:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I'd say undelete. No reason to keep this one deleted. I'll do that now. Carcharoth (talk) 10:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Communication request

Hey there. I was wondering if we could please get an acknowledgement/response at this ANI thread? Various editors are trying to open and clarify channels of communication among people who work these image deletion categories. It would help for you to weigh in on the issue and indicate whether or not you agree with the solution that has been put in place for now. Thanks! --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 16:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Holst.jpg

Do you know where is the commons copy of the this image Image:Holst.jpg.--Antonio Lopez (talk)00:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It was deleted on Commons because it was missing proper source information. This, unfortunately, often happens with images uploaded 3+ years ago; this one was uploaded in 2003, when standards for images licensing were so much different they more or less didn't exist. Maxim(talk) 02:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Wait, it got deleted on both wikipedia and the commons. Also would it be possible to re-upload if I do find a source.--Antonio Lopez (talk)03:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Of course; I can even restore for you if you find a source, at Commons. Maxim(talk) 12:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I found the image on following three sites that use the image, but I am not sure if the links are good enough. I will keep looking if they are not reliable. 123 --Antonio Lopez (talk)22:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hockey & Ireland

Thanks Maxim for the award. I'm hoping they'll heed our warnings. GoodDay (talk) 23:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm getting a quizzy feeling that One Night in Hackney may take his Irish edit complaints to 'all' the NHL related articles. Here's hoping that's not the case. GoodDay (talk) 00:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Amy Beach images

I'm curious why several images including Image:BeachMassExampleA.jpg (and ExampleB, ExampleC) were speedily deleted for no Fair Use rationales. Beach's Mass was published long before 1923 and has been out of copyright. There's no need for a Fair Use rationale for the underlying music, and I don't see how the "edition" (a direct copy from the public domain score) could qualify for copyright; certainly the creator of the edition (who was also the uploader) did not think so. In any case I think the images should go to XfD instead of speedy. Thanks. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 15:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I remember those. I think you could actually recreate those images in a much nicer format instead of scanning pencilled musical scores. Have a look at Image:Lilypond-screenshot-adeste.png for a good example. As long as you make clear that the music is public domain, and you credit the book's author for the comparison's (ie. so that it is not original research), then you are really only quoting that book's author. That is no different to quoting a piece of text, in my opinion. Carcharoth (talk) 16:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
If I had created the images I certainly would have done them on a computer (my user page and publications give some idea of my fluency on the topic), but I don't think that whether they were done by hand or on a computer affects their copyright status. The work was done by a former student. Though I must say that WP seems to prefer badly done computer generated music scores over even extremely neat handwritten scores to an extent that baffles me. It certainly isn't the case in professional music publications which tend to allow high quality handwritten scores but not unkerned/badly-spaced Finale, Sibelius, or Lilypond graphics such as are seen in lots of online publications (including WP). Thanks! -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 05:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I guess I agree with you here, but I hope you and Maxim won't mind if I leave it to him to undelete. I normally only undelete when a rationale already existed, or I'm adding one myself, or one has been written. If you think these images are PD, then just say which tag you are proposing to put on them - I'm not clear myself which tag would be best. Carcharoth (talk) 01:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Carcharoth, I've restored this image, but do you honestly think I couldn't have handled this myself. Maxim(talk) 03:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

deleted image - Mona ahmed book cover.jpg

The Image:Mona ahmed book cover.jpg was deleted "because "CSD I7 - Invalid fair use rationale; every non-free image must include a rationale for its use, and per WP:NFCC#10c, the rationale must include the article in which the image is used in". using TW)

Yet it had a rationale which referred to the article in which the image was used. If there was some problem with the rationale, could it not have been discussed before deletion? ntennis 22:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and restored it for now. The image may not be suitable for a claim of fair use, though; please see WP:NFCC, and WP:IFD. Also, consider adding {{Non-free media rationale}} for the image's rationale. --Maxim(talk) 03:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Steve Mason (Radio)

Hey Maxim,

I went ahead and expanded on my entry for Steve Mason(Radio) just before it was deleted and was hoping it would demonstrate sufficient notability to keep the entry. Do you think its sufficient enough to save from deletion?

Thanks!

Victorfranco1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victorfranco1 (talk • contribs) 05:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Per policy, I've restored this as contested. Maxim(talk) 03:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Don Kingsborough.jpg

You deleted this with the comment (Deleted because "CSD I7 - Invalid fair use rationale; every non-free image must include a rationale for its use, and per WP:NFCC#10c, the rationale must include the article in which the image is used in". using TW). I'm pretty sure I provided such a rationale, including the article. Please look again, and undelete. GRuban (talk) 19:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I messed up here a bit. Maxim(talk) 03:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 21st, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 4 21 January 2008 About the Signpost
Special: 2007 in Review, Part II New parser preprocessor to be introduced 
Commons Picture of the Year contest in final round WikiWorld comic: "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo" 
News and notes: Freely-licensed music, milestones Wikipedia in the News 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 00:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I repeat my request:

You deleted the images Image:Chomper.jpg and Image:Ruby.jpg because they lacked fair use rationales. I have already asked you to restore them so that I can fix this problem. Other users request that you restore images you've deleted so the fair use rationales may be added, and you've granted their requests; why won't you do so with me? Wilhelmina Will (talk) 01:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Please restore the images so I can fix them. It's not fair to deny me the right to do so, without even an explanation. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 01:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Which articles were they used in? The Land Before Time (TV series)? Or one of the character articles? These aren't standard non-free uses, so there needs to be some clearer reason to undelete. Carcharoth (talk) 01:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Carcharoth, no offense, but I think I can handle such requests. To be honest, it's kinda annoying when you try to act like my spokesperson because I can't communicate clear enough. Thanks. Maxim(talk) 03:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

They were used in the articles for the characters of those names. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 01:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Wilhemina Will. I must have missed your request to restore these images, I apologize for this. I'm real sorry this happened; I get a bunch of such similar requests that are dealt very quickly, so I sometimes miss one comment in a flood of 10. :-(. I've restored these images so you can fix them. Maxim(talk) 03:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for restoring the images! I was afraid for a moment that you might have had some strange issues with them being restored and repaired. In the meantime though, I think something's wrong with the first one (Image:Chomper.jpg). Image:Ruby.jpg is correct, and I've added her fair use rationale and returned her to her rightful position in the article. But Image:Chomper.jpg seems to be a different image from the one I recall. The one I remember had Chomper alone in it, and was much larger than the image currently occupying that file. Do you have any idea what might have happened? Wilhelmina Will (talk) 03:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For working so hard on the article Ray Emery I User Swirlex award you this Tireless Contributor Barnstar.