Ball and Chain Mark of Shame[1]Deletion before Collaboration --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"collaboration is a lot of editors doing what admins tell them to."
Please indent your posts with one more ":" than what you are replying to, i.e. begin with ":" if replying to an existing topic and "::" if replying to a reply.
I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your Talk page (or the article Talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to watch this page until you are responded to, or specifically let me know where you'd prefer the reply.
Save the Drama for Your Llama: the editor of this page reserves the right to delete trolling and drama at their discretion.... [2]
Welcome!
Hello, Slowking4, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
Thanks for your interest in helping bring DC public art to Wikipedia! We have updated our Task Force page for DC, so please take a look and get started. We look forward to seeing your contributions and please let me know if I can help you with anything. Missvain (talk) 14:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katherine Larson until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Levinge (talk) 17:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Importance levels for Wikipedia:Public Art
Hi! We have decided to pull the importance level aspect of the WP:Public Art talk page tag. We have decided that it's too hard to judge the importance, following along the lines of other art based projects like Wikiproject:Visual Arts. Thanks for the work you're doing though! :) Missvain (talk) 18:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again! Just curious, I saw that you updated the tags for both the United States and African Diaspora tags I recently placed on the Here I Stand sculpture. I usually don't update the projects I'm not involved in, but, perhaps you are involved in both of those too. What could be LOW on one wikiproject could be a C, or what could be a start, could be a stub on another project. Just letting you know :) Missvain (talk) 20:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
class is class across all projects. there is a B class checklist, and Good and Feature consensus, but for C and below, it seems to me something is better than nothing, and if start for one, start for all; there are some bots that do this. and upgrade from stub to start is fine = grade inflation. i tend to give more weight to references and section headers, than the examples, and will lazily copy an underassessment.
most projects don't seem to care about non-members assessing, except for ownership ones like Milhist.
for importance, yes, they are different among projects; while some don't use because it's too "i don't like it", i can see the usefulness, if you tied it to pageviews, to get priorities for an article improvement drive. you could also sort by articles lacking photos (phototag). (some information is better than none). it's part of a divide and conquer strategy for big problems. i don't know if it's better than randomly sprinkling improvement dust, but some people like a to do list. Slowking4 (talk) 17:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know you recently added a reference to the article in question to disqualify it from WP:BLPPROD however, because notability is not inherited and the subject's membership in the ensemble does not make him notable, I have nominated the page for deletion. Please feel free to participate in the discussion should you wish. Thank you Hasteur (talk) 00:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Glenkiln-cross.JPG
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:Glenkiln-cross.JPG. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles03:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Glenkiln-left.JPG
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:Glenkiln-left.JPG. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles03:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Glenkiln-right.JPG
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:Glenkiln-right.JPG. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles03:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use rationale for File:Figure-hepworth.JPG
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Figure-hepworth.JPG. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ArmbrustTalkContribs16:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on File:Figure-landscape-title.JPG requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria.
If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{non-free fair use in|article name that the file is used in}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the file. If the file has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ArmbrustTalkContribs16:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use rationale for File:Are-years-what-left.JPG
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Are-years-what-left.JPG. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 02:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use rationale for File:Are-years-what-right.JPG
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Are-years-what-right.JPG. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 02:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use rationale for File:Are-years-what-street.JPG
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Are-years-what-street.JPG. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 02:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use rationale for File:Are-years-what.JPG
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Are-years-what.JPG. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 02:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
License tagging for File:Four-sided-pyramid-title.JPG
Thanks for uploading File:Four-sided-pyramid-title.JPG. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:Typewriter-eraser.JPG. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ArmbrustWrestleMania XXVIIUndertaker 19–017:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Untitled-1969.JPG
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:Untitled-1969.JPG. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sven ManguardWha?22:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
File source problem with File:Cubi-xi.JPG
Thank you for uploading File:Cubi-xi.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.
If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 19:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
i took the photo, and if the kludgy licensing template would allow me to license i would. do you actually fix things or tag spam? Slowking4 (talk) 19:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
File source problem with File:Puellae.JPG
Thank you for uploading File:Puellae.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.
If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Spider bourgeois.JPG
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:Spider bourgeois.JPG. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 06:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No worries - thanks for the help. I've never been very good with those rationales...the picture dates to before I knew what "freedom of panorama" was all about. Ah, such innocent times...
threatening to delete images unless the phototaker fills out a checklist is demoralizing. how many perfectly good images are lost because of form over function? not to mention policy changing, and the same bullying over the rules. if they would fix stuff i would have more sympathy. Slowking4 (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Untitled-1969.JPG. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. N419BH07:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Two-piece.JPG
Thank you for uploading File:Two-piece.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:Untitled-kelly.JPG. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 06:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Pushkin (Bourganov) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Ravendrop02:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Bruch until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.
March 2011
Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Marino Marini (sculptor), did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. You were warned to not re-add non-free content to the article or else you would be issued this warning. Your comment to "warn someone who cares" shows a flagrant disregard for the policies as well. If you continue along this path you may be blocked.Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
actually you are being disruptive [3], no, not disregard for policy, disregard for your pomposity, warnings in edit comment space are precious: "Replacing this image will result in a vandalism warning." i've added more critical commentary, is it enough for you? is it worth taking to ANI? a block from you, would be a badge of honor. Slowking4 (talk) 16:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Takeo™16:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image tagging for File:Wishtreesign.JPG
Thanks for uploading File:Wishtreesign.JPG. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.
To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only 5 minutes’’’. cooldenny (talk) 18:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Geometric mouse.JPG
Thank you for uploading File:Geometric mouse.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:House-right.JPG. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. 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. Skier Dude2 (talk) 03:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/River Spirits of the Anacostia until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Talkback
Hello, Slowking4. You have new messages at File talk:Ms100%fun.jpg. Message added 03:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 20:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use rationale for File:Geometric_mouse.JPG
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Geometric_mouse.JPG. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Melesse (talk) 11:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I may have gotten myself into something on this. Your link says there are over 900 outdoor sculptures in Philly. Another way of looking at the SIRIS database gave 724. I may pull out entirely, go slow, or just start making a few articles w/photos before getting involved in a "project." At least I have the database and a way to search it properly. A couple of things about the database and tables - where do the coords come from? Why can't I always find a date field (even if it is empty)? Is anything they photograph acceptable for being photographed for Wikipedia (re:copyright - I expect not)?
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 17:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 17:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 15:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you changed the caption to the Clark Mills equestrian statue of Washington. I am not sure that to call it "Lieutenant General George Washington" is entirely correct. According to the research I was able to do at this time, this statue is supposed to be of Washington reviewing his troops at Princeton in 1777. It's my understanding that in 1777 Washington held the rank of Major General, the rank of Lt. General not being given until 1798. Maybe I'm mistaken on this? Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 16:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
good point, the name is confusing, i was adding a link to the sculpture article. i am going by the Smithsonian database for the work here [4], but they have been known to be wrong, and we may not necessarily follow their name convention, if you change, please retain the link. Slowking4 (talk) 16:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct, the SI reference does seem to be incorrect. Maybe you could help me out with something...I am having a hard time finding a citable reference that states what Washington's rank actually was in 1777 at Princeton. I mean, I know what's true, but I need a verifiable source and all that. If you come up with a source, please post it here. I'll take care of correcting the caption and any other pertinent links. -Shearonink (talk) 20:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
i wouldn't get too hung up on the name. couldn't find another source that calls it xyz, that's the one to go by? found a webpage that says: "General and Commander in Chief" [5] (author is rev war roundtable dc member) i would suggest "George Washington (Mills)" for a rename. note that the uniform and hat don't correspond with trumbull, who was an eyewitness (so i wouldn't be surprised if artist conflated the rank as well). Slowking4 (talk) 20:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 18:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for catch, i followed the misspelled red link from systemic bias. however the EC did bounce my edit, lost 2nd time (hate this old browser with no edit history recovery).Slowking4 (talk) 20:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A quick Google search suggests that it may be an alternate spelling (see the Phillips Collection website...if anyone should know it would be they). No worries - I fixed it up. I suspect I have a copy of one of her paintings hanging on my bedroom wall, and I could have sworn that she's in the NMWA collection, though their database says otherwise. No matter - I'll look tonight. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa.20:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
misspelling at Spanierman, title different spelling from body, maiden name. influencial summer school, en plein air. need pic of phillips art. Slowking4 (talk) 20:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Slowking4. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Archives of American Art Update!
Hi! I just wanted to deliver a little news about the Archives of American Art partnership project! We have released our amazing barnstar to the world, learn how you can earn one here! We will be having a Backstage Pass tour later this month which will be announced this week, and an upcoming contest in which major contributors can win some amazing goodies from the Archives and Smithsonian, allowing for international involvement! Thanks again for your interest and I look forward to your continued participation in this ongoing project to better coverage on American art history on Wikipedia! SarahStierch (talk) 18:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please tell me you're coming to the backstage pass =)
Please do go ahead with the Philly public art list. I've been a bit under the weather and very slow on this (maybe I should be the "Slow King" :-P) Smallbones (talk) 23:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This week, our first multilingual featured article contest was announced. We are aiming to improve the articles on the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, or Bill of Rights to featured or good status in English and other languages. Prizes for winners will be a gift package from the National Archives including a book of your choice or a tote bag, and other swag, plus, of course, a special barnstar.
August 6 backstage pass
Plans are in the works for a meetup and backstage pass event at the National Archives II facility in College Park, MD. There will be a regular social meetup, a discussion with Dominic about WP:NARA, a tour of the building by NARA staff, and then time for a scanathon and editathon in the research rooms and library until the building closes at 5 pm. Keep your schedules open!
The National Archives' Archival Recovery Team (ART) is a team of law enforcement agents and archivists who investigate NARA's lost and stolen documents. They have received media attention ([7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]) and would like to request an article be written for the team, if Wikipedians deem it notable. It is hoped that making more information about the group available on Wikipedia will increase public awareness of the documents they are seeking to recover.
Ongoing
Today's Document challenge
The Today's Document challenge is an opportunity for Wikipedians to get their work related to National Archives holdings spotlighted on Archives.gov and the National Archives' tumblr. Each day the National Archives selects a document related to the day's date to showcase. The goal is to get articles related to the selected documents on the main page in ""Did You Know...?" the same day that the National Archives features the document. Alternatively, other appropriate articles related to National Archives holdings not already selected will be used for new documents of the day by NARA staff and posted to their tumblr.
Wikisource
WP:NARA has a sister WikiProject on Wikisource, WS:NARA. On Wikisource, editors transcribe, proofread, and arrange documents. This helps to make little-known documents more discoverable, or well-known documents more searchable, and improves accessibility. See the files being worked on. If you are new to Wikisource and would like to participate, there are experienced Wikisourcerors willing to be mentors.
New contributions
A list of some recent contributions to the project:
The National Archives has hundreds of thousands of digitized documents in its holdings. We are working on a bulk upload to Commons of one particular cache of about 123,000 TIFF master files in the next few days! Once uploaded, these will require a massive community effort to help categorize the files on Commons and add them to articles on Wikipedia or transcribe them on Wikisource.
Inclusion in the online catalog
We are currently working on a system for including links to pages on Wikimedia projects in the National Archives online catalog. The Wikimedia projects are hosting an increasing number of transcriptions of National Archives documents and high-quality image and video files that are not available through NARA's own site. Links to these Wikimedia pages in the documents' actual catalog records will benefit the end user by providing them access to further resources about the documents, and they will also demonstrate the National Archives commitment to supporting Wikimedians' efforts.
To stop receiving this newsletter, please remove your name from the list.
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:Pb-crest-2.jpg. 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).
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unfinished Business: Paul Keating's interrupted revolution until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. damiens.rf04:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Would you think it an improvement to have the artists sort by last name? It's pretty simple for me to mark up. GcSwRhIc (talk) 17:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
yes, the smithsonian database has it last, first for that reason, but we change it so we can link to the artist article. if you had a way to link to artist article while displaying sorting by last that would be an improvement. Slowking4: 7@1|x17:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So how bout that SI data? If you want to point me to the data you were talking about yesterday and let me know how it has to be processed, I'll see if I could meaningfully automate it.
--Qwerty0 (talk) 19:31, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ok, what little i know about SIRIS: here's the database [15]; here's a query for philadelphia, limited by sculpture, sorted by sculpture name [16]
i tend to grab this and dump into a spreadsheet, since i couldn't find an export function. the title has a url to each record.
hard to see how to sort by location, so did a keyword; don't need images since license unclear, will take pictures; urls are useful but need to format into a cite web.
Ok yeah, this is definitely ripe for the picking. When I find time I'll write up something to pull out whatever data you want. Are there any other cities on the to do list aside from Philly?
those are the main ones. the column fields seem settled at: Title; Image; Artist; Year; Location; Coordinates; Material; Dimensions; Owner (references) Slowking4: 7@1|x14:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:Aaa-whitegloves.jpg. 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).
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:El-Cid-Anna-H-Hunt---.jpg. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).
PLEASE NOTE:
I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
In your travels around DC getting photos for the public art lists could you stay on the look-out for NRHP sites? There is even some overlap with DC Revolutionary Statuary and DC Civil War Statuary being listed as NRHP "sites."
Since Wikimania will be in Washington, DC next August, I'd like to get the List of RHPs in DC table completed by then, as a present to all the visitors. I made a general proposal/invitation at
Thank you for your help with my father's entry. Sincerely, David M. Hayes.
Cuban Friendship Urn
Your additional source impressed me so much that I ended up expanding the article and nominating it at DYK. With such radically different versions of he story from two different reliable sources, I think it's best for the article to tell both stories, rather than choosing one. I'd still love for the article to be able to say that it was once voted DC's most obscure memorial, but the source doesn't give enough details to make me comfortable with that statement.
Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Crazy-horse-comparison.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Crazy-horse-comparison.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
File source problem with File:Crazy-horse-comparison.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Crazy-horse-comparison.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.
If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
Thanks for the work on the DC NRHPs. I've finally got the new split of the lists (almost) done. Please don't burn yourself out on this - we've got 50 weeks left before Wikimania! and other folks will join in as we go.
I am blogging about our event at the National Archives. Let me know if you'd like me to use your real name or your account name in picture captions, or if you'd rather be left unmentioned. The text of the draft blog post is at User:Dominic/Backstage Pass; feel free to make edits or suggestions. Dominic·t20:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:Sky-landscape-left.JPG. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).
PLEASE NOTE:
I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
Hi, and thanks for all your Wikiwork. You do realize that you're supposed to enter a summary explanation of your edits each time? It makes it easier for us other editors to follow and update your work. Thanks, PRRfan (talk) 02:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:IwoJimaMemArlington-2.jpg. 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).
And, yes, Kumioko wanted to include a contributing property into the main NRHP list. He also had a DC neighborhood question, which I am not qualified to answer, but I think he worked it out. Smallbones (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to check out File:Rhodes-tavern-south.jpg, I took a couple of extra steps on it. It's a bit hard to explain unless you have a Mac, but the basics are get the biggest (tif) version, import to iPhoto, trim the black edge (but just the black edge) then EXPORT the photo into another folder to upload, using the max quality, jpg setting. A couple of folks at WP:NRHP used to do this to me all the time. Black edges are a NRHP faux pas. Blame User:Nyttend. Smallbones (talk) 01:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quick question for you
I was trying to understand what you meant by 'tagspam' in the discussion at AN/I about the guy who won't leave the other guy's Talkpage alone? Just wondering. -- Avanu (talk) 02:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
there are 44 semi-automatic and automatic messages above. this is disruptive. if the standard is two messages per six months is harrassment, then let the interaction bans go forth.
frequency:
Skierdude - 7
CorenSearchBot - 5
DASHBot - 5
N419BH - 4
Fut. Perf. - 4
Ambrust - 3
Courcelles - 3
SchuminWeb - 3
damiens - 2
Ravendrop - 2
Stifle - 2
Hasteur - 1
Jamietw - 1
Levinge - 1
Melesse - 1
Moonriddengirl - 1
Sfan00 IMG - 1
Takeo - 1
TreasuryTag - 1
this is the template i will be using:
Please refrain from leaving notices at User talk:Slowking4. It is disruptive. Be aware, that if you persist, you may be Interaction banned. (9:07, Wednesday, 22 January 2025 (UTC))
Ok, I understand. I think the other editors aren't quite saying we should define harassment as 2 interactions, but that we should be willing to respect an editor's wishes if they ask to be left alone on their personal Talk page. Perhaps the page ban proposal was premature. -- Avanu (talk) 23:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
oh i understanding what they're saying: "buzz off you're bothering me". it cuts both ways, and i look forward to the frisson of the consequences of this decision. Slowking4: 7@1|x15:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Melissasusan (talk) 02:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Regarding biography at Jacob Soll page, he's a professor of mine at Rutgers and he asked me to edit his Wikipedia page. He sent me that bio, which he wrote himself and is probably the same one he wrote for his page at Rutgers. He approved the page itself and its content. So I undid your revision. I appreciate your help, but in this case, he can't violate his own copyright. If you want, I'm sure I can do some sort of reference.[reply]
I got a few photos in Philly today: 1 NRHP, some skyscrapers, and some public art. Obviously, I'mm getting mixed up cause I can't find my refs. I"ve seen the article before on the sculptor of this. Any idea who it is? Any help appreciated. Smallbones (talk) 00:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Over the Top weaton, illinois [20]; jersey city new jersey [21]; colfax, nebraska [22]; chicago [23]; buffalo [24]; manitou springs colorado [25]; albany missouri [26]; richland north dakota [27]; ladysmith wisconsin [28]; elgin, illinois [29]; knoxville, tennessee [30] original?; missoula, montana [31]; salem oregon [32]; astoria, oregon [33]. there are two others different sculpture with same name.
You may be interested in the above WP:NRHP photo contest starting on Oct. 21. For example there is a challenge specifically for Washington, DC NRHP site photos. You might even want to put in your own challenge related to Public Art. A possibility might be:
"A barnstar will be awarded to the photographer who photographs the most examples of public art that are listed on the NRHP or are contributing objects in NRHP-listed historic districts. "Public art" includes statues or other artworks displayed outside. Names and dates of many of these artworks can be verified by searching for the city and state at Smithsonian art inventories. The photos should be included in an NRHP county list, or be included in any other article, e.g. an article you created yourself on a historic district or on a "List of public art in ..."
If you need any help on this, just ask. The only work involved would be verifying the contest winner, which means checking the diffs they provide to make sure they really uploaded the pix and included them in an article.
and got turned down flat for help. So I did a redirect from the old NW quadrant article to the main DC article, put "copied from tags" on the three new NW quadrant articles. History saved, sites all renumbered. Thanks. Smallbones (talk) 02:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you added links to the "main articles" for Peirce Mill and Montrose Park, but those links are just redirects right back to the Rock Creek Park article itself. Please be sure there's actually a separate article before you add links out! Thanks -- JohnInDC (talk) 17:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd guess this guy is unique. Certainly his bayonette, which looks like it has been replaced several times, is unique. This is his good side, the rest doesn't come up to the standard of "Over the top."
Not sure what you mean "Lothrop Mansion, not on the list. i will wait awhile before inserting in your nice table code." It's number 83 in National Register of Historic Places listings in the upper NW Quadrant of Washington, D. C.. I'll check the unillustrated list - that must be what you mean. BTW user:APK (gone, but not forgotten) really deserves several rounds of applause for his photo work.
Got another WWI doughboy, this time by "none of the above" aka anonymous [35] For the time being he can go into an article on the house behind him, but I'm thinking
I hadn't got round to removing this page from my watch list, so forgive the tangent - but whatever did happen to APK? I looked around a bit and couldn't figure it out. JohnInDC (talk) 17:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Silver Medal (Zoological Society of London), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 23:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Slowking4! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.
Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.
You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Interview with Wikimedia Foundation
Hi Slowking,
My name is Matthew Roth and I'm a Storyteller working on the 2011 fundraiser with the Wikimedia Foundation in San Francisco. In past years, we've relied on Jimbo to carry the bulk of the fundraising weight and he's done very well helping us hit our yearly funding targets. This year, however, we're broadening the scope and reach of the fundraiser by incorporating more voices and different people on the funding banners and appeals that will start running full-time on November 7th. We're testing new messages and finding some really great results with editors and staff members of the Foundation. You can see the current progress of the tests here. I'm curious if you would want to participate in an interview with me as part of this process? The interviews usually last 60 minutes and involve a number of questions about your personal editing experiences, as well as general questions about Wikipedia and its impact in the world. Please let me know by emailing mroth (at) wikimedia.org. Thanks! Matthew (WMF)22:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
hmm, i note there are no images with the cc-by license such as: wolynes -[36]; Bobo - [37], lots of images with unclear license. wolynes - [38]; Bobo - [39]. maybe an email to UCSD; harvard is in order to follow wp:OTRS process. such is the punctilious wikipedia. Slowking4: 7@1|x19:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
you just deleted my Standing Woman picture, which is fine. I thought it was better than picture # 2, but then I would since I took it. I ended up there by accident, made some dinky edit and decided to toss in a picture. Thanks for letting me know. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 21:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry for accusing you of doing what that bot did. And thanks for the Fair Use template to use in the future. There was a time a couple of years ago when I had many pictures removed and chose, in a fit of pouting, to remove a bunch myself. Now I have a more "Oh well" attitude. I believed that I had done the paperwork correctly on the Standing Woman shot, but appearently the bot thought (or what ever they do) otherwise. Life goes on. Carptrash (talk) 17:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Chatting with you is no bother. Seems to be time better spent than uploading pictures, for example. I did shoot one this morning for the vernacular (aka "folk) section of Territorial Revival architecture that I hope will be a nice shot. Since there is no date on the building I will proclaim it to be pre-1923 and avoid any botwork. I hope. Carptrash (talk) 18:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
lol, depends on the date. does it look old? oh and proclamations mean nothing, they will "doubt" your copyright, and put burden on you to prove it is PD or they will delete. Slowking4: 7@1|x18:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DNB cleanup
You are doing a sterling job at cleaning up the list at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dictionary of National Biography/Archive 2#Cite DNB. Today instead of working my way down the list I appear to have been jumping about but that is because I am going through some that have been moved from one name to another and the originals have been deleted. I wanted to make sure that they all were included in the list we are working on.
The most recent one I came across is now at James Dundas, Lord Arniston. When I looked at it I realised that it was one that you had been working on. Rich Farmbrough has an unique way to mark DNB included text, and it is necessary to do a little more editing to get it full cleaned up. You have done the difficult bits the other bits are just a bit of cut and past.
Once that is done the volume=num will automatically set the date to the correct year of publication. This is the year you use in the inline citations, the name comes from the lase=name and then when you click on the citation it will jump to the {{DNB}} line. Try it on James Dundas, Lord Arniston#cite_note-FOOTNOTERigg1888191-0
If what I have said is not clear let me know and I'll discuss it further. I know its a chore and I am really happy that someone else is helping to fix these. Thanks. --PBS (talk) 13:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please excuse me. I am using a small screen and had not see the stuff lower down with the attribution already set. If you want to do it that way then you should still strip out then ignore steps two and three and instead just present the line as:
Charles prefers to use both, I don't see the point myself as {{DNB}} takes the same parameters as {{Cite DNB}} and {{DNB}} has to be present when text is copied. I use {{Cite DNB}} for articles where information is used but text is not copied. Eg Ernest, Duke of York and Albany which had such a bad DNB article I replaced it with information from the ODNB (you could tell it was bad with the parting shot after a short paragraph "The fact of his existence was scarcely known to the majority of the British nation."!) -- PBS (talk) 12:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
oops sorry, should have left a note. i think i found it with a google. (i forgot) i wish guggenheim or rome prize would give her something, so we could write article. Slowking4: †@1₭15:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, this message is to let you know about disambiguation links you've recently created. A link to a disambiguation page is almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.
Hey thanks for the note! Send me email and let's keep the conversation going: andrew a_t andrewlih d_o_t com. We're working on a database of roughly 900-1000 rows, so it would be great to match up what we're doing with what you have. Also, has anyone in the WIkipedia-verse been working with the industry standards like VRA 4.0 which is used by some museums. -- Fuzheado | Talk01:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on John Batty, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
[Mike informs me that everyone including hid Dad and Mum who named him call him Michael]
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agdturner (talk • contribs) 09:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for teaching me about moving a page and preserving the edit history. Sorry I was going about developing the content in the wrong way. I think I have started a workflow for getting out of the mess I've created (by use the copy, paste, delete procedure). I have requested the speedy deletion of the Mike_Batty page (which only I had edited) after pasting back the content from this to the John_Batty page. I will now request the move which I don't think I am authorised to do. Once more, I do apologise for getting this wrong and thanks again for showing me a better way and for developing Wikipedia. Andy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agdturner (talk • contribs) 12:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC) Sorry, I came back to sign this thank you for your patients Agdturner (talk) 12:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on John Batty, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
[This page has been correctly moved now. Nothing relies on this page and it is unlikely to be used. I think it should go and the person the biography page is about wants it gone.]
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Agdturner (talk) 17:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My main concern with not deleting John Batty (even though it is just a redirect) is that it gets linked to instead of Michael_Batty or Mike Batty. I suppose there can always be someone else come along with any of these same names and request things get moved... Clearly, I was thinking that rationalising at this stage was probably better, but I have no major objection either way. For links sake and because others might look for Mike as John, then you are probably right, I agree to keeping the page as a redirect. If Mike is really bothered about it and gets on to me, I'll suggest he gets to grips with the matter himself. What would be really useful is to have a function to change all links to a page to another. Maybe there is such a thing... Anyway, thanks for your help. It's been good interacting with you. Maybe our paths will cross again before too long. Bye 82.2.214.237 (talk) 02:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC) Agdturner (talk) 02:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SarahStierch has passed you the WikiJoint! WikiJoints promote... uh... promote... help with... do... wiki... something... yeah... uh, what was I saying? WikiJoints help promote, uh, wiki stuff...and help with...huh?
"Do not interact with"
I don't know why you have created a section of Wikipedia users to "not interact with", but this is generally not acceptable use of the Wikipedia user space per Wikipedia:User pages: Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. I don't know what your intent is with that, but similar kinds of lists on Wikipedia have generally been deleted from other editor's user space under the reason I said above. Instead of removing it myself, I am requesting that you remove it from your user space yourself as a sign of good faith. — Moeε15:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
i was waiting for the wiki-drama of the projected attack. no, this is merely a reminder to me not to interact with these people, per my self-imposed interaction ban. i will now add you to the list. i would ask you not to interact with me. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭16:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Slowking4, I saw the thread about this on ANI, and just wanted to pop in with a minor clarification and a question. While you can ask other editors to not post on your talk page (though they are still allowed to communicate with you here when necessary, say if they should need to leave appropriate notifications), you can't actually ask that they not interact with you anywhere on Wikipedia. For example, you can't say, "I'm now editing this article, so I don't want anyone on my 'interaction list' editing here either". You can, of course, choose to keep yourself away from any articles they edit on, though as your list grows that may cause more and more limitations for you. So, since this is really just a self-imposed list, would it be possible for you to keep it off of your userpage? That might help alleviate some of the expressed concerns. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
very well. WP:UP#POLEMIC: Very divisive or offensive material not related to encyclopedia editing it is quite a stretch, to view a bare list as an attack. it is not reasonable, and he had to engage in quite a spectacle of putting words into my mouth. i am offended by his ad hominem attack at ANI. I am requesting that he apologize "as a sign of good faith".
isn't it better to be forthright, so they people understand why i'm not interacting, so that they can spare themselves: "What worries me more at the moment is the lack of any reaction to this section,... but when a number of people raise some points they are concerned about, the least you can do is acknowledge the concern and indicate what you are going to do about it (or why you are not going to do anything about it)"[40] this is an unproductive way of interacting. you noted the paradox of first mover in interaction bans. but what limitations? i am editing largely in article space; to the extent they do not, we are ships passing in the night. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭14:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
one is an incident; four is a trend. an editor suggested i take my concerns off editor's talk, so i take them here. i have no brief for any of these four, but we need to consider the rampant incivility shown them, and drama. i have heard it expressed that editors are a dime a dozen, but i believe the 20-70-10 rule applies. if you run off the top 20%, then your average editor quality and productivity declines. we spend too much time mentoring new editors to shrug at their departure.
when is it going to stop?. when will we have mandatory admin training? do you prefer to ride this bomb to the target point? the editor trends study is very clear. "Where are the leaders of the land? Where are the swells who run this show?" i'm sure there are admins who are leading teams to address problems, i don't see them, where are they? if you aren't one, then get the hell out of the way. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭00:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for you improvements to the article. However, our Manual of Style specifies that only dates, not places of birth and death, go in the parenthetical in the lead sentence. Also, per our external links policy, blog posts may not be included in the External links section. Yworo (talk) 21:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues";
"There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites, as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page ";
and not specifies that only dates, not places of birth and death, go in the parenthetical in the lead sentence, rather "Birth and death places should be mentioned in the body if known, and in the lead if they are relevant to the person's notability." Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies. this is contrary to a lot of articles, so good luck with that. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭18:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Musician's infoboxes
I am not certain what point you are trying to make. When I first began editing here in 2006-7 I recall vividly that the infobox for Elvis Presley was a model for those infoboxes when the person is a musician. Musician's biographies have been my specialty for some time- as well as finding, uploading, and placing photos in Commons for use in all language Wikipedias. With perhaps two issues with other editors here, I've worked on well over 3,000 separate articles here without complaint. Generally, I am the one who has to add the infoboxes and photos on the majority of them. So, which edit put this bee in your bonnet? --Leahtwosaints (talk) 18:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Replaceable fair use File:Jamiluddin Aali-2.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Jamiluddin Aali-2.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ArmbrustTalk to meabout my editsreview08:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Slowking4, and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia!
I wanted to let you know that some editors are discussing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warren Weinstein whether the article Warren Weinstein should be in Wikipedia. I encourage you to comment there if you think the article should be kept in the encyclopedia.
The deletion discussion doesn't mean you did something wrong. In fact, other editors may have useful suggestions on how you can continue editing and improving Warren Weinstein, which I encourage you to do. If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Help Desk.
I was going to wait until I had finished (in the next couple of days I hope) before awarding you, but on a tangent from my edits to that list, I came across this article (Friedrich Gustav Jakob Henle ) and this edit.
{{Cite EB1911|wstitle=Henle, Friedrich Gustav Jakob}}
or
{{1911|wstitle=Henle, Friedrich Gustav Jakob}}
The pair work just like {{Cite DNB}}} and {{DNB}} and take a similar range of parameters. Most 1911 do not have an author so to create a short citation, you can use the editor "Chisholm" {{sfn|Chisholm|1911}}[1]{{sfn|Chisholm|1911|p=269}}[2]
As a follow on to the last section. If you create a named reference tag eg<ref name="FOOTNOTESmith200626">Chisholm 1911 v. 13 p. 269</ref> and you want to use it again further down a page. Then do not fill out the body of the reference tag again but simply use the named reference tag with a forward slash at the end:<ref name="FOOTNOTESmith200626"/>. That will create one place in the {{reflist}} with the details as in the first name reference tag to which each same named reference tags will link (See WP:NAMEDREFERENCES) -- PBS (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When I have been through the various backlogs, it is my intention to add a warning like I put into {{cite DGRG}}, then in all 10,000 articles there will be article name needed requesting that an article name is added. Hopefully many hands etc, will fix the problem more quickly than just a few editor working on them.
To help clear the decks ready for such an addition, I have recently been through the backlog removing all the {{Wikisource1911Enc Citation}} because it consisted of either no wstitle= parameter or no parameter at all. They have all been modified to {{cite EB1911}}. The problem was that may of them were replacements of {{1911}} before 1911 took parameters, or added to pages with an existing {{1911}} template. I fixed about 500 of the most blatant errors (where both existed side by side) but if you need something to do :-) you could do worse that start on the category Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica that may need Attribution
Taking the second and third articles in that category (and without a through check:
Rava (amora). No text, nothing to cite from the EB 1911 article, so just remove the parameter "|W1EC=1", (that will removed it from the category as it has been checked)
John Abernethy (minister) this should be attributed. Remove |W1EC=1 add the other parameters to {{1911}} template and add inline citations were appropriate.
I see you've made a start. Thank you. Just a couple of points, when you have "fixed" a page please remove the parameter "|W1EC=1" and if the Wikipedia article is in part of wholly copied form EB1911 then replace the "{{Cite EB1911|..." with "{{1911|..." like this -- PBS (talk) 06:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see you ran into my Smith Memorial Arch photos. I'll add them to the List of public art in Philadelphia and probably get a few more PA pix in PA this week. I'm thinking that you, Farragutful and myself should meet at the Spring flower show in DC, and I'll buy you both dinner. In case any 1 or 2 of us breaks a leg, there will be at least one photographer there to snap the carousel. All the best. Smallbones (talk) 14:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The carousel list looks good. There will be folks who want to add more, e.g. there's an old carousel from the famous Philadelphia maker in Memorial Hall (Philadelphia) (with the building on the NRHP) and probably many in historic districts as well. A note at WT:NRHP will help populate it. And people will want to add even non-historic carousels (I spent an hour snapping pix in town in Ohio only to find that the c was new). There may be other carousel lists already though. You might use List of Masonic buildings in the United States as a guide, some of this can get snippy as folks debate the limits of the list. I'd have columns in the table for coords, builder, dates, and maybe "animals and ...." All the best. Smallbones (talk) 15:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I never counted the DC pix but thought it was more or less tied. Nevertheless you were the only one who actually entered the contest: I always try to follow the rules precisely, so you won and it was well-deserved. I also feel free to go beyond the rules where necessary, so Farragutful also got a well-deserved barnstar. BTW, I kinda feel that I've manipulated you guys since I haven't taken too many DC pix or filled in many red links (yet). Please allow me to salve my conscience, by buying both of you dinner after we gang photograph the once a year carousel. Smallbones (talk) 18:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. I'll double check the date, invite the three of you, and might even buy Sarah a drink or three. You or Farragutful can pick the place (somewhere between tavern-style to not-so-fancy French). Smallbones (talk) 19:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your esteemed presence is requested at the Spring Flower Mart for a photography session of the NRHP-listed All Hallows Guild’s antique carousel [42] sometime on May 4, 2012 10 AM - 6 PM or May 5th, 2012 10 AM - 5 PM [43] (final date and time to be determined) at the National Cathedral. As long as we get the carousel photos, I'm buying dinner and a taxi to Georgetown. RSVP. Smallbones (talk) 19:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for bringing that article to my attention, if you don;t believe it's a stub, you might want to assess it on the article talk page. While Holt House is one of the great country-style estates built during the early years of the new Federal City, it remains a mystery as to who built it and when. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭14:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let the games begin
Another public artwork up for nomination. This time they want to do a mass deletion of all the rock creek pieces. I hate to be rude, but, I am getting very frustrated with folks who are unaware about art history and art notability doing this. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnson Memorial. There are already lists for this material, and to say one wants to delete the Frederick Keep Memorial makes my heart hurt. SarahStierch (talk) 13:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I, SarahStierch, hereby award you, Slowking4, the Red Link Removal Barnstar for your awesome work at turning red links blue, including at tonight's edit-a-thon! Great work friend! SarahStierch (talk) 02:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
File source problem with File:Glenkiln-title.JPG
Thank you for uploading File:Glenkiln-title.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.
If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
I've updated the licensing info here [[45]]
to reflect that although the PHOTO is {{CC-BY-3.0}}, it can only be provided under 'fair-use'
terms because it's subject is a copyright artwork.
I created {{Photo_of_art}} myself to meet a particular issue, and re-worked it after some concerns were raised. As such it's a very new template, perhaps based on it's current usage, you'd like to document? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to start an RFC on this , also have a word with User:Postdlf whose provided an even better wording for the template concerned, At present {{Photo of art}} makes the distinction between the photo and it's subject a lot clearer, which I hope you will agree is FAR better for contributors. The issue of these images showing up in 'free-media' categories is still unresolved, but that's a far more minor technical issue. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 20:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
a twelve word match (five consecutive) is a copyright vio, when the people and dates are different? [47] this kind of false positive tends to undermine the credibility of the bot. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭20:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Elizabeth Olds
Hello,
Thanks for your Elizabeth Olds article. The references and external links were bare URLs, so I did an example of a citation and an external link for you. When that is done, we can remove the "bare links" template. Best of luck!--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ok, what a mess. i see a better article on AfriCOBRA. i forgot what i did to nevelson; you wrote the thing; images? o see my one image got deleted, non free not critical commentary. i don't see any google images with right license; no flickr.
there's a fundamental problem of working with heritage material. when are we gonna get some editors rather than taggers. i sure hope the leaders aint us. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭13:56, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks for the barnstar. Next meetup let me show you Zotero, it makes webpage references way quicker. And thanks for getting all those articles going! Djembayz (talk) 03:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 15:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I saw you reverted my edits so I wanted to explain my reasoning. I am against linking back to the Embassy of Vietnam because the two countries having offices in the same building is an extremely tangential relationship. To link back to the article like that gives readers (including me) the impression that the South Sudanese Embassy is housed within the Embassy of Vietnam (as if it were a protecting power or had some other relationship). To let that reference stand, we might as well include the same information on the articles for the National Association for Business Economics, the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, the College Board's D.C. office, etc. They're all located in the same office building as the South Sudanese and Vietnamese embassies.
As for the suite numbers, they are not included on any other entries and I am opposed to including them per WP:DIRECTORY, including the street addresses in pushing the policy enough as it is. Best, epicAdam(talk)20:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
i dunno about the street addresses including suite. how else would you find it on the map, and check the gps. you could take it off the list and keep in articles, but what encyclopedic purpose would that serve. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭20:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think that the content I deleted (hi my name is dan maughan i am 25 years old i am a builder with 10years experiance and much of that being in stonework i would like to travel to south decota to work on crazy horse who do i talk to to get info on it and how do i contact them thanks) was a useful discussion of the image Jimfbleak - talk to me?06:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
October NARA scanathon
Hi, you attended the scanathon at the National Archives in October. I recently noticed that most participants have yet to upload scanned documents to Commons, so I just wanted to check and see if you have any files to upload. Please use the October 2011 NARA Backstage Pass category when uploading (and tag any files you already uploaded without it) so we can track them. Any documents you upload will also cataloged by NARA, as well as being available for Wikimedians to use, so this is important! Also, if you have any photos from the tour or other aspects of the event, please be sure to upload those as well. Thanks! Dominic·t20:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Problems with upload of File:LogoVilleKhouribga2.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:LogoVilleKhouribga2.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or provided a license tag. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.
To add this information, select the appropriate license tag from this list, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you can't find a suitable license tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Replaceable fair use File:Iroquois-di-suvero.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Iroquois-di-suvero.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 03:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found = impossible if you delete, i will dispute and upload again. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭03:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Replaceable fair use File:800px-Occidental Avenue South (Seattle, Washington).jpg
Thanks for uploading File:800px-Occidental Avenue South (Seattle, Washington).jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 03:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:376px-Honuswagnerstatue.JPG. 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).
A tag has been placed on File:Doubleascension.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Eeekster (talk) 03:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You probably know that one of my main hangups with the Public Art lists is the difficulty of finding "modern" works with free copyrights. I just ran into
the Section of Painting and Sculpture and see that there were 1300 Post Office mural created under the program, perhaps more with other depression era WPA type projects. BTW my link was from my photos of File:WPA Dohanos CA PO USVI 1.JPG and File:WPA Dohanos CA PO USV! 2.JPG. As far as you know, are these freely-licensed, e.g. public domain? I think Sarah has done something along these lines, so I'll ask her too.
i believe they are, if the artist was on Federal salary. similar to Ansel Adams work at NARA, [49] which has a {{self|PD-USGov-NPS}}. however, getting the photo with license is hard, and don't speak of the SI scans with NC, ND. now where did i put that "PD-USGov-FAP"? Slowking4⇔ †@1₭18:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
as you may know, there are some websites of lists of post office art, many thumbnails with bad photos. when you get tired of exteriors, try the interior. and there are some controversies, about the "Indians", and "violence". Slowking4⇔ †@1₭19:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
that's pretty good. it might be a candidate for a combined image in infobox 4 way. hey i will take any controversy, or evolving standard of pc-ness, as a point towards notability Slowking4⇔ †@1₭17:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
photos of post office murals, at low res, NC. tsk, tsk. [50]; contact in arlington. [51]
`The Hana Brief' Leads To Lost Wpa Murals, "Just last week, parents at Hatch School in Oak Park demanded that two WPA murals, depicting blacks as slaves, be removed"
controversy " The statement summarizes Mr. Dermody's rejection of the four designs in the following way: Too much Negro subject matter. Negroes may not form the greater part of the Community twenty-five years hence. The Negroes in the community would object to Negro subject matter in murals. His hospital is not a Negro Hospital therefore why should it be singled out for treatment with Negro subject matter?"
wpa san fran "These murals caused a great deal of controversy and were the focus of a Congressional investigation for anti-American content. Refregier painted out several offensive parts of his panels to appease the US government and public."
"I didn't think people should see a lynching as part of the court system," Schroeder said. "I thought the flags would cover them nicely, and they would not be the first things people saw." [52]
"Last week, LePage ordered a mural taken down from the lobby of the Department of Labor, arguing that it was hostile to businesses and showed just one side of the state's history." [53]
“Give us the Unity of an and we shall build a New World.” It was not popular. The school board felt it was “communistic in character” and “sinister” and wanted it painted over. [54]
“We run a very tight ship in terms of behavior,” said Damaris Rau, the principal of the Hamilton Avenue school. “How can I then have a mural that depicts guns and knives, when I don’t accept that from my own children?” [55]; [56]
sure thing. the rules are arcane, and gamed a lot. i don't know about favorite, some go a bit too far; but i find them interesting, and of some import to the work here. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭00:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the opening of the third section, you will see that the paragraphs or the sections have got jumbled at some point. Try as I could, I couldn't see what book was being referred to or what to do next. HNY Bmcln1 (talk) 11:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A quick reading of this suggests that all public art displayed outdoors (or otherwise openly) before 1978 is PD, unless you can see a copyright notice. The only quirk I can see is if a statue was moved, what could have been a visible copyright notice, might now not be visible. Note that SIRIS also notes copyright notices when they are visibly displayed.
Perhaps a workable rule would be that experienced editors who take their own photos need to check for a visible copyright notice and whether the statue has been moved, as well as the SIRIS database for a copyright. If all is ok, then they can upload photos of the work. Could we get input on this - perhaps at Commons or WP:Copyright questions, or a special tag? Smallbones (talk) 16:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
i happily drop my cavil, about public art no notice. i noticed that a siris without a copyright notice, is prevailing at deletion discussion. for example [57] yes, we need to build a consensus of what the standard tagging should be. both non free don't migrate to commons, and free no notice. we can now point to legal team "guidance" in the tag.
Thanks for the barnstar. I was a bit disappointed myself in the photo - clearly the best place to snap the Cowboy would be from the middle of Kelly Drive (similar to Rock Creek Drive in DC) during the afternoon rush hour (statue faces west). Maybe I'll try again some Sunday. A little snow or greenery might also help. Perhaps this is worth a go at a DYK after I get about 10 other things done.
I am excited about being able to take photos of pre-1978 (with no visible copyright) statues. Sooner or later, I'll probably import your whole Philadelphia list, and figure out the "perfect" formatting. What about the order of the listings - maybe alphabetical on the subject's last name or otherwise on first major word (e.g. not "The")? BTW, I liked the nearby Jacques Lichitz sculpture "Enterprise" a lot better as well as the US Grant equestrian. Smallbones (talk) 17:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message either because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout before full blackout and soft blackout were adequately differentiated, or because you expressed general support without specifying a preference. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly.
Thank you so much for my Socratic barnstar. It made my week. It really means a lot for the Wikipedia community to back me up in my ramblings. Enjoy this cookie & I look forward to meeting you at GLAMcamp soon! LoriLee (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Barnstar
The Original Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.
well, i could incorporate some of the information in the oral history, but that only goes to 1986. anything after that would be nice. keep in mind you want to use references, not necessarily what you know. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭02:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that makes sense, it has to be credible. If you wanted to add some of the information from the oral history, that would be greatly appreciated. There are a few books on General Electric's history where he gets some moderate recognition, I was thinking of adding that if I can find the books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.137.18.176 (talk) 03:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jumeira Mosque images are free on the English Wikipedia
Please do not add non-free content templates to File:Jumeira Mosque Dubai-2.jpg, since the images is free on the English Wikipedia. The reasons why are a little complicated, but in short, Wikipedia:Non-US copyrights mandates that only US copyrights are relevant on the English Wikipedia. This is different from Wikimedia Commons, which requires content to be free both in the US and in the country of origin (in this case the UAE). Under US copyright law, buildings have freedom of panorama, while in the UAE they don't, meaning that pictures of UAE buildings are free under US law but not under UAE law. This means that such content is free on the English Wikipedia but not on Commons. Hence, File:Jumeira Mosque Dubai-2.jpg should be licensed as free here, but should not be transferred to Commons. CT Cooper ·talk14:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. When you recently edited Les UX, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pantheon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.
Hi Slowking!!! Thanks for "userfying" my page about April Masini. I wanted to ask you how I can get the page title to only have her name and not 'User:Gmhayes4/April Masini?' I missed a step in this process obviously. Thank you very much!--Gmhayes4 (talk) 21:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please be more careful when removing the "copyvio" tag from articles. While the situation on Nathan Francis Mossell may be debatable, as it is close paraphrasing of a copyrighted source, the situation on Wallace House (Somerville, New Jersey) is a very clear copyright violation. You checked with the first link I provided, not with the corrected one. You could just have used the actual article and the duplication detector, instead of the one you put on the article talk page, which was the wrong one. Finally, on the Van Liew-Suydam House, it seems that you relied too much on the tool and not enough on actually comparing the sources. I have reinstated the three copyvio tags on these pages. Fram (talk) 08:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
i do not understand, if you want me to do your work you need to provide the proper links. why don't you blank half of the wiki since that's how prevalent the copyright vios are. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭13:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want you to do my work, I didn't create these copyvio's, I an noting those that I find from a very long and time-consuming copyright investigation. Furthermore, I did provide the correct link, and I don't get why you compared the page to another link I first gave in error, and not to the correct link I gave immediately afterwards and which was the "live" link at the time of your comparison. And the "wrong" link only counts for one of those three (or four, I reinstated another one as well). It's great that you want to help with cleaning up copyvios, but removing the warnings while the article is still a copyright violation is actually counterproductive, and doing this wrong on four of the five pages is rather alarming. Fram (talk) 13:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you even check your edits? You have again removed the copyvio indication from Wallace House (Somerville, New Jersey), after rewriting some of it. Have you actually checked if that rewrite did remove the copyvio issues? Let's look at the first paragraph of the article in the state you left it:
Jacob Rutsen Hardenbergh sold 95 acres (380,000 m2) of land, and a small farmhouse to John Wallace, a Philadelphia fabric importer and merchant. Between 1775 and 1776, Wallace purchased an additional 12 acres (49,000 m2) of land, and built the eight-room Georgian mansion. Hew called the estate "Hope Farm," Wallace intended the property to be his place of retirement.
Jacob Hardenbergh sold 95 acres of land and a small farmhouse to John Wallace, a Philadelphia fabric importer and merchant. Between 1775 and 1776, Wallace purchased an additional 12 acres of land and built an eight-room Georgian style mansion adjoining part of the existing farmhouse. It was the largest house built in New Jersey during the Revolutionary War. Naming his estate "Hope Farm," Wallace intended the property to be his country seat and place of retirement.
since you don't provide the tools to preview, it's a crapshoot as to how far the paraphrasing limbo iteration goes. or should i say turkey shoot: you maintain the battleground atmosphere, because it suits you. you'll excuse me, while i get some real work done. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭15:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have exactly the same tools you have for this, nothing more. I just copy the "copyvio" template from the article into the new version of the article, hit preview, and hit "duplication detector" (if I am lazy), or read the article and the supposed source side by side. This isn't easy or fast work, but I don't use any tool you don't have. As for "battleground atmosphere", you are removing copyvio tags from articles, but they are still clear copyright violations. This can happen, but four times out of five, and then once again when you know that it gets checked and you had it wrong the first time already? It's not a crapshoot, it's just very crappy work you did, and if you don't plan to raise your standards it would indeed be a lot better if you left copyright violation cleanup well alone, since you are creating more work, not less. Fram (talk) 15:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for the feedback. since you're so good at it, i leave you to it. i can be more productive elsewhere. i submit to you that the copyright problem continues to grow, because you do not have a system to fix it; you prefer to play gotcha - very dysfunctional. it's unclear if the copyvios you found are from identifiable sources at higher or lower rate than that shot through the entire wiki randomly. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭15:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:451px-Escudo legal de Panamá 2.jpg
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:451px-Escudo legal de Panamá 2.jpg. 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).
Thanks for your article on Calvin Albert. I've been trying to track down his estate for the Brooklyn Museum copyright project and the exact death date is a good clue. I'm curious how the "2007 deaths" pages work and thought you might be willing to point me to some information about those pages -- I'm hoping to track back to an obituary, but it's not clear to me where the bot gets the entries.
I've been in touch with some of his former colleagues at Pratt Institute and learned that he retired to Surfside, FL, but that would have to be verified before adding it to the article, correct?
I've added his name in Russian to the article you're starting, along with his birthdate and place. He claims to have a degree in design, but we'd need an outside source for that. He also says he hates being compared to Banksy. ;) I'll see what else I can find from Russian sources. INeverCry03:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
thanks, marginal notability, if could find the bbc report, then there would be 2 reliable, so good to go. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭
An external link is not sufficient though, it is not even a reference. And citing sources isn't really relevant: you aren't citing it, you are plagiarizing it. If you don't believe me, please take it up at Wikipedia:Copyright problems or its talk page, or discuss it with some other editors experienced in our copyright and plagiarism rules. Fram (talk) 15:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
translating is not plagiarism. there are thousands of articles credited just as i did. i believe you; i don't believe "copyright problems" have changed to a transparent solution. when they changed to the current dogma, they failed to roll out the implementation. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭15:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Edward Matthew Ward
Snowking, this article does not contain any text from the 1911 EB, it just footnotes it as a source of information. That's a completely different matter. By adding the templates you are using you are creating the false impression that it is using the actual text of the out of copyright enclyclopedia. Sure, many articles do use passages from the 1911EB verbatim, but this one does not. Paul B (talk) 18:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, the code you are using incorporates into the article a passage which asserts "Attribution Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Ward, Edward Matthew". Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press". This implies that the text of the article itself is somehow to be attributed to the 1911EB. This is what is misleading. There is no reason to use a special code for this source, which is simply cited like any other source. One may as well have "Attribution...." for any other source that is quoted appended to the notes of the article as a whole. The code creates a misleading impression. Paul B (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you take the trouble to read the category description you link to you will see that it says "This category is for Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica which may not been properly attributed as required by the plagiarism guideline." As I stated above, this is not the case, so it is not appropriate to use it. If you find it confusing, take it up with Template talk:Cite EB1911. Paul B (talk) 19:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I should have read further, but I think it does need to be taken up as the code creastes a completely false impression. The confusion is what the instructions themselves involve. Paul B (talk) 20:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Crazy Horse Memorial 2010-2.jpg
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:Crazy Horse Memorial 2010-2.jpg. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).
PLEASE NOTE:
I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
Hey Slowking. Back in November, you got either an AfD or PROD notification, and it was during one of the template testing project's experiments. If you could go here and leave us some feedback about what you think about the new versions of the templates we tested (there are links to the templates), that would be very useful. (You can also email me at swallingwikimedia.org if you want.) Thanks! Steven Walling (WMF) • talk19:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any chance you can do some scanning at the still pictures division at NARA? I have a rather large request at WP:GLAM/NARA/Requests that I'm attempting to work on through alternate venues (emailing around, sending letters to the generals, etc.) but I feel that NARA is the only option for find most of these names. Let me know if you are able to help. Thanks, – Connormah (talk) 04:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
i've been meaning to ping dominic about that, return to the generals bio folders. tends to be hit or miss though, it's an alphabetized jumble. the nara insider is on hold, so we may have to wait til next scanathon. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭05:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've got a slight idea of whe the images should be based on a couple that User:BcNARApix got a couple months ago. If I lived closer, I'd do it myself, but unfortunately I don't. Dominic IIRC left NARA in January, so I think we're on our own here. If you (or anyone) could go in and do these for me, (the list can be narrowed slightly) I'd seriously be eternally grateful (I've been trying to do this for a while). Like I said, I've taken baby steps through different venues, but some will just need to be from NARA. Shoot me an email if you are interested/have the time. – Connormah (talk) 06:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing most of the photos I want should be in:
Record group: Record Group 342: Records of Airforce Commands, Activities and Organizations (ARC identifier: 654)
Series: Photographs of Air Force Officers and Officials, compiled 1960 - 1981
or
Record group: Record Group 342: Records of Airforce Commands, Activities and Organizations (ARC identifier: 654)
Series: KE: Color Photographs of U.S. Air Force Activities, Facilities, and Personnel, Domestic and Foreign, compiled ca. 1940 - ca. 1980
Merger of Joseph Wall (British Army officer) and Joseph Wall (colonial administrator)
Hi I noticed you merged the two articles, however per the instructions of Wikipedia:Merging you should have used an edit summary on the target article along the lines of "Merged content from [[<source article>]] to here. See [[Talk:<destination article>#<merger section>]]." Could you please leave a message on Talk:Joseph Wall (colonial administrator) to explain that you have done this? Tim! (talk) 07:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/April Masini (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. MisterRichValentine(talk)19:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I cc'd you on an e-mail to the above regarding a possible GLAM project and QR codes. I don't know if anything will come from it, but it is a very interesting place.
I also tried to finish up the DC NRHP photos on Thursday, but didn't get all of them. The Gallinger Hospital should be easy, but I got the wrong building! There's a new listing which I hadn't noticed for a school. The SE 9 boundary marker would require some ropes or maybe mountain-climbing equipment (not to mention the 2 mile one way walk) to get under the I-295 bridge safely, but at least I found a 1907 photo. Consider that one done - or maybe hire a helicopter! I'll be going to get the Carousel early AM on May 4 to get shots without kids in them, and will take care of the odds and ends then. I know that I've put in a few photos under the rule "better some picture than nothing" - if you have anything that you think should be re-taken please note that at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/unillustrated DC
to all the editors involved in the rapidly expanding List of monuments of the Gettysburg Battlefield. I recently spun off the state monuments for Alabama, North Carolina, Virginia (and intend to do Pennsylvania soon), leaving only a token bit of each in the list. I named these articles to include the name of the battle Alabama State Monument (Gettysburg) because many states have monuments in several battlefields and it seemed that we might as well start preparing for Alabama State Monument (Vicksburg) right now. Someone then re-named those articles (yesterday?) and removed the name of the battle. (they also changed the picture of the North Carolina Monument that I had added that I think much better caught the spirit of Borglum's work, but that is another issue.) Furthermore, there is something really unexplained happening on the talk pages of the new articles, If you click on the TALK tab at, say Virginia Monument (a really lame title, because how many of those are there across America?) you end up at the talk page of the list. What is that about? I would like to redirect these articles back to where they were redirected from yesterday, but unlike the editor who just did it, I'd like to involve all the interested editors. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 17:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But 1st you might want to send an encouraging message to User:Ellin Beltz
I don't know if you are still interested, but I'll be meeting with the Spring Flower Show people at the All Hallows Guild Carousel at the above time and place. Please join if you can. Rain date is 9am the following morning, and I may go Friday evening as well to get the carousel in action, with indistinct pictures of kids. I don't like the potential hazards of photographing identifiable kids, so my main thrust will be on the animal figures while the kids aren't there (i.e. Thursday). I also promised you and a couple others dinner - how about that Friday at an old NRHP firehouse in Georgetown, the Vigilant Firehouse (Washington, D.C.)? Smallbones (talk) 15:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karen Russell until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you know, you're not going crazy. The site is experiencing caching issues, so that even after vandalism is removed, you might still see it. Viriditas (talk) 00:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We are seeking a coordinator to help reboot the project and work on new initiatives! The role is modeled after other Wikiproject coordinators, like the WikiProject Military History coordinators. The coordinator will work with the Wikipedian in Residence to organize and increase participation in the WikiProject, with the goal that the WikiProject is an active space for collaboration maintained by and for the Wikipedia editors, rather than the National Archives.
I am writing to you as you have signed up to the Education Meetup at Wikimania 2012 and perhaps are interested in how Wikipedia links to education. Wikimedia UK is now running a education related event that may be of interest to you: the EduWiki Conference on 5-6 September in Leicester. This event will be looking at Wikipedia and related charitable projects in terms of educational practice, including good faith collaboration, open review, and global participation. It's a chance to talk about innovative work in your institution or online community, and shape the future of Wikimedia UK's work in this area!
The conference will be of interest to educators, scholarly societies members, contributors to Wikipedia and other open education projects, and students.
I'll be at both, with maybe a little Congressional Cemetery to start with
I was looking for a sign-up sheet for the Baltimore event, but couldn't find it.
The Museum page says "anybody can participate" so I think I will. Actually I'm interested in finishing off the some of the NRHP Baltimore sections, but I like public art too! Maybe I'll let somebody know that they could use some QR codes. Do you think the museum could get the city and other permissions needed to post them?
The museum's upload page is interesting - does it go directly to Commons? Do I have to use my real name (maybe first=Small, last=Bones?). The CC0 license is good.
Their map obviously has coords, but the spreadsheet doesn't seem to. If we could download the coords, the Baltimore list of pa would be much easier to construct.
Orphaned non-free media (File:Logo-of-Archdiocese-of-Tric2.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Logo-of-Archdiocese-of-Tric2.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (File:Korean-war-memorial-inge87.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Korean-war-memorial-inge87.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
or more directly File:Penn at PTPark.JPG. Perhaps I'm cutting off his nose to spite his face?
On a more positive note, thanks for all the work on WLM-US and all the photos. I'm actually going to be able to go out today and shoot something! (pix that is) Then I might be able to come back and tell all the uploaders that they can't shoot Frank Gaylord's Korean Vets Memorial on the Mall. Smallbones(smalltalk)13:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dear User:Slowking4, Please would you voice your opinion on Kwak Pom Gi talk page, wether positive or negative, about my attempt to create more articles about North Korea using actual libary sources instead of just Google? For now, the artices are stubs because the DPRK is a secertive state. My article of Kwak Pom Gi is one such article. I value your honest opinion. Geraldshields11 (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Slowking, thanks for sending out all those barnstars to GWU editathon participants and for being an excellent teacher yourself. I hope everyone had a good time. I enjoyed scoping the articles people edited :) Lisa N Marrs (talk) 21:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Slowking4. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hello Slowking4! I'm planning our next edit-a-thon at the Smithsonian American Art Museum and would love your help/guidance on what to do to make this a success. I see you are taking a break, but let me know if you are able to help (and no worries if not). It will be on Feb 15 and will be about the Civil War and American Art.
Thanks much! bathlander (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here's one for your watchlist Judy Chicago - a troublesome IP who has been making controversial on other articles, and now they're picking on Judy Chicago. I do have some minor ownership issues (I wrote my thesis on her afterall) so I'm hoping some folks can help me keep an eye on the weird comments and changes they're making so I'm not alone in this. SarahStierch (talk) 18:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You uploaded this. Photos of buildings in countries without freedom of panorama for buildings need a free licence combined with {{FoP-USonly|Iceland|2020}}. Do you think that you would be able to obtain a free licence for this photo? --Stefan2 (talk) 18:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
now that you mention it: "There is no consensus for altering the username"... inside comment only visible on talk pages. would you prefer: "Farmbrough's revenge by slowking" ? i'm over at source anyhow. Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭23:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism
Please retract your claims of vandalism on Talk:Anita Sarkeesian. WP:VANDAL lays out exactly and only what vandalism is defined as. For example, you mention POV-pushing...well, WP:VANDALexplicitly says that POV pushing is not vandalism. Neither is any other edit that isn't intended to damage the encyclopedia. Calling edits vandalism when they are not is a form of personal attack, forbidden by WP:NPA. Please retract the statement (striking it out should suffice) and don't engage in further such attacks. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
i stand by my comment; i repudiate WP:VANDAL: "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content that compromises the quality of wikipedia. the caveat of "deliberate" is profoundly mistaken. i've had my fill of pure hearts and dirty hands. i simply don't believe he did not "intend" to take away content. actions are facts, and discoverable; motives are inscrutable and undiscoverable. when an experienced editor goes to a controversial BLP and takes away content and makes snarky comments in the edit summary, that's vandalism; if an ip did it, you would call it that. this is not an attack, this is a description of conduct. as far as attacks go, i calibrate my comments based upon the original comments and conduct of the other editor. i get along fine with editors who are doing productive work. i find bullies can dish it out, but they can't take it; (i.e. Wikipedians working towards even enforcement of civility); i will call them the way i see them. Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭23:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to define "vandalism" however you like in your own personal life, but here, like everything else, it's defined by the consensus listed in the guideline. So I'm just putting you on notice that if you continue to use the word inappropriately, you will be blocked for personal attacks. The thing you have to ask yourself is this: "Does the editor's edit have a logic to it, that makes sense, and shows an intent to 'improve' the encyclopedia?" In this case it is clearly obvious that Peter intended to improve the encyclopedia; he just happened to be wrong about how to do that. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (File:Kingdom of Nepal-arms.png)
Thanks for uploading File:Kingdom of Nepal-arms.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:11, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on File:Juan felipe herrera.JPG requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.
If you think that your page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
March 2013
Your recent editing history at Arts on the Line shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
you started this edit war not me. i am working with consensus not you. you cannot enforce your false intrepretation of policy against consensus. i look forward to your block as a badge of honor. by deleting images you harm and disrupt the quality of wikipedia. i trust that is your intent. Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭00:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And just as many others including multiple admins that have stated that they are not acceptable (see other comments). Thus consensus for exception has not been met. Werieth (talk) 01:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
i don't see multiple admins on article talk, where are they? i don't see substantive arguments that deleting the images will add to the quality of wikipedia. i see argument that rules trump quality. that is not reasonable. Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭01:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Thanks for attending the DC edit-athon at the Historical Society. I know you led the instruction session for the two edit-athons at gwu. We know you'll be there Saturday. Would you be willing to give the same presentation to the participants? Thank you. Looking forward to my first edit-athon. Gwujenking (talk) 13:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
well, i am sprinkling infoboxes, while adding those miniatures, from SAAM. editathon friday. i see i need to introduce you to the joys of template:artwork in commons, more metadata friendly. i see i'm edit warring with you about the color enamel versus the derivative print, lol. slowkingFarmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭01:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
another shameful display of ignorance. it doesn't inspire confidence in the deletion process when obvious keeps are proded, circumventing afd. am i going to have to undelete those not on my watchlist? you're not going to get me to improve stubs by threatening deletion. i've done my time fixing blp's, picking up nickels in front of steamrollers.slowkingFarmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭12:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion nomination of Usertalk:tjchristensen
Hello Slowking4,
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Usertalk:tjchristensen for deletion in response to your request.
If you didn't intend to make such a request and don't want the article to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
Speedy deletion nomination of Usertalk:tjchristenson
Hello Slowking4,
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Usertalk:tjchristenson for deletion in response to your request.
If you didn't intend to make such a request and don't want the article to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Ecuador in Washington, D.C. until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Feedback☎18:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let you know, I've put it in articlespace because I'm not waiting three weeks for it. If it doesn't meet the criteria, it can simply be put back.--Launchballer13:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
thank you, i agree he's notable per discussion; as we know AfC is broken because the reviewers don't know the notability criteria, they would rather tell everybody to wait than coach editors about what is and isn't. waiting for my next visit to library to look at American Composers: A biographical dictionary. using the print sources to support statement in body of bio, would make it a snowball. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭14:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:Maria-tallchief-mike-theiler.jpg listed for deletion
The media file you uploaded as File:Uncle beazley.jpg appears to be missing information as to its authorship (and or source),
or if you did provide such information, it is confusing for others trying to make use of the image.
It would be appreciated if you would consider updating the file description page, to make the authorship of the media
clearer.
Although some images may not need author information in obvious cases, (such where an applicable source is provided), authorship information aids users of the image, and helps ensure that appropriate credit is given (a requirement of some licenses).
If you created this media yourself, please consider explicitly including your user name, for which: {{subst:usernameexpand|Slowking4}} will produce an appropriate expansion, or use the {{own}} template.
If this is an old image, for which the authorship is unknown or impossible to determine, please indicate this on the file description page.
A tag has been placed on File:Peter Barnes.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria.
If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{Non-free fair use}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the file. If the file has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 20:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Recent death NFC uploads - Please stop until matter is settled
Given the number of FFD hits your uploads have been getting, and the fact this started after a discussion regarding appropriateness of NFC images on the recently deceased, you should completely stop uploading NFC in the methodical way you are doing this, until the matter is settled - mass additions of NFC is never appropriate and I am going to be opening an ANI to see if it is appropriate to temporarily block/revoke uploading privileges on the matter. --MASEM (t) 20:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And I am going to remove all the images from the articles where it is clear that a free image may be possible to be sourced. Gaming the system is not appropriate and may be seen to be disruptive. Black Kite (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
not mass addition, using the upload wizard, one at a time. i only did about 20, only 1500 to go. if you don't want fair use images of deceased people then you need to change the policy. i will forbear for a while, but you are going to come up with better anti-fair use arguments than the ones at FFD. really "go to the archives and get the yearbook", LOL. if you don't like recently deceased, which year should i start with? each image has a google image search establishing that there are no free images. gaming the NFCC is disruptive all right, and harms wikipedia, since we know that the presence of an image increases page views from 10-70%. please indicate the venue, where this matter will be resolved. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭20:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are already violating policy. Regardless of whether these people are deceased, they were public figures and it is very possible, if not likely, that free images may be available for them. You will note that I have not removed at least one of the images, that of a sportsman who had been retired for a long time; that one is a discussion that can take place at FFD. The rest are of people who were clearly public figures until their death. "I can't find any free images on Google" is equally not a valid argument. Black Kite (talk) 21:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
no i am not violating policy. how likely is it if no free image has been yet produced. i find your free proselyting somewhat lacking in results. how likely is it that it will produce results in the near future.
yes it is a fine argument it goes directly to the policy point wp:NFCC No. 1 "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available"
Resolution:Licensing policy "Such EDPs must be minimal. Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works. An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals."
clearly we have diametrically opposed views of "reasonable". is it reasonable to expect that you can email every deceased person's estate for a free image? or is it reasonable to make a good faith search, and team with archives and use fair use in the meantime. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭21:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're not making a good faith search - you're googling and then declaring it can't be done. For people who were public figures in the digital camera age or who were active at a college in the United States pre-1978, it's a darned near certainty that there exists or could exist a free photo - but you can't find/obtain it just by googling. AND THAT'S OKAY - there's no emergency to have a photo. It can wait until someone has time to do a records search at a college library. It can wait until avenues of contacting webmasters or flickr users are exhausted. In order to demonstrate the reasonableness of your belief, at a minimum you ought to contact flickr users who have uploaded photos of the person. Just last night, while illustrating a point for the WT:NFCC discussion, I emailed a person on flickr who had uploaded a Larry Fedora photo, explained our licensing needs, and asked if he would be willing to change his license. He did and now Larry Fedora has a professional-quality high-resolution free content photo. When you do bulk uploads of "fair use" images, you eliminate any chance of such a thing happening. Nobody is going to take their time to obtain an image that we already have and even if they did, any potential photographers will push back with "why should I give this photo to you if you are content to use the one you already have?" I think we ought to change policy to have a hard cutoff - pick a date in the digital camera / cell phone camera age and we don't upload any fair use photos of people who died after that date. But until such time as Wikipedia sees the wisdom of such a pro-free-content policy, at the very least we can stop these fair use binges. If you are editing an article and in the course of editing that article, you notice it lacks a photo, you attempt to obtain a free content photo, you email a couple of people who might be able to help (if applicable), and after those efforts fail, you upload a fair use one, that's fine. However, going through a category and uploading fair use photos of everyone in that category is not fine and is counter-productive to our goal of being a free content encyclopedia. --B (talk) 21:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if you insist on having an image it is absolutely reasonable that you make every attempt to find a free image. Which does not mean "doing a Google search". That does not necessarily mean emaiing their estate (although it;s a good idea) - there will almost certainly be organisations that they were associated with (i.e. sports teams, churches, universities) and of course there are huge amounts of user generated images out there (i.e. Flickr) many of which have images with Wikipedia compatible licenses (and if they don't, asking the uploader often produces results as well). Black Kite (talk) 21:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
if your so certain, you go get the free image. i see you've done absolutely nothing to introduce free images of people to this site. don't then preach to me how easy it is. i am tied of the hypocrisy that we will only allow fair use if you jump through heroically higher and higher hoops. now it's email people. i've done my share of emailing people. how many have you done? what is the standard? will you now write down your process and get consensus at NFCC? until then pound sand. you will constantly shift your ground to require more and more effort to "allow" fair use. clearly you lost the fair use policy debate, and now you seek to enforce free image only, by twisting the language to delete every fair use image you see. your misconduct ensures that i will continue with these "fair use" binges until you stop abusing policy. no, fair use is not counter to a free encyclopedia, it is complementary. the lack of flexibility in your thinking belies the "reasonable policy". Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭21:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not me that wants to introduce images into the articles. This is a free encyclopedia and one of the five pillars is the use of MINIMAL free use - the page even says "Borrowing non-free media is sometimes allowed as fair use, but strive to find free alternatives first." I would strongly suggest that you join in the discussion at WT:NFC and would very strongly suggest that you don't continue to edit in a way that is clearly verging on WP:POINT. Black Kite (talk) 21:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
i can see discussion is of limited utility. this playing subjunctive gaming of rules, "oh you could try harder to find a free image" is bullshit. i'm not making a point, i'm introducing fair use images in strict accordance with policy. fair use of deceased people is allowed. fair use is not borrowing. it's not an emergency, it's merely a couple thousand articles without image backlog. i'm going to handle it. deal with it. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭21:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion is how this website works, It's called consensus. If you decide to impose your own views of what policy actually is, especially whilst there is a discussion on the subject going on, then there is going to be a problem. Black Kite (talk) 21:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
what consensus, all i see is rules lawyering. where is the clear direction of what constitutes "likely" or "reasonable effort"? i don't see any ANI or discussion at NFCC. and what little i saw was do what we tell you to do, or we will block you. screw that, block me now. i see you think it "likely" that a free image will be found for Barbara Anderson (writer), Jim Anderson (ice hockey), Yuri Alexandrov (boxer), Edelmiro Amante. i take it that, if after a year has passed, and no free image is forthcoming, you would agree that the thesis was disproved, and a fair use image is allowed. what is the likely mean time for free upload? Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭22:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're quoting someone's opinion from a discussion five years ago and comparing that with the Foundation's licensing policy? --B (talk) 22:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NFCCE says, "Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it for non-compliance with criterion 10c are not required to show that one cannot be created—see burden of proof." In other words, it is up to you to prove that the free substitute is "not reasonably likely" (the purposely difficult task of proving a negative rather) than being up to me to prove it is reasonably likely. I have given you specific avenues in each of the images I have nominated for possibly obtaining a free image. Until those avenues are exhausted, it hasn't been demonstrated that obtaining one is unreasonable. The whole point of our fair use policy is not as a permissive policy (telling you that you can upload fair use) - it's an intentionally restrictive policy. This is a free content encyclopedia and we want to use fair use as rarely as possible For someone who died 30 years ago and was not somewhere that a public domain photo would be likely (US federal government, college pre-1978, etc), fine, have at it. But for someone who died last month and lived in a country with digital cameras all over the place, uploading a fair use photo is not what the policy was designed for. The prohibition on fair use photos of living people was never intended as a blanket permission to upload fair use photos of dead people. --B (talk) 22:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
i provided a rationale; i provided a web search that no free image was available. how likely is it that a free image will be found? given your hectoring less likely. i see your intent is to be restrictive, but it is not written in the policy. the policy attempts to be balanced, i do not follow your avenues, since you don't own this road. if you want to change the policy, you will have to prevail at the policy discussion, which doesn't appear likely. i find your distinction between 30 years, and this year nowhere in the policy. but i take it now i have a safe harbor, against a future ANI? save your free fanaticism for the cool-aid drinkers. that is not the policy. the logic is very clear: no fair use for the living = fair use dead. that was the intention. if you don't want that, then change the policy; until then, pound sand. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭23:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Am I the only one who is vigorously against this stuff?" apparently. and i did not upload in response to your comments, but perhaps anticipated them, here [60]; here [61] which apparently precipitated your policy discussion. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭22:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While I will take you at your word that you were unaware of the discussion, if you anticipated that bulk uploading photos of the recently deceased would be highly controversial, why do it? Why not focus your energies on obtaining free photos? Email the flickr guys before declaring failure. I used to maintain a page on Commons of formerly non-free photos I had obtained that I had to take down for privacy reasons (I was being harassed in the real world and had used my real name to contact some of the donors) but I think I had like 20 or 30 photos on it. Most of the images at Virginia Tech massacre, for example, came from me contacting people. There's an iconic photo that a kid took with his cell phone of his class mates huddled up in a corner hiding from the shooter - it was used all over the place. I looked his email address up on Tech's website, emailed him, and we got it as a GFDL photo. At the time, I argued vehemently on the other side of it - see the last entry at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 19 (my name was BigDT at the time). But had we simply settled with using the photo under a claim of fair use, it never would have become a free content photo. That's the whole point here. Nobody is stopping you from uploading fair use images. What we are objecting to is the bulk process where avenues for obtaining free ones have not been exhausted. --B (talk) 22:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, i ignore policy discussion, and ANI. much ado about nothing. more heat than light. what controversy? anything you try to do here is controversial: it's SOP. why do anything? this is not a bulk upload. this is the upload wizard one at a time. but now that you mention it, i should really write a bot for fair use uploads. i applaud your emailing efforts, but you see how it is too high a standard to gain a consensus at policy; after all one could fib, "i tried" wp:AGF. lol. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭23:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:Ramon d'Abadal i de Vinyals.jpg listed for deletion
I used ellipses to indicate that I had removed irrelevant parts. Feel free to point out which parts of the quotes you didn't say. Black Kite (talk) 12:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
reprinting the full quotes from above:
Black Kite (talk) 21:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
It's not me that wants to introduce images into the articles. This is a free encyclopedia and one of the five pillars is the use of MINIMAL free use - the page even says "Borrowing non-free media is sometimes allowed as fair use, but strive to find free alternatives first." I would strongly suggest that you join in the discussion at WT:NFC and would very strongly suggest that you don't continue to edit in a way that is clearly verging on WP:POINT.
Slowking4 ⇔ †@1₭ 21:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
i can see discussion is of limited utility. this playing subjunctive gaming of rules, "oh you could try harder to find a free image" is bullshit. i'm not making a point, i'm introducing fair use images in strict accordance with policy. fair use of deceased people is allowed. fair use is not borrowing. it's not an emergency, it's merely a couple thousand articles without image backlog. i'm going to handle it. deal with it.
"i can see discussion is of limited utility. this playing subjunctive gaming of rules, "oh you could try harder to find a free image" is bullshit... i'm going to handle it. deal with it."
Sorry, I made a typo in the edit box in Twinkle: I missed a ], so the substitution of {{ffd2}} didn't work. I've added the missing ] now, so it should be possible to find the deletion discussion. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your uploads make it clear that you're not making any effort beyond a google-find-upload-repeat sequence. Take File:Franz Aigner.jpg. According to {{PD-Austria}}, copyright of photos expires 50 years from publication and is PD in the US if it was PD in Austria in 1996 (so if it was published pre-1946). Are we really to believe that a guy who wrestled in Austria in the 1920s didn't have a photo published before 1946? Heck, this one might even be public domain. And regardless of whether it is, you uploaded a tiny unusable photo rather than scrolling down to the bottom of the source website and finding one of usable quality. You're not taking the time to do any of this right - you're just creating a mess. --B (talk) 13:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
i don't really believe anything. or have to. what is the standard of care necessary before fair use upload? the policy does not say "email people to see if you can get a free license"; if it did i might, but not doing so now is not abuse. i've been very forthright; the "gaming of the system" is by those who will seek any excuse to delete fair use images, even farcical ones (without penalty). clearly you are sexing up the policy to fit the ideology of free only. if you want to put a PD austria or PD art on it do so, but this is not a policy requirement. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭14:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
here is the abuse: "The problem with settling with a fair use image is once we do it, our chances of getting a free one go to nil. Imagine the conversation: "Hi, I'm B, an editor at Wikipedia. I see your nice photo of person XYZ and would like to use it here. Would you be willing to license it to us under the terms of the GFDL or a free content Creative Commons license such as the attribution or attribution-sharealike licenses?" "It looks like you already have a photo - what's wrong with that one?" "Well, the photo we have is non-free - we want a free one." "What does that even mean? You're willing to use the photo you have now - why should I do this licensing stuff when you already have a photo?" "We believe in free content - free as in speech, not as in soda. So we try to replace photos used under a claim of fair use with ones where the copyright holder publishes the image under a free content license." "I don't understand a word you're saying to me. I'm going to stop talking now - you have a photo and sound like some kind of geek with too much time on your hands." For someone who died 30 years ago, okay, fine, we're not getting a free photo. But for someone who was alive in the age of digital cameras? Declaring failure the moment they are dead doesn't sit well with me." [62] imposing a free ideology over and above the policy is in bad faith: this does not sit well with me. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭14:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't "impose" anything and the only ones of your photos that I deleted were in accord with WP:CSD#F7. If you look at your uploads, you will see that I didn't even nominate all of them for deletion - only the ones that I believe we can clearly expect that there is a public domain photo out there, we have a reasonable expectation of receiving a free one, or the photo was otherwise inappropriate for use on Wikipedia. The ban on uploading photos of living people is not license to rapidly upload photos of dead people. You aren't even looking very closely at them in some cases. With File:Delia Akeley.jpg, Stefan2 and I spent no more than 20 minutes between us and found three public domain photos of her in that time. Any contribution you make to the encyclopedia should be carefully considered. If you're uploading photos you found on the internet five minutes apart, you're not carefully considering them or doing anything more than a quick google. --B (talk) 14:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The ban on uploading photos of living people is not license to rapidly upload photos of dead people. ": this is a false statement; the policy allowing fair use images of deceased people is permission to upload images of deceased people. what is the policy standard of rapidly? what is the policy standard of care? please quote from the policy; please do not declare what you "think", since your bad faith is established. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭15:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You may only upload unfree photos of dead people if no free images exist. In several of the cases, it is obvious that free images exist. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
what is the policy standard of obvious? a failed google image search would indicate that it is not so obvious. honestly, going to google newspaper for a "presumed out of copyright photo" - after all it could be an AP photo subject to speedy deletion Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭16:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More abuse: "This newspaper (page 9 according to Google's numbering) tells that there was a TV broadcast titled "A. A. Allen" on "Channel 13–ABC–Asheville". Other newspapers, including newspapers from other years, mention a programme with the same name, so I would assume that this was something broadcast once a week or something. A search for "A A Allen" at http://cocatalog.loc.gov/ returns no hits, so I would assume that all programmes in this TV series are PD-US-not renewed. I would assume that you can find old TV programmes in some archive somewhere in which case you could take a screenshot from one of those TV programmes. The image clearly violates WP:NFCC#1." [63] this is evidence of bad faith: i.e. three assumptions does not equal "clearly violates". Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭18:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
guten abend?! 80.132.72.223: "removing PA, maybe the whole "shit-list" section should go", you removed a comment made by TCO not me, diff, lol. but then i see you're lacking in humor. i find the whole censoring people's user pages thing, quite a spectacle in circle-jerking. the same people who complain about AfC backlog, and NPP backlog are the ones who spend hours at ANI quibbling about just what is and isn't "allowed." i'm surprised it lasted this long, since the speech police have difficulty with nuance, but then their attention span is miniscule.
i look forward to yet another drama fest about "users i will not interact with". do you approve of "do not destroy what you cannot create"? Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭20:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (File:Barbara Anderson.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Barbara Anderson.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (File:Daphne Anderson.gif)
Thanks for uploading File:Daphne Anderson.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (File:Giorgio Alverà.png)
Thanks for uploading File:Giorgio Alverà.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:13, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (File:Joseph W. Alton.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Joseph W. Alton.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (File:Tandyn Almer.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Tandyn Almer.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (File:Werner Altegoer.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Werner Altegoer.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (File:Yuri Alexandrov.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Yuri Alexandrov.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
hey, Blackkite how is your out of policy vandalism any different than this ip editor? Click, Clack, Moo: Cows That Type why don't you just start delinking all fair use images? many other ip vandals are doing it. when you say "(rm non-free image, public figure, a free image may be available despite recent death WP:NFCC#1)" you mean "others must" since you have uploaded absolutely no images to commons, and less than 100 here. are you prepared to block over your out of consensus view: "despite recent death WP:NFCC#1"? Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭12:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you did some good work correcting the citations on Charles Robert Leslie. I have just finished editing the {{Cite Appletons'}} and {{Appletons}} so that they work in a similar way to {{EB1911}}. This change to the template allowed me to complete your earlier work.
But Bridgeman raises concerns for proposed enterprises such as Museum Digital Library Collection (MDLC) and the Art Museum Image Consortium (AMICO). Geoff Samuels, head of MDLC, asked a Harvard law school teaching fellow to produce a legal memorandum on this issue to see what options are out there for legally protecting digital images of public domain works in a post-Bridgeman world. In short he recommends a combination of: 1. introducing creative variations into the digitization process to increase the chances of the digital copies qualifying for copyright protection (but this would defeat the purpose of provided a true reproduction); 2. assembling digitized images in a collection may provide copyright protection to the collection as a whole, just as would providing value-added text and documentation, but will not protect the underlying works if they are not independently protected; 3. seeking to impose contractual restrictions upon subsequent use of the digital copies through licensing (but note a contract will not bind a third-party user who obtains the digital image); and 4. exploring the possibility of placing technological restrictions on copying. This is the most practical measure.[65]
All that seems just like wishful thinking on the part of the folks who are trying to claim ownership of the copyright. Anybody can claim ownership, but have they actually ever gotten anywhere with it, have they ever won a court case? On the other hand, there is no question that the federal government paid for the artworks, and in the government video are saying they own the artworks (rattling off the names of the various programs) and they've actually gone to court and taken possession of the artworks. I'm 100% satisfied. Smallbones(smalltalk)19:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
agree, they rely on the chilling effect, up to court. there is a lot of scavanging where the "lost works" don't make it to the curator. the govmnt is a poor owner, how many art saved from trash? moreover there are cases of government auctions: "In December 1943, the government auctioned off thousands of WPA-funded paintings in a warehouse in Queens. Paintings weren't sold individually, but by the pound. Reportedly, a local plumber purchased a large number of paintings in bulk for the purposes of insulating pipes with used canvases, but he discovered that when the pipes got too hot, the melting paints produced an odd smell. Herbert Benevy, the owner of a local frame shop, also purchased a large number of paintings for a total of $3 a canvas. Among those he bought were paintings by Milton Avery, Mark Rothko and Jackson Pollock".[66] wonder if you need a receipt by the pound; love to see the provenance of the Rothko. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭19:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info - I should put it in the Ward 6 list soon. On the downside though the OTRS e-mail has gone in, nobody has confirmed it yet and nobody has undeleted the photos that were previously deleted. I suspect that it may go 100 days or so before anybody gets around to confirming it and perhaps some of those previously deleted pix will get lost. I just hope an unbiased OTRS volunteer will get there soon. Newly uploaded pix of the statue will stay undeleted however if the OTRS pending tag is attached, as long as the OTRS ticket is eventually confirmed. Russavia, the guy who nominated these pix for deletion for the 3rd time, and who was most vehement about not restoring them, went to the OTRS ticket and did not confirm or reject the ticket (it cannot possibly be rejected - it is as clear as could be). Rather he picked a part of a sentence completely out of context and started Wikilawyering that somebody might want to reject it. That IMHO is a foul abuse of the OTRS system. Smallbones(smalltalk)19:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
yes, why would an otrs volunteer want to step up to the drama. "wikilawyering" lol, check out my "fair use" fuss. the toxic culture does make it hard to get anything done. it's not the process or the system or software, it's the culture and leadership. it's trial by combat, and intimidation by drama. you and i can take it and respond, but it deters the average editor. miss vain has done some otrs, you could tweet her, if she's not too discouraged. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭19:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that if I asked an OTRS volunteer to look at it, I and they might be subject to sanctions due to some previously unwritten rule. Smallbones(smalltalk)19:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Slowking4, You have written before for the newsletter This Month in GLAM. I see the USA report is only a very short story in the edition about April 2013, do you perhaps have any idea what GLAM activities were done in the USA in April? Can you perhaps write about those? Or do you know who I can ask to write about it? Thanks! (Deadline of the April edition is 8 May.) You can start writing at the page outreach:GLAM/Newsletter/Newsroom. If you wish to be informed by e-mail next time, please write me at this page. You can reach me the best at nl-wiki talk page. Greetings - Romaine (talk) 08:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
it's true, i have absolutely no respect for you, or the "decisions" that your wrongful perverse interpretation of policy attempts to enforce. deal with it. how many free images have you scanned? what is your new user name: bbbbbastard? Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭13:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The policy, whether you like it or not, is that if there is a reasonable chance that we could obtain a free replacement, we don't use a fair use image. For anyone who was a public figure in the United States pre-1978 (especially pre-1963), it's a pretty high hurdle to say that we can't reasonably expect there to be one out there. In fact, whereas you just want to give up and not even try to obtain a free one, we have success all the time obtaining them. I have given you a few examples (Jerry Falwell, Larry Fedora, Virginia Tech massacre, Frank Beamer, Alan Keyes), where the free photos we have are because I, personally, reached out to someone and asked for them to provide us with a photo under an acceptable license. I have started volunteering with the permissions queue at OTRS and I process emails that come in from people CONSTANTLY (and there's a huge backlog right now actually) where someone said, "hey can we use this under the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license" and they said, "yes". This isn't wishy thinking. Jimbo himself said, "We are powerful enough now that we can insist on this, and get it, from just about any celebrity, or we can get a free photo in a number of different ways. Using fair use in such cases discourages us from creatively looking for a way to enlarge the commons. My own view, which is at the extreme end of the spectrum I know, and therefore not (yet) formal policy in every case, is that we ought to have almost no fair use, outside of a very narrow class of images that are of unique historical importance." If you just upload something under a claim of fair use without even trying, then we're never going to get a free photo. I'm not going to argue with you over some random photo of someone who was not a public figure and if there's an image at all, it's uncertain who the original copyright holder is ... but for someone who was a public figure in the US (or in some other country where copyrights have generally expired for works created in their lifetime) ... or if the person was alive in the digital camera age and their company/ministry/organization/whatever is still promoting their interests today, we ought not to be using fair use. --B (talk) 17:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You pull a PA like this again, or deliberately upload another non-free image in direct defiance of a deletion discussion, and you'll be blocked. (In fact, I should really block you purely for that attack on User:B who is merely trying to uphold policy). You don't like the policies on non-free or civility? - well, that's fine, but you've got only two choices - attempt to change them, or comply with them. Deliberately ignoring them is only going to end in one way. This is a collegial website - you're simply being deliberately obtuse, unpleasant and offensive. Stop it - now. Black Kite (talk) 18:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
please do not interact with me. do not leave warnings. do not lie on my talk page. you change the policy to match your no fair use wet dream. you are the uncivil one. i always ignore trolls which you are. collegial website my ass. what have you ever done that is collegial? have you left one wikilove? have you helped one newbie to edit? i see you're playing enforcement for your new meatpuppet. go circle jerk with him, not me. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭19:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked your account indefinitely. This is for a combination of reasons — your continued personal attacks and your continued defiance of our nonfree content criteria. Like anyone else, you're welcome to appeal this block (you still can edit your talk page), but let me remind you that using your talk page access to attack anyone is likely to mean that your talk page access will be revoked. Nyttend (talk) 23:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
i am perfectly willing to work with good faith editors, and have a long history of doing so. i am not defiant of the "fair use" policy. however, that does not include the travesty that is the no fair use ideology. reasonable people might well conclude that this is a bad block. thank you for the badge of honor. threaten someone who cares about your incompetent misuse of tools. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭12:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Slowking is a dedicated Wikimedian. He also spends a lot of his time volunteering for Wikimedia DC and doing great work online and offline. Fair use does exist, and it's an important "way" around - perhaps this is time for a stronger policy change. I think it'd either be a good idea to strike fair use as being "on Wikipedia" if it's banning one user. SarahStierch (talk) 15:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm going to suggest a ban - a topic ban. I'm suggesting simply a six month topic ban from image uploads. If he could agree to that, I'd recommend unblock. What would you say to that?--Launchballer19:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
i'm enjoying the holiday. the nice thing about beating your head against the wall: it feels good when you stop. why should i put up with the sons of betacommand, when i can work at source with charles matthews? i am not alone, just go look at all the veteran editors at other projects who won't come back; look at all the expert editors, who stopped editing because they were bitten. this attitude that editors are a dime a dozen, is a limiting factor in the quality of wikipedia.
just so we're clear - this is about "interpretation" of policy, not policy itself:
we have editors nominating for deletion, because a fair use image would make it harder to email and get a free image;
we have editors nominating for deletion, because in the era of digital cameras, a free image of the recently dead must exist, look harder;
we have editors nominating for deletion, because an image in a book exists, go scan the book, (even it was printed in 1930, and the photographer is unknown) this image would be challenged at commons since the source and copyright status is unknown;
we have editors nominating for deletion, because the newspaper photo could be a commercial source although no proof of commercial source exists;
"Photo being used under a claim of fair use of a prolific American author who wrote numerous books between 1899 and his death in 1944. We certainly have a reasonable expectation that there is a public domain photo of him out there. Heck, this one might be public domain. You could try emailing the blogger where you found the image rather than just uploading it and slapping a fair use tag on it. He might be able to tell you where it is originally from. Surely, at some point, his picture was published prior to 1923, or any time in a publication whose copyright was not renewed. We have a reasonable expectation of receiving a public domain image and so using this one is impermissible." [69]
we have admins removing fair use images from articles without discussion, then letting the bot delete the new "orphan" image.
i'm curious why i should agree to anything? what is my motivation? as a counteroffer, i will agree to a 6 month topic ban, if a permanent interaction ban is agreed to, with editor B1 and B2. they will not comment on my talk; they will not nominate my uploads. since they do so little work in article space, i can stay away from them. if the policy is so clear, another admin can handle it, and it will remove even the perception that a personal agenda is being pursued here.
Thanks for uploading File:Henry Barnes.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (File:P. K. Banerjee.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:P. K. Banerjee.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (File:Pb-crest-2.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Pb-crest-2.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File copyright problem with File:Hagop Baronian.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Hagop Baronian.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.
Orphaned non-free media (File:USMC War Memorial Sunset Parade 2008-07-08-2.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:USMC War Memorial Sunset Parade 2008-07-08-2.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (File:USMC War Memorial Sunset Parade 2008-07-08-2.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:USMC War Memorial Sunset Parade 2008-07-08-2.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Slowking is deserving of much praise, as a veteran editor who takes the time to share knowledge and skills. We are mortified to see them blocked, and we can only hope they have not yet contested this block because they wanted to take a wikibreak anyway. Slowking, we hope you're having a great summer. groupuscule (talk) 15:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
External audio
Dadaist Raoul Hausmann (1886-1971) reads his sound poem "b b b b et F m s b w"
well i dunno about the praise part. i would rather have free beer than another t-shirt. don't know why you say mortified; it's situation normal. i'm shocked that there is admin bullying going on here, and veteran editors will push back inappropriately. i saw the "huggle" study where they gave a warning not to bite newbies, and some took that as an invitation to bite more.
Hey Slowking4. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.
We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.
Dear SlowKing4, Is there a bot that counts the barnstars and thanks a user has? If not, how and who can make one? Then, get a wiki article listing the most thanked or barnstar awared users. This would be similar to the wiki article about who has the most edits. I think it would increase the desire to be reconized. Geraldshields11 (talk) 15:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on File:La-Bionda.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria. If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{Non-free fair use}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the file. If the file has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Dman41689 (talk) 07:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I have no clue what you're talking about. Please give me a link or tell me more specifically you're talking about. Nyttend (talk) 18:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
'Contributing to Wikipedia' brochure rewrite: draft text is up
hey user:smallbones; user:sarasays - is it a conflict of interest to write your father's biography, and also refer to yourself in the third person ? i.e.:
"For his eldest son in childhood D'Arcy Thompson wrote 'Nursery Nonsense, or Rhymes without Reason' (1863-4), and 'Fun and Earnest, or Rhymes with Reason' (1865). These books, admirably illustrated by Charles H. Bennett, and now scarce, were the delight of a past generation of children."
Short answer - on Wikipedia, probably yes, but we can deal with that in pretty mild, gentle ways (BTW ask me about this in person sometime for a better example).
Longer answer - there is a huge amount of disinformation about COI and advertising on Wikipedia. My take on it is that advertising and similar things are obviously not allowed on Wikipedia (e.g. per WP:NOT and just the fact that the WMF does not accept disclosed and paid for ads here - so it obviously shouldn't accept undisclosed ads where it doesn't get paid, also US law per FTC). So we need to have a simple way of preventing and policing the placement of undisclosed ads, of which there are 1,000s on Wikipedia. Current practice (though not any reasonable reading of policy and guidelines) actually encourages placing ads.
Are GLAMs caught in the crossfire? They shouldn't be. Hyping the possible problems of GLAMs with COI enforcement seems like disinformation to me. The mild COI they sometimes have can be effectively policed by WP:GLAM in a pretty gentle way. About the worst example I've seen is a museum that hyped their coffee shop in their article. A word to the wise and it was gone. No problem at all. Smallbones(smalltalk)16:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for responding. i find it delightful, that the DNB (a cast iron source) has a clear COI, that wikipedia would make a drama-fest over, and it's a shrug.
call me cynical, but i wouldn't mind the paid editing if it were just good editing. the culture is so toxic, that involved experts and companies can't be bothered to run the gauntlet of drama, but hire "experts" including snake oil salesmen.
every editathon i go to has a long line of bitten expert editors, that we have to coach. we have no culture of judgement, or policy, for IFF between the newbie expert, and the active spam advocate. they get tarred with the same brush. the Siegenthaler Incident problem is not fixed; we are in denial. we need a culture change, for discerning the quality of the edit. all the other drama is wasting time. this is what a death spiral looks like. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭16:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My take is that if you write well, keep a neutral tone, cite good sources, and generally follow the norms of the encyclopedia, I don't care who your father is! In this specific example you cite, I would recommend removing the peacock language, i.e. "admirably," and "delight." I find that I bump into quite a few descendants and other relatives writing Wikipedia articles, most of them less savvy about the community and COI than the GLAM professionals. But with coaching and positive collaboration, they can become valuable contributors. I certainly wouldn't shun their contributions merely on the basis of parentage. Like subject experts, they often have valuable knowledge to offer. They just need to be guided away from COI pitfalls, like image polishing or WP:OWN. --Sarasays (talk) 17:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
thanks, COI has always been with us, but the bias was behind the curtain. it's almost primary material in a secondary source. yes, coaching newbies to write as well as D’Arcy Wentworth Thompson, is the long term answer. but, we're not doing it fast enough to stem the decline of editors. and we're too few among the many newbie biters, who set the bad reputation. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭02:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
your ears must have been burning, we talked about you at the DC meetup today (have you maintained congressional cemetery; should we re-engage and update?).
this vindictive screw sockpuppets meme is tiresome and a waste of time and effort. how dare anyone reward or encourage sockpuppets for the good work they may do sometimes. now it's remove welcomes, barnstars, and even references breaking good articles. (challenge for you: paid sockpuppet?) a better method would be positive feedback for good edits, and negative feedback for bad edits.
user:fuzheado was reiterating his comments how processes like AfC have become so hidebound, it's like Nupedia, a failed model. and how wikinews fails when it doesn't include more feature; style type news rather than breaking only. and how the veteran users would rather break wikipedia than have visual editor as default. (wikimarkup as default, would be like me requiring everyone to learn keypunch fortran)
this is what a death spiral looks like, or rather a permanent plateau (end of growth). when it stops being fun, then the entrepreneurial fun people move on, and you are left with prodigy, aol, myspace. i've moved on to smithsonian digital volunteers [75]. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭01:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I last contacted CC (visited) in the early spring. I was going to replace all the QRcodes (just the paper), but never got around to it. So please feel free to contact them, but I'd first figure out what you want to do there. Other than replacing the QRcodes and copyediting the article, I don't know that there's very much to do. BTW, I'd give you a barnstar, but I've already given out 1 today, and don't know if I could get a second approved by the Barnstar Committee. Smallbones(smalltalk)02:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Slowking4! The first ever Art and Feminism Edit-a-thon will be held on Saturday, February 1, 2014 across the United States and Canada - including Washington, D.C.! Wikipedians of all experience levels are welcome to join!
Any editors interested in the intersection of feminism and art are welcome. Experienced editors will be on hand to help new editors.
Bring a friend and a laptop! Come one, come all! Learn more here!
Hello, Slowking4. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forini Epanomitis until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
hi nice work. under the tools menu on the left hand side is "upload image", or Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard. fill in the blanks for "this is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use". an example of a similar article is Hotel Lobby. see the rationale and license at File:Hotel Lobby by Edward Hopper.JPG; one fair use image per article, as you will see in the history of that article. you are treading in the footsteps of user:SarahStierch. keep up the good work, however, if you continue to upload "too many" fair use of contemporary artworks, you may be kneecapped by the wp:NFCC mafia. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge♡ †@1₭13:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
nice upload, however they prefer size less than 30kb. should have warned you about photos in lists. separate rationale for each article. don't put it back if they delete, unless you want to get blocked like me. you can use template:external media to link to images off wiki. links to wikipaintings [78] or institutional page [79]; [80] might be better. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge♡ †@1₭16:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was deleted under the WP:F5 criteria, since all fair use images must be used in articles. If it meets the fair use criteria for a certain article and you would like to add it, let me know and I'll undelete it. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
in case you weren't paying attention, you have a continuing problem where ip's and others are removing fair use images from infoboxes, and then the bot comes along and deletes the image. for example [81]. but now we have admins abusing the speedy delete process, for the policy explicitly says: "Users nominating a page for speedy deletion should specify which criterion/criteria the page meets, and should notify the page creator and any major contributors." so much for notification. why don't you add it back to the infobox Spider (Bourgeois) where it was. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge♡ †@1₭16:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Patrick Abercrombie.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:
Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}}below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MASEM (t) 17:52, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (File:Mir Jafar Baghirov.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Mir Jafar Baghirov.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 17:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
hilarious. what is the point of replacing a fair use image with a "free" license of the same image with "unknown author" who has been dead 70 years? and above, replacing a crisp photo, with a blurry screenshot of a false UK Govt claim, and then another crisp image with same copyright problem as first. File:Patrick Abercrombie, 1945.png you're just deleting away good image curation for worse, because of ideological issues. maybe now, we can restore this image Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sir Henry Rider Haggard.png given the "relaxation" of copyright enforcement over at commons. just say, "don't want mass deletions". pure incompetence. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge♡ †@1₭12:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This page is huge. would you mind if I put an auto-archive bot onto it so that only the most recent sections were kept? -- PBS (talk) 12:23, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Slowking4 I interacted with you over the update of articles that used the the template {{EB1911}} where I think you did some very good work. Your block has been in place for over a year and it is time that it was reviewed, and if you are willing to answer yes to the three questions below then please appeal the block
It would be best if you agreed not to upload any images onto Wikipidia (instead upload them onto wikicommmons if the images meet the criteria there) for at least a year from the time you are unblocked, so that there can be no doubt that you are abiding by that policy. Are you be willing to do this?
As to the No personal attacks ((NPA) are you willing to try to abide by the policy?
thank you for the kind offer, however, consider this conversation [85], about this edit [86].
as far as i'm concerned i was abiding by NFCC: apparently we disagree whether uploading 20 fair use images of deceased people per day, after a google image search is within policy or not.
i'm not really interested in asking for an unblock: i can have no confidence in a fair process given the standard of discussion linked above;
i'm training newbies to upload fair use images at editathons; i've uploaded 10000 images to commons; i've transcribed 10000 pages at source; i've transcribed field notes at smithsonian [87]; i have a wikimania talk to work on. when you have some competent admins, then i might think about it. (that is not a personal attack, that is a professional assessment) Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge♡ †@1₭02:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a shame, because you are a very high quality editor. (In my opinion, images should be at Commons anyway and if you are doing a good job there, then the reason for blocking is no longer applicable.)--Launchballer10:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Galvez right.JPG. 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).
Thanks for uploading File:LogoProvinceBenSlimane2.jpg. 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).
why don't you put the fair use image back in the article, since it's been deleted from commons yet again.[88] & this is a continuing stealth deletion problem, i.e.
Thanks for uploading File:Irene Higginbotham.jpg. 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).
thank you user:smallbones. as you see there is a concerted effort by a mobile user to delete fair use images. i wonder who that might be? can that deletionist be swamped with new fair use ? ( i may clear my schedule for Ocean City, but next time make it in the summertime) Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge♡ †@1₭18:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on File:Irene Higginbotham.jpg, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
Not the actual person, replaced with version on Commons, so no fair use
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Mdann52 (talk) 13:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
hey user:Ronhjones what gives? do you normally delete images without notice? did you do an image search? could this be the image? [93], it is not the uploaders fault that you strip away all the upload information when you downsize a fair use image. but it does go to the NFCC policy flouting. its all free or die by, whatever means necessary, isn't it Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge♡ †@1₭22:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
??? That was over a year ago. There was the standard 7 day notice applied. It was not set up as fair use - hence it got deleted as "no permission" as images of sculptures need the permission of the artist. Ronhjones (Talk)22:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Wgolf (talk) 02:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom
A heads up that I have made a charge against you in the current "Arbitration Enforcement" case at ArbCom, which revolves around Eric Corbett's on-wiki criticism of your Gender Gap Allies training program.
I note that you are blocked at the moment and hope this does not impact your ability to participate. Hopefully ArbCom will allow this, they should. Carrite (talk) 12:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File source problem with File:449px-Royal arms of Nepal.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:449px-Royal arms of Nepal.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.
If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
Thanks for uploading File:House-left.JPG. 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).
Thanks for uploading File:House-right.JPG. 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).
Thanks for uploading File:Mariam Amash.jpg. 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).
Slowking: I have no personal issues with you (and iirc we've met and gotten along before,) but please don't edit at Wikiconf. You had an autoblock attached to your account that was rather hard to track down and resulted in a ton of people being autoblocked (and took three arbs and me to figure out what precisely the issue was.) I don't intend to change your blocks for now besides temporarily removing autoblock so that all non-admins here don't get autoblocked, but no guarantees about others. Kevin Gorman (talk) 15:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Grants:IEG/Wikipedia likes Galactic Exploration for Posterity 2015
Dear Jim,
User:I JethroBT (WMF) suggested that I consult with fellow Wikipedians to get feedback and help to improve my idea about "As an unparalleled way to raise awareness of the Wikimedia projects, I propose to create a tremendous media opportunity presented by launching Wikipedia via space travel."
Hello, Slowking4. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
File:449px-Royal arms of Nepal.jpg listed for deletion
Thanks for uploading File:Alexander Winton.jpg. 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).
Thanks for uploading File:William Couper.jpg. 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).
Thanks for uploading File:Marino-marini2.jpg. 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).
Thanks for uploading File:Monsoon drift.JPG. 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).
Thanks for uploading File:Job Abbott.jpg. 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).
Hello, Slowking4. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Thanks for uploading File:The sentinel grom .JPG. 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).
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Thanks for uploading File:Safwat Shwadfy-4.jpg. 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).
Thank you so much for the time talking! I really appreciate being able to learn more fom other people's experiences and perspectives. Hoping to see you here again in San Diego sometime this year!
Thanks for uploading File:Saajid Badat.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:
Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}}below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Carmine-Galante.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Carmine-Galante.jpg. 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).
Thanks for uploading File:Lone-sailor.jpg. 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).
Open Citations Month, with its eminently guessable hashtag, is upon us. We should be utterly grateful that in the past 12 months, so much data on which papers cite which other papers has been made open, and that Wikidata is playing its part in hosting it as "cites" statements. At the time of writing, there are 15.3M Wikidata items that can do that.
Pulling back to look at open access papers in the large, though, there is is less reason for celebration. Access in theory does not yet equate to practical access. A recent LSE IMPACT blogpost puts that issue down to "heterogeneity". A useful euphemism to save us from thinking that the whole concept doesn't fall into the realm of the oxymoron.
Some home truths: aggregation is not content management, if it falls short on reusability. The PDF file format is wedded to how humans read documents, not how machines ingest them. The salami-slicer is our friend in the current downloading of open access papers, but for a better metaphor, think about skinning an onion, laboriously, 100 times with diminishing returns. There are of the order of 100 major publisher sites hosting open access papers, and the predominant offer there is still a PDF.
Red onion cross section
From the discoverability angle, Wikidata's bibliographic resources combined with the SPARQL query are superior in principle, by far, to existing keyword searches run over papers. Open access content should be managed into consistent HTML, something that is currently strenuous. The good news, such as it is, would be that much of it is already in XML. The organisational problem of removing further skins from the onion, with sensible prioritisation, is certainly not insuperable. The CORE group (the bloggers in the LSE posting) has some answers, but actually not all that is needed for the text and data mining purposes they highlight. The long tail, or in other words the onion heart when it has become fiddly beyond patience to skin, does call for a pis aller. But the real knack is to do more between the XML and the heart.
Thanks for uploading File:Hagop Baronian.jpg. 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).
The proposal includes downloading 30,000 open access papers, aiming (roughly speaking) to create a baseline for medical referencing on Wikipedia. It leaves open the question of how these are to be chosen.
The basic criteria of WP:MEDRS include a concentration on secondary literature. Attention has to be given to the long tail of diseases that receive less current research. The MEDRS guideline supposes that edge cases will have to be handled, and the premature exclusion of publications that would be in those marginal positions would reduce the value of the collection. Prophylaxis misses the point that gate-keeping will be done by an algorithm.
Two well-known but rather different areas where such considerations apply are tropical diseases and alternative medicine. There are also a number of potential downloading troubles, and these were mentioned in Issue 11. There is likely to be a gap, even with the guideline, between conditions taken to be necessary but not sufficient, and conditions sufficient but not necessary, for candidate papers to be included. With around 10,000 recognised medical conditions in standard lists, being comprehensive is demanding. With all of these aspects of the task, ScienceSource will seek community help.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Untitled (Kelly) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. GRuban (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Facto Post enters its second year, with a Cambridge Blue (OK, Aquamarine) background, a new logo, but no Cambridge blues. On-topic for the ScienceSource project is a project page here. It contains some case studies on how the WP:MEDRS guideline, for the referencing of articles at all related to human health, is applied in typical discussions.
Close to home also, a template, called {{medrs}} for short, is used to express dissatisfaction with particular references. Technology can help with patrolling, and this Petscan query finds over 450 articles where there is at least one use of the template. Of course the template is merely suggesting there is a possible issue with the reliability of a reference. Deciding the truth of the allegation is another matter.
This maintenance issue is one example of where ScienceSource aims to help. Where the reference is to a scientific paper, its type of algorithm could give a pass/fail opinion on such references. It could assist patrollers of medical articles, therefore, with the templated references and more generally. There may be more to proper referencing than that, indeed: context, quite what the statement supported by the reference expresses, prominence and weight. For that kind of consideration, case studies can help. But an algorithm might help to clear the backlog.
Thanks for uploading File:Untitled-kelly.JPG. 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).
Officially it is "bridging the gaps in knowledge", with Wikimania 2018 in Cape Town paying tribute to the southern African concept of ubuntu to implement it. Besides face-to-face interactions, Wikimedians do need their power sources.
Hackathon mentoring table wiring
Facto Post interviewed Jdforrester, who has attended every Wikimania, and now works as Senior Product Manager for the Wikimedia Foundation. His take on tackling the gaps in the Wikimedia movement is that "if we were an army, we could march in a column and close up all the gaps". In his view though, that is a faulty metaphor, and it leads to a completely false misunderstanding of the movement, its diversity and different aspirations, and the nature of the work as "fighting" to be done in the open sector. There are many fronts, and as an eventualist he feels the gaps experienced both by editors and by users of Wikimedia content are inevitable. He would like to see a greater emphasis on reuse of content, not simply its volume.
If that may not sound like radicalism, the Decolonizing the Internet conference here organized jointly with Whose Knowledge? can redress the picture. It comes with the claim to be "the first ever conference about centering marginalized knowledge online".
Plugbar buildup at the Hackathon
Links
ScienceSource focus list (shortcut WD:SSFL on Wikidata), project to tag a first-pass open access medical bibliography on Wikidata, and also overcome the systematic biases in the medical literature by curation.
Anti-parasitic drugs being distributed in Côte d'Ivoire What's a Neglected Disease?, ScienceSource video
To grasp the nettle, there are rare diseases, there are tropical diseases and then there are "neglected diseases". Evidently a rare enough disease is likely to be neglected, but neglected disease these days means a disease not rare, but tropical, and most often infectious or parasitic. Rare diseases as a group are dominated, in contrast, by genetic diseases.
A major aspect of neglect is found in tracking drug discovery. Orphan drugs are those developed to treat rare diseases (rare enough not to have market-driven research), but there is some overlap in practice with the WHO's neglected diseases, where snakebite, a "neglected public health issue", is on the list.
From an encyclopedic point of view, lack of research also may mean lack of high-quality references: the core medical literature differs from primary research, since it operates by aggregating trials. This bibliographic deficit clearly hinders Wikipedia's mission. The ScienceSource project is currently addressing this issue, on Wikidata. Its Wikidata focus list at WD:SSFL is trying to ensure that neglect does not turn into bias in its selection of science papers.
In an ideal world ... no, bear with your editor for just a minute ... there would be a format for scientific publishing online that was as much a standard as SI units are for the content. Likewise cataloguing publications would not be onerous, because part of the process would be to generate uniform metadata. Without claiming it could be the mythical free lunch, it might be reasonably be argued that sandwiches can be packaged much alike and have barcodes, whatever the fillings.
The best on offer, to stretch the metaphor, is the meal kit option, in the form of XML. Where scientific papers are delivered as XML downloads, you get all the ingredients ready to cook. But have to prepare the actual meal of slow food yourself. See Scholarly HTML for a recent pass at heading off XML with HTML, in other words in the native language of the Web.
The argument from real life is a traditional mixture of frictional forces, vested interests, and the classic irony of the principle of unripe time. On the other hand, discoverability actually diminishes with the prolific progress of science publishing. No, it really doesn't scale. Wikimedia as movement can do something in such cases. We know from open access, we grok the Web, we have our own horse in the HTML race, we have Wikidata and WikiJournal, and we have the chops to act.
Enslaved: People of the Historic Slave Trade, Michigan State University project for a linked open data platform. Quote: "Disambiguating and merging individuals across multiple datasets is nearly impossible given their current, siloed nature."
Thanks for uploading File:Three-way-piece-no-3-vertebrae.JPG. 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).
Thanks for uploading File:Thinker-on-a-rock.JPG. 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).
Thanks for uploading File:Shamsi Badalbeyli.jpg. 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).
Around 2.7 million Wikidata items have an illustrative image. These files, you might say, are Wikimedia's stock images, and if the number is large, it is still only 5% or so of items that have one. All such images are taken from Wikimedia Commons, which has 50 million media files. One key issue is how to expand the stock.
Indeed, there is a tool. WD-FIST exploits the fact that each Wikipedia is differently illustrated, mostly with images from Commons but also with fair use images. An item that has sitelinks but no illustrative image can be tested to see if the linked wikis have a suitable one. This works well for a volunteer who wants to add images at a reasonable scale, and a small amount of SPARQL knowledge goes a long way in producing checklists.
Gran Teatro, Cáceres, Spain, at night
It should be noted, though, that there are currently 53 Wikidata properties that link to Commons, of which P18 for the basic image is just one. WD-FIST prompts the user to add signatures, plaques, pictures of graves and so on. There are a couple of hundred monograms, mostly of historical figures, and this query allows you to view all of them. commons:Category:Monograms and its subcategories provide rich scope for adding more.
And so it is generally. The list of properties linking to Commons does contain a few that concern video and audio files, and rather more for maps. But it contains gems such as P3451 for "nighttime view". Over 1000 of those on Wikidata, but as for so much else, there could be yet more.
Go on. Today is Wikidata's birthday. An illustrative image is always an acceptable gift, so why not add one? You can follow these easy steps: (i) log in at https://tools.wmflabs.org/widar/, (ii) paste the Petscan ID 6263583 into https://tools.wmflabs.org/fist/wdfist/ and click run, and (iii) just add cake.
GLAM ♥ data — what is a gallery, library, archive or museum without a catalogue? It follows that Wikidata must love librarians. Bibliography supports students and researchers in any topic, but open and machine-readable bibliographic data even more so, outside the silo. Cue the WikiCite initiative, which was meeting in conference this week, in the Bay Area of California.
Wikidata training for librarians at WikiCite 2018
In fact there is a broad scope: "Open Knowledge Maps via SPARQL" and the "Sum of All Welsh Literature", identification of research outputs, Library.Link Network and Bibframe 2.0, OSCAR and LUCINDA (who they?), OCLC and Scholia, all these co-exist on the agenda. Certainly more library science is coming Wikidata's way. That poses the question about the other direction: is more Wikimedia technology advancing on libraries? Good point.
Wikimedians generally are not aware of the tech background that can be assumed, unless they are close to current training for librarians. A baseline definition is useful here: "bash, git and OpenRefine". Compare and contrast with pywikibot, GitHub and mix'n'match. Translation: scripting for automation, version control, data set matching and wrangling in the large, are on the agenda also for contemporary library work. Certainly there is some possible common ground here. Time to understand rather more about the motivations that operate in the library sector.
Links
Wikidata and Libraries: Facilitating Open Knowledge, book chapter by Mairelys Lemus-Rojas, metadata librarian and Lydia Pintscher, Wikidata Product Manager, from Leveraging Wikipedia: Connecting Communities of Knowledge (2018)
LD4P and WikiCite: Opportunities for collaboration, WikiCite 2018 program abstract, Christine Fernsebner Eslao of Harvard Library Information and Technical Services and Michelle Futornick, Linked Data for Production Program Manager at Stanford University
Thanks for uploading File:Doha college-2.jpg. 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).
Besides the handiness of Zotero's warehousing of personal citation collections, the Zotero translator underlies the citoid service, at work behind the VisualEditor. Metadata from Wikidata can be imported into Zotero; and in the other direction the zotkat tool from the University of Mannheim allows Zotero bibliographies to be exported to Wikidata, by item creation. With an extra feature to add statements, that route could lead to much development of the focus list (P5008) tagging on Wikidata, by WikiProjects.
Zotero demo video
There is also a large-scale encyclopedic dimension here. The construction of Zotero translators is one facet of Web scraping that has a strong community and open source basis. In that it resembles the less formal mix'n'match import community, and growing networks around other approaches that can integrate datasets into Wikidata, such as the use of OpenRefine.
Looking ahead, the thirtieth birthday of the World Wide Web falls in 2019, and yet the ambition to make webpages routinely readable by machines can still seem an ever-retreating mirage. Wikidata should not only be helping Wikimedia integrate its projects, an ongoing process represented by Structured Data on Commons and lexemes. It should also be acting as a catalyst to bring scraping in from the cold, with institutional strengths as well as resourceful code.
T115158Write a Zotero translator and document process for creating new Zotero translator and getting it live in production, long Phabricator thread 2015–17.
Thanks for uploading File:Jerome-Meštrović.JPG. 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).
Recently Jimmy Wales has made the point that computer home assistants take much of their data from Wikipedia, one way or another. So as well as getting Spotify to play Frosty the Snowman for you, they may be able to answer the question "is the Pope Catholic?" Possibly by asking for disambiguation (Coptic?).
Headlines about data breaches are now familiar, but the unannounced circulation of information raises other issues. One of those is Gresham's law stated as "bad data drives out good". Wikipedia and now Wikidata have been criticised on related grounds: what if their content, unattributed, is taken to have a higher standing than Wikimedians themselves would grant it? See Wikiquote on a misattribution to Bismarck for the usual quip about "law and sausages", and why one shouldn't watch them in the making.
Wikipedia has now turned 18, so should act like as adult, as well as being treated like one. The Web itself turns 30 some time between March and November this year, per Tim Berners-Lee. If the Knowledge Graph by Google exemplifies Heraclitean Web technology gaining authority, contra GIGO, Wikimedians still have a role in its critique. But not just with the teenage skill of detecting phoniness.
There is more to beating Gresham than exposing the factoid and urban myth, where WP:V does do a great job. Placeholders must be detected, and working with Wikidata is a good way to understand how having one statement as data can blind us to replacing it by a more accurate one. An example that is important to open access is that, firstly, the term itself needs considerable unpacking, because just being able to read material online is a poor relation of "open"; and secondly, trying to get Creative Commons license information into Wikidata shows up issues with classes of license (such as CC-BY) standing for the actual license in major repositories. Detailed investigation shows that "everything flows" exacerbates the issue. But Wikidata can solve it.
Systematic reviews are basic building blocks of evidence-based medicine, surveys of existing literature devoted typically to a definite question that aim to bring out scientific conclusions. They are principled in a way Wikipedians can appreciate, taking a critical view of their sources.
PRISMA flow diagram for a systematic review
Ben Goldacre in 2014 wrote (link below) "[...] : the "information architecture" of evidence based medicine (if you can tolerate such a phrase) is a chaotic, ad hoc, poorly connected ecosystem of legacy projects. In some respects the whole show is still run on paper, like it's the 19th century." Is there a Wikidatan in the house? Wouldn't some machine-readable content that is structured data help?
Most likely it would, but the arcana of systematic reviews and how they add value would still need formal handling. The PRISMA standard dates from 2009, with an update started in 2018. The concerns there include the corpus of papers used: how selected and filtered? Now that Wikidata has a 20.9 million item bibliography, one can at least pose questions. Each systematic review is a tagging opportunity for a bibliography. Could that tagging be reproduced by a query, in principle? Can it even be second-guessed by a query (i.e. simulated by a protocol which translates into SPARQL)? Homing in on the arcana, do the inclusion and filtering criteria translate into metadata? At some level they must, but are these metadata explicitly expressed in the articles themselves? The answer to that is surely "no" at this point, but can TDM find them? Again "no", right now. Automatic identification doesn't just happen.
Actually these questions lack originality. It should be noted though that WP:MEDRS, the reliable sources guideline used here for health information, hinges on the assumption that the usefully systematic reviews of biomedical literature can be recognised. Its nutshell summary, normally the part of a guideline with the highest density of common sense, allows literature reviews in general validity, but WP:MEDASSESS qualifies that indication heavily. Process wonkery about systematic reviews definitely has merit.
Thanks for uploading File:Typewriter-eraser.JPG. 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).
Thanks for uploading File:Glenkiln-cross.JPG. 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).
The term Applications Programming Interface or API is 50 years old, and refers to a type of software library as well as the interface to its use. While a compiler is what you need to get high-level code executed by a mainframe, an API out in the cloud somewhere offers a chance to perform operations on a remote server. For example, the multifarious bots active on Wikipedia have owners who exploit the MediaWiki API.
APIs (called RESTful) that allow for the GET HTTP request are fundamental for what could colloquially be called "moving data around the Web"; from which Wikidata benefits 24/7. So the fact that the Wikidata SPARQL endpoint at query.wikidata.org has a RESTful API means that, in lay terms, Wikidata content can be GOT from it. The programming involved, besides the SPARQL language, could be in Python, younger by a few months than the Web.
Magic words, such as occur in fantasy stories, are wishful (rather than RESTful) solutions to gaining access. You may need to be a linguist to enter Ali Baba's cave or the western door of Moria (French in the case of "Open Sesame", in fact, and Sindarin being the respective languages). Talking to an API requires a bigger toolkit, which first means you have to recognise the tools in terms of what they can do. On the way to the wikt:impactful or polymathic modern handling of facts, one must perhaps take only tactful notice of tech's endemic problem with documentation, and absorb the insightful point that the code in APIs does articulate the customary procedures now in place on the cloud for getting information. As Owl explained to Winnie-the-Pooh, it tells you The Thing to Do.
Working With Wikibase From Go, Digital Flapjack blogpost 26 November 2018, Michael Dales, developer for ScienceSource using golang, with a software engineer's view on Wikibase and the MediaWiki API
Talk of cloud computing draws a veil over hardware, but also, less obviously but more importantly, obscures such intellectual distinction as matters most in its use. Wikidata begins to allow tasks to be undertaken that were out of easy reach. The facility should not be taken as the real point.
Coming in from another angle, the "executive decision" is more glamorous; but the "administrative decision" should be admired for its command of facts. Think of the attitudes ad fontes, so prevalent here on Wikipedia as "can you give me a source for that?", and being prepared to deal with complicated analyses into specified subcases. Impatience expressed as a disdain for such pedantry is quite understandable, but neither dirty data nor false dichotomies are at all good to have around.
Issue 13 and Issue 21, respectively on WP:MEDRS and systematic reviews, talk about biomedical literature and computing tasks that would be of higher quality if they could be made more "administrative". For example, it is desirable that the decisions involved be consistent, explicable, and reproducible by non-experts from specified inputs.
What gets clouded out is not impossibly hard to understand. You do need to put together the insights of functional programming, which is a doctrinaire and purist but clearcut approach, with the practicality of office software. Loopless computation can be conceived of as a seamless forward march of spreadsheet columns, each determined by the content of previous ones. Very well: to do a backward audit, when now we are talking about Wikidata, we rely on integrity of data and its scrupulous sourcing: and clearcut case analyses. The MEDRS example forces attention on purge attempts such as Beall's list.
Two dozen issues, and this may be the last, a valediction at least for a while.
It's time for a two-year summation of ContentMine projects involving TDM (text and data mining).
Wikidata and now Structured Data on Commons represent the overlap of Wikimedia with the Semantic Web. This common ground is helping to convert an engineering concept into a movement. TDM generally has little enough connection with the Semantic Web, being instead in the orbit of machine learning which is no respecter of the semantic. Don't break a taboo by asking bots "and what do you mean by that?"
The ScienceSource project innovates in TDM, by storing its text mining results in a Wikibase site. It strives for compliance of its fact mining, on drug treatments of diseases, with an automated form of the relevant Wikipedia referencing guideline MEDRS. Where WikiFactMine set up an API for reuse of its results, ScienceSource has a SPARQL query service, with look-and-feel exactly that of Wikidata's at query.wikidata.org. It also now has a custom front end, and its content can be federated, in other words used in data mashups: it is one of over 50 sites that can federate with Wikidata.
The human factor comes to bear through the front end, which combines a link to the HTML version of a paper, text mining results organised in drug and disease columns, and a SPARQL display of nearby drug and disease terms. Much software to develop and explain, so little time! Rather than telling the tale, Facto Post brings you ScienceSource links, starting from the how-to video, lower right.
Please be aware that this is a research project in development, and may have outages for planned maintenance. That will apply for the next few days, at least. The ScienceSource wiki main page carries information on practical matters. Email is not enabled on the wiki: use site mail here to Charles Matthews in case of difficulty, or if you need support. Further explanatory videos will be put into commons:Category:ContentMine videos.
Thanks for uploading File:Mariam Aslamazian.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:
Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}}below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 12:51, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Sojourner-truth.jpg. 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).
Thanks for uploading File:Cornelia Adair.jpg. 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).
Thanks for uploading File:Doha college-2.jpg. 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).
Thanks for uploading File:UWSP Logo-2.jpg. 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).
Orphaned non-free image File:Fifinella unit patch.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Fifinella unit patch.jpg. 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).
Orphaned non-free image File:Martin Luther King AOC.png
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Martin Luther King AOC.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).
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wendy Olsoff until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Princess Anna of Saxony.png
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Princess Anna of Saxony.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).
Thanks for uploading File:Viola Florence Barnes.jpg. 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).
Thanks for uploading File:Drucker-portrait-bkt 1014.jpg. 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).
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Papua New Guinea in Washington, D.C. (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Grenada, Washington, D.C. until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Cote d'Ivoire in Washington, D.C. (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Angola, Washington, D.C. until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of the Bahamas in Washington, D.C. until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Bulgaria in Washington, D.C. until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Thanks for uploading File:Sphere6.JPG. 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).
He's done a lot of things, none of which has attracted much attention in WP:RS. Of the sources given, only one is independent, showing that he was once on a local television program. I see one AllMusic album review, one radio appearance, and not much else. Doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Thanks for uploading File:Hilda Crosby Standish.jpg. 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).
Thanks for uploading File:Logo saeta-2.jpg. 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).
Thanks for uploading File:P. K. Banerjee.jpg. 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).
Thanks for uploading File:Viola Florence Barnes.jpg. 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).
Thanks for uploading File:File-larry burrows.jpg. 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).
Thanks for uploading File:CUSafi2.gif. 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).
Thanks for uploading File:Sharafnama1.JPG. 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).
Thanks for uploading File:Dominican-college-of-sta-rosa-laguna-logo-2.jpg. 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).
Thanks for uploading File:Draped recling figure.JPG. 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).
Thanks for uploading File:Three soldiers.jpg. 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).
Thanks for uploading File:Fernando Sabino-en.jpg. 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).
Orphaned non-free image File:Turtle in paradise.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Turtle in paradise.jpg. 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).
Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Slowking4. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.
Administrators:Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.
Orphaned non-free image File:Lincoln the Mystic-2.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Lincoln the Mystic-2.jpg. 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).
You might be interested in an upcoming event in Auckland. Wikimedia Aotearoa is having a WikiCon! WikiCon Aotearoa 2024 is the annual gathering for all new and experienced editors of Wikipedia, Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, and Wikisource projects. Anyone interested in editing is welcome to attend. This conference is organized by Wikimedia Aotearoa New Zealand (WANZ). It aims to provide training to new editors, to encourage editors to learn new skills, to grow the Wiki community in Auckland and to ensure that we have a fun weekend. Food and refreshments provided.
When: Saturday 23 March - Sunday 24 March 2024
Where: Auckland University of Technology - Sir Paul Reeves Building - WG Building 2 Governor Fitzroy Place, Auckland.
Cost: $10, fully catered, sponsorship / registration fee waiver available
We are offering full scholarships (registration, travel & accommodation) to attend - please contact info@wikimedia.nz for more information.
Thanks for uploading File:Fritz Scholder.jpg. 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).
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Cape Verde, Washington, D.C. until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Eritrea, Washington, D.C. until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Thanks for uploading File:Doubleascension.jpg. 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).
Orphaned non-free image File:Percy and Florence Arrowsmith.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Percy and Florence Arrowsmith.jpg. 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).
Thanks for uploading File:Kōbō Abe novelist.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free 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).
Thanks for uploading File:Three soldiers.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free 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).
Thanks for uploading File:Wimc-logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free 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).
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Thanks for uploading File:LogoProvinceSafi2.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free 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).
_At_Launch_Approaching_End_of_Ways_-_NARA_-_5900076_-_1915_edit.jpg)
.svg)
_by_Ron.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
![[44]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AGlenkiln-title.JPG&action=historysubmit&diff=464138049&oldid=411242088){kind=link}
![[45]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cubi-XII.JPG){kind=link}
![[46]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Body_Sweats_Cover.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[49]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ansel_Adams_-_National_Archives_79-AA-Q01_restored.jpg){kind=link}
![[57]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Eagle_by_A.Calder.jpg){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
![[59]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Hallgrimskirkja_transposed.jpg){kind=link}
){kind=link}
![[60]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:John-Storrs-AAA.jpg){kind=link}
![[61]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Abdul_Jolil.jpg){kind=link}
![[62]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2013_April_16#File:Bill_Albright.jpg){kind=link}
![[63]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2013_April_17#File:A._A._Allen.jpeg){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
![[67]](http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://dcliving.com/dc_ward_map.gif&imgrefurl=http://dcliving.com/washington_dc_living/000044.php&h=304&w=254&sz=11&tbnid=r9WCDhRLSSJxsM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=75&zoom=1&usg=__dhJtOJcAmlbGyPMFkZHtvSl95-8=&docid=inzFyH6Uy2z7TM&sa=X&ei=UImHUcayKenZ0QGJhoH4Bg&ved=0CDgQ9QEwAg&dur=541){kind=link}
![[69]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2013_May_8#File:Ralph_Henry_Barbour.jpg){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
![[77]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Yitzhak_Baer.jpg&oldid=587234428){kind=link}
){kind=link}
_25.JPG){kind=link}
