User talk:Melesse/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

RE: Image:Portablesboardwalkmsad31.JPG Deletion

Hi, you have recently deleted the image Portablesboardwalkmsad31.JPG, School outside msad31.JPG, and Viewofhallwaymsad31.jpg.JPG with no discussion. I was wondering the reason for this deletion, as I don't see a way for this image to be made "free". Can you please inform me on the reasoning for this deletion? Thanks. Patricksimpson21 (talk) 16:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You yourself put the deletion tag on the image when you uploaded it, that's why you didn't get any notification. You should have read the warning dialog that appeared in the "license" section. The buildings in the pictures seem to be still existing, so it's reasonable for someone to go and take a photo of them and release them under a free license. Melesse (talk) 22:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see, I didn't fully understand the copyrights for the picture. Sorry, Patricksimpson21 (talk) 22:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Jamie_Eldridge_PictureA.JPG

I feel my issue is similar to other uploaders. When was I notified that this file will be speedily deleted? And why did that image not work? I could not find a single photo of Jamie anywhere on the web that is under a free license. Darth Panda (talk) 00:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll be careful not to do that in the future. Darth Panda (talk) 14:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:T'Keyah Crystal Keymáh Leading Lady Headshot Small.jpg

Hi. Regarding Image:T'Keyah Crystal Keymáh Leading Lady Headshot Small.jpg, which you deleted (and Until(1 == 2) deleted previously - see User talk:Until(1 == 2)/Archive 11#Image:T.27Keyah_Crystal_Keym.C3.A1h_Leading_Lady_Headshot_Small.jpg and User talk:BlueAzure#Image:T.27Keyah_Crystal_Keym.C3.A1h_Leading_Lady_Headshot_Small.jpg for details), I thought I had justified the fair use of this image. This is a crop of the subject's one and only "Leading Lady Headshot". Please reconsider your deletion decision, or at least get me a copy of any changes since I created User:Jeff G./Fair use sandbox#Image:T.27Keyah_Crystal_Keym.C3.A1h_Leading_Lady_Headshot_Small.jpg in preparation for uploading that image. Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Image CSDed without notice

At the help desk, I have been informed you speedied an image. My talk page has no notice.

Supposedly This is from the deletion log: "23:44, 13 July 2008 Melesse (Talk | contribs | block) deleted 'Image:Trump Chicago floor diagram.JPG' ‎ (Speedy deleted per (CSD I7), was an image with an invalid fair use rationale and the uploader was notified more than 48 hours ago. using TW)."

At Wikipedia:Help_desk#deleted_image, I noted that I would like to either recreate the image or have you restore it. Please advise.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for prompt reply. Are you saying there is no possible way I could have fixed the FUR and that no such diagrams are allowed on WP even with FUR.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

If it's the image I'm thinking of, it was discussed here. Kelly ^hi! 05:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be some sort of disconnect at WP:GL. They seem to think a diagram can not be made Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Images_to_improve#Trump_International_Hotel_and_Tower_.28Chicago.29_floor_diagram. If it can not be recreated fair use is allowable. Please advise.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I fail to understand why a fair use rationale could not be used. It is not possible for a person to conceptualize the 10 or so different floor uses orally. It is necessary for the understanding of the reader to have a diagram. In fact, this diagram was originally a talk page request because text is too confusing. A FUR is easy to write and the image would pass any reasonable FUR analysis due to the complexity of the building.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, you are smarter than most, because a diagram was requested for clarification. Who are we to say what others can conceptualize. The image is for those readers with lesser conceptualization skills than you.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

That would in the abstract be a good idea. However, floor-by-floor descriptions are uncommon. I have don't recall having ever seen one in an architectural article although I may be mistaken. With this in mind and the philosophy that a picture is worth a thousand words, the editors have requested a diagram. No one has requested a paragraph with further detail than what is currently in the text ("The design of the building includes, in order from the ground up, retail space, a parking garage, a hotel, and condominiums."). The diagram request formerly existed despite this text.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It only conveys part of the information because it does not depict the building to scale in any way that helps the reader in a unified way with the image.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

MasterCard

I must insist that the MasterCard SVG logo be made to render to a significantly lower default resolution. Could you explain your rationale for contending this? I'm aware that vector images can be scaled indefinitely, but a copyrighted logo whose default rendition is nearly twice my laptop's entire screen resolution, per "no larger than is required for the purposes of identification and/or critical commentary", is most certainly not acceptable. Thanks. WilliamH (talk) 12:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes I wonder myself why fair use vectors are even allowed, but nonetheless, they're infinitely scalable, so I hardly see what difference it makes what the default size is. (That and I find resizing vectors a real chore.) Melesse (talk) 12:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes I realise it may feel a little moot, but the difference it makes is per that copyrighted logos should not be defaulty rendered larger than necessary. WilliamH (talk) 12:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Largemohicanpenguin.jpg

Hi, I saw you decided that this image is irreplaceable non-free content. I disagree. The book was first published in 1826 so it should be possible to get a scan of a public domain edition. Garion96 (talk) 15:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for deleting. I tried to find a cover of the original version on the internet but it wasn't there. If you are able to scan one, that would be great. Garion96 (talk) 18:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Bedford CA

Thanks for deleting the image of the Bedford CA, I don't think. If you look at the comments on the page, it was an image of the standard van as it left the factory. The image that remains is a modified vehicle, so the document is now misleading: Bedford CA's simply weren't like that when they left the factory. It was thus perfectly reasonable to leave the image of the Bedford CA, fair usage until we could find another image to replace it. I'm sure there's one in my family archive somewhere, certainly when we get some old Cine film transferred onto DVD there'll be one. However, I will leave other people to find an image now. I'm not going to waste my time. Yes I am annoyed. Its another example of over-zealous deleting on Wikipedia.Hethurs (talk) 15:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Dutch street scene with Dutch organ.jpg

Can I ask why you think this image has a source? Not only does the image not have a source URL (so the license can't be verified) but it is tagged as PD (I doubt Flickr images are PD) and the image was uploaded in a batch of similar images, all lacking decent sourcing. J Milburn (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Just saw this and decided to check it out. It is from [1]. Not released under a license Wikipedia can use. Garion96 (talk) 18:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Three images from The Devil Wears Prada

Could you go into some detail about how, exactly, you believe those pictures are replaceable, given that they all had rationales noting that they were production stills, illustrated and greatly enhanced the adjacent text in the article, were of an irrepeatable event (the production of the movie), and were within the informal limit of four fair-use images allowed in most articles about television or movie productions? (Two of them had bad backlinks because of a recent move, but that's been fixed). Daniel Case (talk) 09:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Before you say it could be done with text, consider also that The Devil Wears Prada is a movie about fashion, a very visual art form. It helps to have pictures for readers, especially those not familiar with what a particular designer's clothes look like to be able to visualize what that would look like from mere text (which is most of them). I might be willing to agree with you that having more than one picture of Meryl Streep in costume is too much (I'd prefer, then, to keep the one of her with Patricia Field). I've trimmed a lot of the fair use images from this article recently with the intention of taking it to FAC; I don't see why I should have to get rid of all of them, especially given the subject. Daniel Case (talk) 09:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to check the still pool at IMdB or something. I doubt there are a lot of two-shot photos out there of Streep and Blunt, just from remembering the movie (anyway, she's never dressed "edgier" than she is in that outfit); but there are certainly photos of Streep and Anne Hathaway which would do the double duty of showing how both of them looked in costume. I could see losing the Streep/Frankel pic; I'd love to keep the Field one as it isn't often we have stills of people from either side of the camera working together in a movie and, I think, it's one thing to read it in the accompanying text but another to actually see it (i.e., it enhances the reader's understanding). (I will be adding to that section a free image of the movie being shot in a street someone uploaded to Flickr). Daniel Case (talk) 21:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems the Flickr user in question had changed the licensing to CC-BY-NC, so I have left a comment asking him to change it. It wasn't a good closeup, really ... Anne Hathaway in the middle of a huge crowd on a street corner. It would not be as encyclopedic as the movie stills.

Yes, I'm very aware that Flickr users don't understand copyright. Not like we do ... I've uploaded hundreds of images to Commons, quite a few from Flickr. And I'm also aware that the limitations of our shortsighted image policy require that you use an equivalent free image if it's available. Nothing I found on Flickr that's usable yet would be.

So we can keep the Blunt picture as long as I get some stills showing Meryl Streep and/or Anne Hathaway in costume? Will try. Daniel Case (talk) 12:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Fair use rationale for Image:Chemtool.png

You wrote: Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Chemtool.png. 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) 12:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. It was my mistake... the image is plain PD not fair-use. The program, ChemTool is open source and I made th screenshot. Hope eveythign is oK now. Cheers. Karol (talk) 18:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for Egypt Air Logo .--Elmondo21st (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

You should consider whether it is appropriate to continue editing this page. Information is available on what to do if a page you created is deleted. The deletion log for this page is provided here for convenience:

   * 23:09, 10 July 2008 Melesse (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:1647Almanack.jpg" ‎ (Speedy deleted per (CSD I4), was an image lacking sources or licensing information for more than seven days. using TW)

---

The image was public domain (published in 1647); nobody owns it, no permission is required. Could you please restore it? Proyster (talk) 02:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you please explain more fully...

Could you please explain more fully why you characterized Image:Colombian security official appearing to wear Red Cross ID as a ruse.jpg as "replaceable"?

Could you please confirm that you looked closely enough at this case to understand that the grainy image on the right was from the video taken by the Colombian security officials, during the rescue -- and it thus clearly NOT replaceable?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 12:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Image removal Andrew Regan

Hi Melesse, you have removed an image from the Andrew Regan wikipeida page on June 21. Can you please explain why and why it has been deleted all together as we had rights to use the iamge.

Thanks Fionamcgowan (talk) 13:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Image problem

Hi, Melesse. I see that you have speedied the image , with the comment (Speedy deleted per (CSD I7), was an image with an invalid fair use rationale and the uploader was notified more than 48 hours ago. using TW). User:Giano—who is not the uploader—has asked me to restore it, because he thinks (from the amateurish quality) that it must be a self-taken photo, although it was apparently uploaded with an erroneous Fair Use rationale. Going to look, I intended to write to the uploader, Habanerosrl and ask him/her to re-upload it, this time with a proper rationale, if he has indeed taken the photo himself. But I'm flummoxed by seeing that Habanerosrl's talkpage is a redlink. Nobody has ever sent any notification to it, as far as I can understand. So, well, how can he have been notified more than 48 hours ago..? And is there any point in me creating the talkpage and posting on it? I must have missed something here. Can you throw any light, and assist us in getting the image back, if possible? Giano's viewpoint is that the page needs it. Bishonen | talk 09:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC).

Ugh... This again. I wish people would read, the upload prompt pops up a big red warning saying that pictures of living people and existing buildings can't have a fair use license. So of course there's no notification, the upload form assumes (wrongly) that people will read the warning and stop there. Do go ahead with asking them to re-upload with a proper license though. Melesse (talk) 04:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for getting in touch. But I hope you won't mind me saying that it would be a good idea to stop saying the uploader was notified, if they weren't. (Twinkle isn't responsible for anything you say; you are.) I mean, either stop saying it or (better) start doing it. Regards, Bishonen | talk 09:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC).

Reducing size of fair use photos

Hi Melesse,

I don't know if you are doing it manually, or using a script to do this... but you should either not forget or edit your script to account for fair use tags... The DoD images I uploaded, which you reduced, need to have their tags updated to reflect this. --Carbonrodney (talk) 12:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

In the tag, one of the keys is 'reduced size' or something, so if you are reducing the size you should also change that to something along the line of 'Yes'. But I have changed the sizes back to the original because the copyright release says they need to not be modified. Thanks anyway. --Carbonrodney (talk) 09:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Hl2ep2 jalopy.jpg

You deleted this file because the same / a better image exists. Could you point me toward it? --Tom Edwards (talk) 18:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)