User talk:Peripitus/Archive11

Sandy_Springs%2C_Georgia#History

Peripitus. I find it problematic that relevant text would be removed because it is a negative story related to the history of privatization of city services because a city employee and an public relations firm for Atlanta want it removed. Someone researching the effects of privatization in their city would find this particular story of note, and given how much of the history page is devoted to that it seems very important to include and not triival.h_lina_k (talk) 13:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Hunter Davies 2014.jpg

Thank you Peripitus for informing me that my upload may violate copyright requirements. I know I should've asked first before uploading but I didn't recall seeing anything regarding that online newspaper articles were valid or not. If you want I can show you exactly where I got it from by sending you the link and maybe it might help the situation. My apologies Helping to make Wikipedia better one page at a time. 01:19, 22 June 2014 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulZMarsh (talk • contribs)

Peripitus. I need assistance for an upload. please contact newleafpictures@hotmail.com Martin Copping — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marvinto77 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:HealthPartnersRegions.jpg

Thank you Peripitus for informing me that my upload may violate copyright requirements. I know I should've asked first before uploading but I didn't recall seeing anything regarding that this was a potential violation. All I wanted to do was just add a picture of the hospital with the new logo to the article since I deleted the picture that was there previously with our old logo. My apologies for Helping to make Wikipedia better one page at a time. 03:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:|NJBudion]] (talk • contribs)

Peripitus. I need assistance for an upload. please contact nickjbudion@gmail.com Nick Budion — Preceding unsigned comment added by NJBudion (talk • contribs) 03:045, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hagley, Tasmania

The article Hagley, Tasmania you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hagley, Tasmania for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ɱ -- Ɱ (talk) 12:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! As you saw, there are 14 other articles related to Briarcliff (six of which are GA nominated); whenever you have another GA nominee and want a reviewer, I'd be glad to do this trade-off reviewing again.--ɱ (talk) 20:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

@Ɱ: - you are most welcome and thank you for your help with the Hagley article. I am impressed at your ambition in getting the Briarcliff article set all finished.....I started with the Meander Valley Council (16+ articles) but think I'll run out of enthusiasm before the end ! - Peripitus (Talk) 08:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Greek Ultranationalism around the World.

I wanted to report the vandalism of a

> user of Wikipedia ,Alexikoua .I think that he has vandalised the > information about the ethnic groups in Albania by incresing the percentage > of greek population in Albania.I think that it is a clear vandalism and > GREEK NATIONALISM and i wanted your help about this problem. > I wanted you to solve this problem as soon as possibl because i think that > it is not just a vandalism,but a SERIOUS PROBLEM,NATIONALISM. > User:Zakoni. > > > > > P.s: Here is the correct informatoin.Source:ALBANIAN GOVERNMENT. > http://www.instat.gov.al/media/178070/rezultatet_kryesore_t__censusit_t__popullsis__dhe_banesave_2011_n__shqip_ri.pdf > > > This user has used sources that are not in accordance with the rates that > the user has added itself in Wikipedia.In addition most of the sources of > this user belongs to year 2002 or earlier.I wanted you to take > disciplinary action against this user ,Alexikoua.

Speedy deletion out of process.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Three City Center - Allentown PA

Hi. That is a conceptual drawing of a building that is not yet constructed. Bwmoll3 (talk) 09:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

OK that's fine take care Bwmoll3 (talk) 00:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

File:F(x) Red Light teaser image.jpg

Hi Peripitus, I added the reason for "No free equivalent" for this image, please review and let me know if it is permissible. Thanks.--TerryAlex (talk) 17:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

So it's not permissible. Thank you then.--TerryAlex (talk) 21:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to Adelaide Wikipedia Users Group meetings

Hi, in case you're not already aware of it, a group of Adelaide Wikipedians has been meeting on a monthly basis since April, with the aim of improving the scope and quality of articles on South Australian topics. We meet at UniSA's City West campus, and our 23 July meeting will have a guest speaker from the National Trust of SA.

This coming Sunday, 6 July, we will be holding our first Edit-a-thon. This will be an opportunity for new editors to come and learn either basic or more advanced editing from very experienced wikipedians, so if you know anyone who would like to get some practice, please let them know - and beginners will be very welcome. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 06:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Nita ambani.jpg

Peripitus! my simple question to you is, why you deleted the image before informing me? I would have contested it. CutestPenguin {talk • contribs} 12:01, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Possibly unfree files

It would be nice if you could you take a look at the PUF backlog. Regards, Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

About Shihan Mihiranga photo

I only did adding a photo of that singer. not violating. I got that from shihan's agreement from his official facebook page. Not from that youtube page. Remember it.

Deletion review for File:Hearts XP.png

An editor has asked for a deletion review of File:Hearts XP.png. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 00:59, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for File:Ally mcbeal cast 1997 original season 1.jpg

An editor has asked for a deletion review of File:Ally mcbeal cast 1997 original season 1.jpg. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. George Ho (talk) 06:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Briarcliff Manor

Peripitus,

Thank you so much for your help making Briarcliff Manor a Good Article. If you wouldn't mind, I would be very glad if you could write on its FA review. I had to renominate it, the first FA nomination just didn't get enough attention. Any comment you could give would be great, and there's no restriction on who can comment or their level of involvement in writing the article. Here's the link: [1]

Thank you.--ɱ (talk) 22:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 August 16#File:Hearts XP.png

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 August 16#File:Hearts XP.png. Thanks. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Hobart meetup

Hi Peripitus, I'm just wondering, are you in the Hobart area? And do you do meetups? I'm trying to organise a Hobart meetup in late Dec or early Jan. I'm just asking a few of the more active Tasmanian editors first before I lock down a date/time (I've put forward Tasman Quartermasters as a venue as they are nice and casual). Please check the link and put your name down if you are interested! -- Chuq (talk) 13:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Hobart meetup

Hello! This is a message to inform you of a Wikipedia Hobart meetup which will be held on 10 January. New and experienced editors are welcome! Please check the meetup page for more information.

This message has been sent to members of Category:Wikipedians in Tasmania by Chuq (talk) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Ellay.jpg

There was no consensus to delete that file. I ask that you restore the image. There was discussion of the image. That was not disputed. It's hard to believe that image was there for years ... then one editor decides its gone. --evrik ^(talk) 01:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@Evrik:. The text you used to back up inclusion of the image is uncited (and was marked as such by yourself) making me wonder if it can actually be reliably sourced. Do you have such a source for this commentary ? The nominator, in shorthand, stated that the image

• did not significantly add to reader's understanding of the topic. You responded that the image was described in the article. This is not the same as showing how it significantly add's to understanding.
• That cover art is, per the Non-free content guideline "not for identification without critical commentary". Such commentary must be reliably sourced -- Peripitus (Talk) 09:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • How about now, Internal Exile (Los Illegals)? --evrik ^(talk) 21:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
• @Evrik: . It'd be more normal to use the image of the album [2] for the article on the album which you could upload and add. - Peripitus (Talk) 05:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Studios 301 staff photos

Hi there! I'm responding to the message you left me in regards to the photos I uploaded. I claimed them as my own work, only for the purposes of using them in my sandbox. I was sent them by Studios 301 via email, and given permission to upload them as my own work until such time as I use them on a 'live' page Sharkywoo (talk) 09:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Autechre EPs 1991-2002 box set.jpg

I won't argue with that interpretation of the 1st rule. I do believe the article should have a graphical representation but until a free one is found I am cool with the image removed and replaced with just text for now. There Is No Me talk 05:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of file? ABC News 24 - submitted for deletion 21 Jan

Hi,

As I understand it, deleting requires consensus, it not reached a consensus, and I had justified, in my view, all negative comments.

So why did you delete it?

Michael ˥ Ǝ Ʉ H Ɔ I Ɯ (talk) 08:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@Mimarx: rather than justifying the comments what you need to do is show how it passes the criteria that the nominator thinks it doesn't. Specifically you need to show both how it significantly increases reader's understanding of the topic in a way that freely licensed material, like text, does not. "Significantly" is a much stricter requirement than the article simply discussing an image. For deletion discussions of non-free images all arguments have to be measured against the specifics of the non-free image criteria. - Peripitus (Talk) 09:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

a. there is no freely licenced material (other than text). b. when I used text, people deleted it as uncited. c. if it, the text, is deleted, it "significantly" prevents the readers understanding.

While I can't access the discussion now, it was IIRC, three points were raised. 1. size (second poster - other than me) - as I explained, any smaller and you could not read "POLICE" the topic of the text/section. 2. WP:NFCCP #8 & 9, (original nomination)

1. 9 is wrong, it is/was only used in article space, in one article, (it was in my sandbox, perhaps causing that claim)
2. 8 is the "significantly increase readers' understanding" - as I explained above, if the image is deleted, others delete the topic.

Anyway, this whole place has turned into a bureaucratic nightmare, I give up, deleting my account, by....˥ Ǝ Ʉ H Ɔ I Ɯ (talk) 09:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Agglomerated marble stone process.jpg

Dear Peripitus,

Could you please undelete this file? There is a valid looking OTRS-ticket releasing the file under a free license.

Regards, Natuur12 (talk) 20:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Brown County State Park

Thank you for reviewing Brown County State Park. It was great working with you! TwoScars (talk) 22:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Whitemore, Tasmania

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Whitemore, Tasmania you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Casliber -- Casliber (talk) 09:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Whitemore, Tasmania

The article Whitemore, Tasmania you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Whitemore, Tasmania for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Casliber -- Casliber (talk) 12:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

M.A.D. (Veronica Mars)

Your deletion reason makes sense, and I think it should be deleted. I responded to your nomination, so could you possibly respond to my comments there? I look forward to reading your feedback. :) BenLinus1214^talk 17:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Hobart area articles

Hello, in advance of a possible project in the Hobart area, we're looking to identify and improve a specific range of articles, mainly those associated with locations in the Hobart City Council region. If you'd like to find out more, please join in the discussion at WikiProject Tasmania, or check out the list of articles at QR list. If you'd prefer to not receive these notifications in the future, please let me know.

This message has been sent to members of Category:Wikipedians in Tasmania, Category:Wikipedians in Hobart, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Tasmania participants by Chuq (talk) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Weird edit

Something went wrong here: [3] DMacks (talk) 05:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC) @Dmacks: - That is bizarre. Fixed now thanks. Perhaps the database server needs more coffee - Peripitus (Talk) 06:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix! Everyone's everything needs more coffee always That's one of the laws of the universe I think. DMacks (talk) 06:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Weird delete

Dear Peripitus, freely licensed images are used on Wikipedia Commons, not on Wikipedia. So for this reason, i have downloaded the images on Wikipedia. Thus in near future, before deleting any images, you first read the guidelines of Wikipedia and Wikipedia Commons. There are options available on Wikipedia uploading wizard which states that wikipedia accept images of living people taken from websites, or from screenshots or from magazines or many other places and there are certain articles which has images taken from websites, or from screenshots or from magazines, which is also not deleted.User:Vivaan Viswanath (talk) 03:48, 3 March 2015

File:Club House de Cercle de la Voile de Paris à Meulan.jpg

Hi,

I still have some doubt if this file should have been deleted. You state that deletion was executed because of the following reasons: NFCC#8 and NFCC#1.

• WP:NFCC#8: Contextual significance. When describing the venue of e.g. the 2014 FIFA World Cup#Venues it is normal to emphasize the contextual significance by posting pictures of the stadia. In that light a picture of the clubhouse for the Olympic sailors in 1924 must certainly be signicicant in my opinion. Besides that. This is a picture of almost a century ago!
• WP:NFCC#1: No free equivalent. As I stated earlier I am researching this topic for many years now and I have not found a free equivalent from that time period. This picture is from 1924 or earlier end reflect the time and atmosphere of that era. The building still exists but the configuration is different.

If we look further:

• WP:NFCC#2: Respect for commercial opportunities. If I had to make an estimate on the commercial opportunities of this specific picture I would not invest in this. Chances of making this a commercial success are slim.
• WP:NFCC#7: One-article minimum. No issue! The picture will be used in :Sailing at the 1900 Summer Olympics and Sailing at the 1924 Summer Olympics

I like to ask you kindly to reconsider your verdict.

Regards,

_/)_/)_/) ˷˷˷˷˷˷˷˷ _/) NED33^talk 14:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

@NED33: - in both articles the image was simply used in an infobox, with no commentary at all on the image, less still sourced commentary. To pass the NFCC#8 criteria the image must significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Arguments that an image does significantly increase understanding while there is no commentary about the image itself are, by long standing consensus, difficult to accept. NFCC#1 - for the image to pass this you need to show how using an image of the building as it exists now is significantly detrimental to reader's understanding of the topic, compared to using the non-free image that I deleted. - Peripitus (Talk) 21:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

File:UAEU_Reem_Al_Marzouqi.png

Hi, I don't get why you've deleted File:UAEU Reem_Al Marzouqi.png as F7 "invalid fair-use claim". What's the problem in the non-free use rationale? One problem I'm aware of, I can't read the text in the source from the Emirate university, the photo could be actually free instead of only fair use. –Be..anyone (talk) 11:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Update: undeletion requested, the image tag bot assumes that the uploader has two or even seven days to fix the issue, an immediate F7 deletion for a given {{non-free use rationale}} can't be as it should be. –Be..anyone (talk) 12:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 2 April

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Bracknell, Tasmania page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Leslie Jones (actor)

Still having trouble understanding this free thing. http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/about shows free images of all the current SNL cast members so would http://www.nbc.com/sites/nbcunbc/files/files/styles/nbc_person_teaser/public/images/2014/10/31/leslie_jones_1050x1050.jpg qualify as a free image since it is displayed there and this isn't a pay-site? Ranze (talk) 11:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

File:German soldier on guard at the Atlantic Wall, 1944.gif

Could you please be specific as to why you deleted the photo? There was no delete votes. On the contrary, I argued for it to remain and threw in a keep vote. Cheers, Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 16:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

If you fail to produce a valid reason I will have it restored. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 20:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

@Jonas Vinther:. Because you failed to give a policy related reason why the image should be kept. Stephan nominated the image on the basis of NFCC#8. To dispute this you need to show (a) that the image significantly increases reader's understanding of the topic that its removal would be detrimental to said understanding. Your response that the image "helps" reader's understand did not, in my view, address the nomination point. The fact that there was zero sourced commentary of the image is usually in these debates, and was in this case, a strong point in favour of the image failing NFCC#8. If reliable sources cannot be found that discuss that image used in that way, it is usually unsupportable to claim that it is required here - Peripitus (Talk) 23:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Nizamabad

Why did you delete File:H.Gangaram Nizamabad.jpg ? This image was entirely uploaded by me.Is there any way of getting that file back ?--Rizwanmahai (talk) 13:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Nanded

I want you to have a look at this article,Nanded.Just have alook at the Educational section,they have written almost all the name of colleges and schools in their town.--Rizwanmahai (talk) 13:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• @Rizwanmahai: - I'm not sure I see any problem, except that the list is ugly and the article largely unreferenced - Peripitus (Talk) 09:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok. --Rizwanmahai (talk) 14:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Meander, Tasmania

The article Meander, Tasmania you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Meander, Tasmania for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jakec -- Jakec (talk) 20:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Deleting the Cropped photograph.

There is no need to say sorry for deleting the photograph, if its wrong to upload that photo, its right to delete it.

Secondly, need your advice for this photo, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sukumar_Sen.jpg, it has 3 copyright templates. Can it be used? and can it be cropped for the article Sukumar Sen?

Karan Kamath (talk · contribs)

@Karan Kamath:. That image shows the absurdity of international copyright law. By Wikipedia standards it is not freely licenced, and will not be so until 2047, though it is in the public domain in India. It, or a cropped version, can only really be used in the Sukumar Sen (civil servant) article and it a cropped version is used the original would need to be removed - Peripitus (Talk) 04:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Invitation

Please delete; will find a free one

File:Child actress Hadley Delany.gif. Cheers in advance. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 11:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Photo of Hugh Segal

The image I added has a very generous license for non-Commercial use. It's frustrating that the Wikipedia image upload system is poorly matched for use with Creative Commons licenses.

Ilnyckyj (talk) 16:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

{{tps}} It's perfectly matched for the CC licenses that are acceptable. Not all CC are as free as others, and WP by policy needs to be more free than some of them allow. It's frustrating when one cannot find an image that looks the way one would like that is sufficiently freely licensed, but that's how freedom works...we're always at the mercy of those who create images and must respect their wishes about if/how they can be used. And it's also against policy to claim that a non-free image is legitimate fair-use when there are free alternatives available. The best way is to take a picture yourself...then you can declare it to be as free as you like, including being free enough for WP use. DMacks (talk) 16:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

"The best way is to take a picture yourself...then you can declare it to be as free as you like, including being free enough for WP use."

This is exactly what I did. I took this picture and released it under a Creative Commons license: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hugh_Segal,_Master_of_Massey_College.jpg

It's much better than this picture, which seems specifically chosen to make the subject look bad: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hugh_Segal_%28cropped%29.jpg

So can I put my photo back in this article?

Ilnyckyj (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

You tagged it in several ways that indicate it is not free. That's exactly the problem: the image is claimed to be "not free enough to use here". If it's your image, it's up to you how to license it, but if you don't license it freely (which means not restricted to edu or non-commercial, for example), then it can't be used. And you, as creator of the actual original photograph could choose a free license if you wish it used here. DMacks (talk) 21:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this argument really isn't convincing. You're saying that I need to allow the free use of the photo by anyone in any circumstance, including for their profit, or it can't be part of a Wikipedia page? This seems to be a matter of personal ideology about copyright, rather than about whether the image is legally suitable for inclusion on this page. I have a detailed usage guide for my photography which specifically covers how non-commercial use, like a Wikipedia page, is free: http://www.sindark.com/NonBlog/milan-ilnyckyj-photo-0-5.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilnyckyj (talk • contribs) 00:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ilnyckyj:. This is not Dmack's ideology, but rather one of the basic foundations of Wikipedia, as evidenced by the words "The Free Encyclopedia". Wikipedia aims for all text and images, where possible, to be freely licensed and this includes allowing commercial reuse for profit. Images like yours that have commercial restrictions are, in general, not used and not hosted on Wikipedia - Peripitus (Talk) 01:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

This particular image has already been licensed, and I can't capriciously re-license it after the fact. I will have to get another photo of Hugh Segal and release it on a special webpage advertising to beings throughout the universe that they can use it freely and without limitation. Ilnyckyj (talk) 02:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

@Ilnyckyj:. It is your image and you can do as you please, including changing the licence as you see fit. - Peripitus (Talk) 10:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

@Peripitus: This is not true. The license says: "You must abide the Licence during its term despite the expiry, initial invalidity or later invalidation of any intellectual property rights". I will get a new photo in the fall and release it for unlimited use. Ilnyckyj (talk) 01:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Break

Please why are you just deleting everything I contributed? You just deleted all my files which some I took with my own camera. The page you claimed I copied image for Nafisa Abdullahi, I have the file since 2013 before they upload it. Then what of my 5 other files? Tell me where I copied them? I have been editing wikipedia anynomously since 2012, I just decided to register in 2015 to contribute more but you're just unkind. Ammarpad 17:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ammarpad (talk • contribs)

• It doesn't seemed to me that Peripitus is unkind but if you feel they are a bit strict, sorry about that. However, It appears to me that you are not familiar with the copyright policy, you appeared to be adding a non-free images to articles and that's why they end up been deleted. If you are a copyright holder of a file and they have not been previously published elsewhere, feel free to upload them directly here or at Wikicommon following the correct procedure. I remind you that, you need to respect the copyright policies and repeated addition of a non-free contents or file to wikipedia could result in a block without any further warning because wikipedia takes copyright infringement very seriously for legal reasons. Sorry if I butt in here. Thanks! Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Please delete

File:Members of the 1st SS Panzer Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler standing at attention at Hitler's private mountain retreat, the "Berghof".gif. Is replaceable with free media. Cheers in advance. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 12:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to move to dated pending and received categories

Hi Peripitus, I am sending you this message because you are one of the admins, OTRS volunteers, or other editors who regularly deals with image issues. I would like to propose that we move to monthly {{OTRS pending}} and {{OTRS received}} categories and that we have a bot help out with automatically tagging images for deletion where the tag has been in place longer than the current {{OTRS backlog}}. The purpose of this exercise is twofold: (1) it reduces potential duplication of effort in checking on images and (2) it prevents images for which we do not receive appropriate permission from sitting around longer than need be. My idea is at Wikipedia:OTRS_noticeboard#Proposal to move to dated pending and received categories and I would welcome your input. Thanks, --B (talk) 12:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the Deleted Photograph

A Very Good Day to You !!

I have seen 100s of such Images in Wiki,Actually this is a very Important Image,Which undoubtedly increase the Quality of the Article,Anyway its OK,I am not going to upload it again.MediaJet talk 11:12, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Basilica of the Co-Cathedral of the Sacred Heart (Charleston, West Virginia)

So, in English, what does this mean? Eventually I'll be uploading a few more files from people who are sending me files, so I'll need to know the proper way/steps for uploading to satisfy the criteria. As to this file, I did receive permission from Diocese of Wheeling-Charleston. I still have the email if you want me to forward it to you. Roberto221 (talk) 23:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Image licences

Thanks for notifying as I am still new to uploading photos on Wikipedia, really appreciate your advice. Good day!! Silaslej (talk) 12:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

About File:A Melhor Banda de Todos os Tempos da Última Semana Cover.jpg

Hello! A few months ago, you closed this discussion as delete, but my comment appears to have been ignored. The proposer stated that it was a second album cover, but such statement is false, because the deleted file was actually used to illustrate the infobox of a single from that album. Is it possible to review that deletion? Thank you, Victão Lopes ^Fala! 19:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@Victor Lopes:. The deletion reason by B was 3-fold. The first that it was a second cover (we shouldn't be too pedantic as album is used here interchangably from single) in an article that already had an adequate non-free image, the second that it failed WP:NFCC#3 ("Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information") and the last that it failed WP:NFCC# ("Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."). The general consensus here is that we only use singles covers for standalone articles about the single, which no longer exists for this image, unless there is a compelling need for the image - Peripitus (Talk) 05:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

What about articles on songs in which there are sections about one or multiple cover versions released as singles by other artists? Are those covers OK? See Come Together#Aerosmith version for an example. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 07:00, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@Victor Lopes:. There is no blanket rule. The consensus is that a single image of the primary subject is kept, any additional images have to significantly increase reader's understanding. Many hundreds (at least) of such images have been deleted. I suspect that the image you've mentioned would not survive a deletion discussion. - Peripitus (Talk) 23:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, thank you for clarifying it to me. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 02:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

KSI picture

hi, KSI posted on twitter that can anyone change the pic because the previous one is Sh*t. so i found this pic on google and changed. could you help me choose what licence i choose Immu 01 (talk) 10:11, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Thomas Kailath picture quick question

Hey Perpitius Rabtman here, thanks for letting me know about the picture, I thought it would be better to ask you about one quick question I had. So If i showed some permission i got from the author of the image himself, would i be able to keep the image? -Thanks, Rabt man (talk) 22:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Kailath picture

So how should I obtain the free license from the copyright holder? Is there some kind of purpose or can i just ask? Sorry about the confusion and thanks for the help.Rabt man (talk) 01:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

@Rabt man:. There are some examples of request in Wikipedia:Example requests for permission. The copyright holder can release the image using the format in WP:CONSENT or some other method that conveys their intentions - Peripitus (Talk) 01:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Patience Kpobi

Hi. If I read the logs correctly, you deleted File:Patience Kpobi.jpg and warned User:011nyegagh about it. That warning had no effect as the editor uploaded a copyrighted image under that same file name pretty much right after you deleted it. -- Whpq (talk) 02:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

@Whpq:. Supermarioman has taken the next step I would have, a short block to hopefully get their attention. I expect in this case we have a user paying no attention to the "you have new messages" line. It's troubling that in their time here there are no talk page edits to other users, or even their own talk page. This is usually a sign that we're going to struggle to get them to work with us -Peripitus (Talk) 04:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Thomas Kailath picture

Hey Perpitius, I had sent an email to the Stanford University contact page, and I may have done the file upload wizard wrong, so is there a chance if I will be able to re-do the questions on the file upload wizard to the extent where it is more accurate? ThanksRabt man (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Kailath picture

Hey Peripitus, can u please delete that image? I dont think I filed the image correctly. Thanks Rabt man (talk) 01:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

HI You can delete the empty page https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leila_Maknoun thanks !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popezo (talk • contribs) 15:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

@Popezo:. THat page is on the French Wikipedia and appears to have already been deleted - Peripitus (Talk) 23:36, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

@Peripitus no i mean that's it can disepear that page completly !!

File ShraeyKhanna.jpg

This file is a free work. Although its owner gave it to me but there is no such copyright associated with it. Hence, he can not send me the permission too. Therefore he only told me to reupload it with changed attribution. Can you please help me what to do now? Nameishidden (talk) 13:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

@Nameishidden:. You need to get the image's owner to submit it, or a link to the image, via permissions-en@wikimedia.org using the sort of release noted in Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. - Peripitus (Talk) 10:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Dick Allen

Ok he's alive. Understood. Sorry about that. Connor7617 (talk) 11:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

JSTOR

You should have received an email with a link to a Google form to complete - could you please either do so or email me if you did not receive it? Note that, because there are more applicants than available accounts, not responding could result in your slot being passed to a waiting editor. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Ping. Please respond in the next week if you still want an account. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Aussie Coast Guard pic

I would like to use your pic in a book I am writing. May I? and how do I give credit? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.208.16.189 (talk) 14:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Image File Deletion

I'd like to remove this file I uploaded as it is no longer needed. Please delete. MrBean65 (talk) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jonah_Bryson-Profile.jpg

@MrBean65:. Can you please login as the original uploader User:Jonah Bryson and tag the image with {{db-author}} and an admin will come along and do this. Alternatively it will be deleted soon anyway as missing permission - Peripitus (Talk) 11:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Reminder: Please sign new Wikimedia confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information by 31 December

This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.

I wanted to follow-up on an message I sent you in September regarding the need for you to sign a confidentiality agreement by 31 December 2015 in order to maintain your access from Wikimedia to nonpublic information, and specifically to the OTRS system.

As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are transitioning to the new policy.

An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.

The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 31 December 2015 to retain their access. You are receiving this message because you have access to nonpublic information by way of the OTRS system and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy. If you do not sign the new confidentiality agreement by 31 December 2015, you will lose your OTRS access.

Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign

If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnumwikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 31 December 2015 to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.

If you wish to stop receiving these notices, you may remove yourself from this list. Please note that doing so will not prevent you from losing OTRS rights and access after the 31 December 2015 deadline.

Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery, 06:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC) • Please help translate to other languages. • Help

URGENT: Please sign new Wikimedia confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information by 31 December

This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.

I wanted to follow-up on an message I sent you in September regarding the need for you to sign a confidentiality agreement by 31 December 2015 in order to maintain your access from Wikimedia to nonpublic information, and specifically to the OTRS system.

As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are transitioning to the new policy.

An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.

The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 31 December 2015 to retain their access. You are receiving this message because you have access to nonpublic information by way of the OTRS system and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy. If you do not sign the new confidentiality agreement by 31 December 2015, you will lose your OTRS access.

Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign

If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnumwikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 31 December 2015 to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.

If you wish to stop receiving these notices, you may remove yourself from this list. Please note that doing so will not prevent you from losing OTRS rights and access after the 31 December 2015 deadline.

Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery, 20:07, 26 December 2015 (UTC) • Please help translate to other languages. • Help

URGENT: Please sign new Wikimedia confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information by 31 December

This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.

I wanted to follow-up on an message I sent you in September regarding the need for you to sign a confidentiality agreement by 31 December 2015 in order to maintain your access from Wikimedia to nonpublic information, and specifically to the OTRS system.

As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are transitioning to the new policy.

An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.

The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 31 December 2015 to retain their access. You are receiving this message because you have access to nonpublic information by way of the OTRS system and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy. If you do not sign the new confidentiality agreement by 31 December 2015, you will lose your OTRS access.

Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign

Even if you have signed the confidentiality agreement for functionaries (general agreement), you must also sign the OTRS agreement to retain your OTRS access.

If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnumwikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 31 December 2015 to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.

If you wish to stop receiving these notices, you may remove yourself from this list. Please note that doing so will not prevent you from losing OTRS rights and access after the 31 December 2015 deadline.

Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery, 21:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC) • Please help translate to other languages. • Help

URGENT: Please sign new Wikimedia confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information by 31 December

This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.

I wanted to follow-up on an message I sent you in September regarding the need for you to sign a confidentiality agreement by 31 December 2015 in order to maintain your access from Wikimedia to nonpublic information, and specifically to the OTRS system.

As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are transitioning to the new policy.

An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.

The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 31 December 2015 to retain their access. You are receiving this message because you have access to nonpublic information by way of the OTRS system and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy. If you do not sign the new confidentiality agreement by 31 December 2015, you will lose your OTRS access.

Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign

Even if you have signed the confidentiality agreement for functionaries (general agreement), you must also sign the OTRS agreement to retain your OTRS access.

If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnumwikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 31 December 2015 to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.

If you wish to stop receiving these notices, you may remove yourself from this list. Please note that doing so will not prevent you from losing OTRS rights and access after the 31 December 2015 deadline.

Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery, 08:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC) • Please help translate to other languages. • Help

FINAL NOTICE: Please sign new Wikimedia confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information by TOMORROW

This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.

I wanted to send one final follow-up on a message I sent you in September regarding the need for you to sign a confidentiality agreement by 31 December 2015 in order to maintain your access from Wikimedia to nonpublic information, and specifically to the OTRS system.

As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are transitioning to the new policy.

An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.

The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 31 December 2015 to retain their access. You are receiving this message because you have access to nonpublic information by way of the OTRS system and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy. If you do not sign the new confidentiality agreement by 31 December 2015, you will lose your OTRS access.

Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign

Even if you have signed the confidentiality agreement for functionaries (general agreement), you must also sign the OTRS agreement to retain your OTRS access.

If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnumwikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 31 December 2015 to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.

If you wish to stop receiving these notices, you may remove yourself from this list. Please note that doing so will not prevent you from losing OTRS rights and access after the 31 December 2015 deadline.

Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery, 09:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC) • Please help translate to other languages. • Help