Could you do me a favour, and tell me what to tag it with. Cheers. Cs-wolves 20:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for
featured picture status,
Image:VietnamchildsoldierEdit.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.
MER-C 07:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
|
Can you help me out by giving the link to the IfD for this image you wanted to be deleted? -- Matt57 ( talk• contribs) 19:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
You can delete this image if you wish as it isn't possible to get anymore licencing information about it. If it is deleted please leave a message telling me this on my user-talk page - User_talk:Dreamweaverjack.
Thanks Dreamweaverjack 22:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for
featured picture status,
Image:V-2victimAntwerp1944.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.
MER-C 08:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
|
Hey, I noticed you making a change to the fair use justification for this image (I see you seem to specialise in tuning the licences for images on Wikipedia — good job, it's a thankless one!) which I have reverted. There are a couple reasons for this: Wikipedia itself does not have commercial interests. Wikipedia itself is indeed an educational and non-profit organisation, meaning that justification was perfectly acceptable: it is Wikimedia that is for-profit. Also, you changed another justification to 'is copyrighted by CNN' which is not desirable, because you actually removed that justification (that the image is already in common use and so Wikipedia is not devaluing it in any way), and so weakened the fair use rationale. Angus Lepper( T, C, D) 09:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your interested and help with documenting this image status. Could you explain to me your rationale for PD? In the past, I have seen other images from German WWII newsreels, from very similar sources, deleted - an argument that could bring them back would be very useful. Particularly I'd appreciate your comments on the image discussed at the very bottom of this deletion review.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 17:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
So, if this is from the German government, what is the source stating this? WhisperToMe 03:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree, I can't stand fair use, but it really is a shame that no freely-licensed image is available. Delete at your pleasure. - Francis Tyers · 08:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Stop removing this image. It is fair use. Use talk of the article if it is not. -- Matt57 ( talk• contribs) 03:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Please start using the image deletion templates that Iamunknown pointed out: {{ ifdc}}, {{ di-no license-caption }} and {{ deletable image-caption}}. -- Matt57 ( talk• contribs) 14:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
The Working Man's Barnstar | ||
For tirelessly ensuring that images which claim fair use are compliant with our fair use guidelines. I may not always agree with you, but your work is invaluable. Haemo 22:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC) |
Please stop adding the photo of a World War II soldier to the Neo-Nazism article. Perhaps that photo can be added to an article related to the World War II period, but it has absolutely nothing to do with neo-Nazism, and does not belong in that article. Spylab 11:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering why I never got a reply from you, but I found it recently ( [3]). If I may offer two suggestions:
Thank you, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 17:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Please, as per the closing template, do not re-open the TfD. If you disagree with the result of the recent TfD, you should read WP:DRV.
You modified that result in violation of the clear instructions in the page:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
You also claim that the process doesn't provide for a time frame between deletion. It does:
WP:DELETE: Renominations: After a deletion debate concludes and the page is kept, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome."
I am being tolerant because I am assuming you do not know the process, based on your comments in the TfD.
This is intended to make clear to you the applicable policy. Further violations on your part will be acted upon in a different fashion, as you should by now read WP:DELETE, WP:DRV and related pages on the deletion proces.
I am acting under WP:SNOWBALL, which allows any editor to take any action that reverts something that doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of being upheld. Opening a TfD after less than four day of the closure of the previous one, and reverting a TfD close, are both things that don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of being upheld.
There is a procedure for all this, and its called WP:DRV... please read and follow it. Thanks!-- Cerejota 16:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
== Repeated disruptive behavior ==
Due to your repeated disruptive behavior around the TfD for {{
Allegations of apartheid}}, I have raised an AN/I against you. I am sorry I had to do this, and was tolerant with you. All you had to do was follow the correct procedure and go to
WP:DRV.--
Cerejota 17:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC) it was closed, stick to one place next time
Bleh999 00:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I wa snot forum shopping like you were told by an admin to stop doing. Please, do not throw stones in glass houses.--
Cerejota 19:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
A {{
prod}} template has been added to the article
Allegations of Puerto Rican apartheid, suggesting that it be deleted according to the
proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the
proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the
speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to
Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if
consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{
db-author}}.
Cerejota 14:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for doing some research on this one to figure out that it's from a newsreel in NARA and not the USHMM. However, if you look at the actual NARA records (such as [4] -- there are 91 different search results for "Die Deutsche Wochenschau"), they say, "Use Restrictions: Undetermined". As such, I don't think this qualifies as PD-US. Regards, howcheng { chat} 23:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
That's because wikipedia is banned in mainland China
That was priceless. That speaks volumes on the credibilty of information issue. -- Xiahou 21:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I will remove content from articles whenever I consider it appropriate to so so, as do all other Wikipedia editors. I am not going to have a revert war with you, but if you insist on including that paragraph, you are under an obligation to make it grammatical. Do so. Intelligent Mr Toad 03:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)