User talk:hmwith/February09

The two phrases that mark it as spam, to me, are "used to widespread acclaim" and "get one used to normal exercise forever, without calorie counting". Those are quotes from publicity or advertising blurbs. There is nothing resembling actual reliable sources, nothing about nutritionists' opinions of the author's claims, etc. There were a bunch of these diet articles nominated about the same time, and I exercised my best judgement on each one, declining several nominations on grounds of notability and/or balance. This one lacks both. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbert Curgenven (correction)

Hi you speedy deleted the above article which was for a cricketer who met the notability criteria. However the initial draft of the article obvously failed to reflect this. Can you tell me who was the user responsible as s/he clearly needs guidance, and possibly a restoration of confidence. Regards Motmit (talk) 17:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that a page called Gilbert Curvengen or gilbert curvengen ever existed. What was the page called? hmwith τ 18:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - it was Curgenven. Regards Motmit (talk) 08:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I apologize for archiving this. It was an accidental oversight. :) Thanks for the correction. The initial creator was User:Popschief. I hope this helps, hmwith τ 19:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - seems it was all s/he did but I have left a message Motmit (talk) 20:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome Tuckseelingh picture deleted

Ok, how about a little more guidance than crass dumping of a picture, boss? You deleted this picture because it didn't have the right permission. Fair enough. but if you had bothered to look at the discussion area you will see that the owner of the picture is presently organizing permission and sending to Wikipedia. If you did see that discussion then why did you not bother to offer feedback on how to procede when the wikipedia guidelines are so hard to understand and interpret?

Anyway. Whats going to happen when the owner sends the permission and there's no photo there now? Does that mean a new photo will have to be uploaded (even though the owner doesnt know how to upload and I had to do it for him) or does Wikipedia archive the photo which will be matched to the pernmission when it arrives? Please try and be helpful. Goddessculture (talk) 21:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assume from your non-response that you are aware you ruined the possibility of the forthcoming permission being matched up automatically with the photo you deleted. Try being helpful next time Goddessculture (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Goddessculture. I just noticed a message that I believe you accidentally posted to my archives rather than my talk page. For that reason, I never recieved a notification that I received a message, nor did I ever notice it. I just saw it right now by chance while scanning for a specific past discussion. Archives aren't to be posted on. Those are where users move old talk page conversations after they are responded to on talk pages. To respond to your concerns, if the permission goes through, you are welcome to reupload that image. Did OTRS ever get back to you? hmwith τ 16:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the404

On this page, I had upload an image under fair use. It had been previously posted to a blog, and therefor I was fuzzy on whether or not it was free. You do not have to pay to download it, but I did not create. Can you please help me figure out the correct license I would need. Also, under the removal, It said the uploader was given a 48hour notice, but I wasn't. Whats going on?The only thing I can think of, is that someone else upload the exact same image as I did and replaced mine with theirs. Frebel93 (talk) 23:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide a link to the image? I'm not sure about which file you are talking. Thanks, hmwith τ 23:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

riight.com

What is the difference between what was written for riight.com and other meta-search pages, such as info.com? Please let me know so that I may make the proper adjustments to the page and get the page completed and acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony199 (talk • contribs)

I moved your question to my talk page from the archives, where I think you accidentally posted it. It was deleted, because Wikipedia has notability guidelines, which riight.com, as it stood, did not meet. Info.com, on the other hand, was covered in multiple reliable sources, as illustrated in it's References section. I hope this clears up some confusion. Thanks, hmwith τ 18:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rocket Theatre

Not sure if I'm typing this in the right place. Apologies if I'm not. I just wanted to find out why the 'Rocket Theatre' entry that i added has been deleted and if I can do anything to re-instate it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockettheatre (talk • contribs)

I moved your question to my talk page from the archives, where I think you accidentally posted it. Rocket Theatre was deleted, because Wikipedia has notability guidelines, which, as that article stood, did not meet. Please let me know if there are further concerns, hmwith τ 18:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me find out why our page was deleted?

I am a little confused and am unsure if I'm even in the correct place.

Our page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_San_Fernando_Valley_Chamber_of_Commerce

was deleted due to "copyright infringement."

I'm confused on this deletion. All materials posted on wikipedia was posted by our organization - The Greater San Fernando Valley Chamber of Commerce.

How is copyright infringement determined? Can I see the deleted page to ensure it was what we posted and that nothing was changed after we approved it before posting?

Thank you for your help.

Sanfernandovalleychamber (talk) 06:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There were no other edits besides the original one by you & the person flagging it as copyright infringement of this page. It seems that you also work for the company, based on the username, which may be a conflict of interest. hmwith τ 05:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Former User DashaKat - can you help me contact them?

Hello Hmwith, Fixed_fantasy has an Unreferenced citation. Its original, and most substantive, poster was DashaKat whom you deleted on 12/11/2007. Is there any way I can contact that user? I am hoping he/she can help me find the proper references so the citation can be removed.

(Please accept my apology if your talk pages are not the appropriate place for this question - new user as of today.)

Thanks. DTPCucurbita (talk) 04:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DTPCucurbita. This is a perfect place to ask that. DashaKat invoked his/her right to vanish and requested his/her userpages be deleted, so I did that for the user. I'm afraid that you may not be able to contact this user, since he/she is no longer active on the project. hmwith τ 20:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File deleted

You deleted File:MarkDvoretsky.jpg which uploaded. (1) You said that I had been notified, but I was not notified. (2) do you know of a free replacement for this person? Bubba73 (talk), 22:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the person who tags it for speedy deletion is supposed to notify the uploader. In this case, you're actually the one who tagged it for speedy deletion (which I now assume was accidental). However, the tag was actually correct, as it was a replaceable image, so I deleted it. As for where you can find a free image of him, I'm not sure, but I hope that one turns up. hmwith τ 19:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I tagged it then it must have been some sort of mistake. I just went through the process of uploading it and filling out the information. How do you know that the image is replaceable? Bubba73 (talk), 21:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"A photo of a living person or location can almost always be replaced, even if doing so may be very difficult" (quoted from here). More information is located in Wikipedia's non-free content page. Also, to answer you previous question about where you could find free images, try one of these links:

I hope this helps, hmwith τ 00:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The third item says to look on Google Images. The image that was deleted is there. Does that mean that it is OK? Bubba73 (talk), 01:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google will bring up some images that are public domain, but not all of the pictures there are. You'd have to check the individual website. hmwith τ 22:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Websites are unlikely to say. Bubba73 (talk), 00:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the images are in the public domain, the website will say this somewhere. If it doesn't say, we assume they're copyrighted. hmwith τ 19:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page Deleted

Hello, you deleted the Orion's_Belt_(game) game page and I'd like to know why. We already proved notability to _several_ admins, and every time a new admin comes and deletes the page. You can see what I mean on the deletion log: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Orion's_Belt_(game)

From what I saw the argument was that Orion's Belt was beta in 2003 and today wasn't release yet. That isn't true, we started a rebuild of the game and now the beta is the 2.0 version...

Donbonifacio (talk) 14:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have any reliable sources and it still doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability standards. hmwith τ 19:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being mentioned on Jason_Della_Rocca corporate blog at IGDA (here: http://www.igda.org/blogs/realitypanic/archives/001968.html ctrl-f for Orion's Belt, you'll see that we won some awards). This isn't enough? Donbonifacio (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the article so you can add references. See WP:citing sources if you have any questions. hmwith τ 00:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time and patience, I'll work on the article. Donbonifacio (talk) 08:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmetology

Hi Hmwith, with ref to this and your immediately preceding edit, you were working on a massively vandalized version. I've reverted it back past your changes, to my version of 10Feb09. Would you mind taking a look to see which of your changes should be rolled forward? Thanks! Franamax (talk) 00:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks for the heads up. hmwith τ 22:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image deletion

Hi there. I wanted to discuss with you your deletion of File:ScottMurphyPressRelease.jpg. I uploaded this as fair use. Its source is noted as being a press release, meaning the image is specifically meant to be used by outsiders (and therefore meets fair use). Also, your deletion summary says I (the uploader) was notified more than 48 hours ago. While I did keep some tabs on the image, I was not explicitly contacted about this deletion. I did respond with what I felt was a reasonable argument for keeping the image. I did some research, and it seems the image can be used, based on #6 in this list (reference #2 in the article it was used in is the same site the image comes from - though that requirement seems pretty arbitrary). Let me know what you think based on these comments I've made. Cheers! ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 03:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, that policy I quoted doesn't cover press releases but this is still a press photo, nonetheless. Sorry for that confusion. :-) ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 04:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reference #6 in Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images 2 is actually in the "unacceptable use" section. The person who tags the image for speedy deletion is supposed to notify the uploader, but it turns out that you were actually the one who tagged the image for speedy deletion, which I presume was accidental. As it turns out, your tag was correct, & it actually was replaceable, as the subject is still living. Let me know if you have any further questions or concerns, hmwith τ 04:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I didn't realize that SD tag was from me (my kind of luck...). I responded to it b/c I thought someone else had tagged it. WRT ref #6, it states "... unacceptable ...unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article", which it is (hence my reference to citation #2 in the article). Don't I have that on my side? Aren't press released photos meant to be used for promotional (if not encyclopedic) purposes? I feel as if this is the epitome of fair use. If not, I guess I'd appreciate some policy evidence that references press releases (#6 above was the closest I could come). Biographies of living people sheds little light and this policy seems to currently be defunct. While he may be a public figure, he is not easily accessible and too small-town to be found on flickr or other free-use image websites. I thought I knew copyvio policy pretty well WRT images; I guess I may still have some learning to do..? :-) ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 05:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't the purpose of the photo that's at issue; it's the fact that the image hasn't been released under a free-use license. Thats why it fails the "replaceable" clause. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't press released images be considered to be free use then? Practically speaking, I would assume yes, but I'm unaware of the law when it comes to that (otherwise how could so many news agencies, websites, etc. use the image so extensively?). ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 06:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this also comes down to me being bothered that we don't seem to have an explicit policy (or suggesting guideline) on how to work with press release images. I can't be the first to have made this argument ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 06:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Free use" in this regard isn't quite the same; the right to say "you can't use this" is still held by the owner of the work, even if they tend not to exercise that right. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I can respect that response; now you're making me trudge out to a campaign event to snap a shot... killing me. Haha just kidding, I would end up there anyway (I just wanted a placeholder till that happened). Oh well. Thanks for the info. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 06:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, yeah, I feel your pain; it's been more than once where I've thought about something happening around town (such as a Cowboy Mouth concert) and bemoaned the lack of any pictures on the article... Welcome to becoming truly involved in Wikipedia. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping out while I was away, EVula. Wadester, I understand that it can get frustrating, and I appreciate your positive attitude. It was my own frustration with lack of pictures in some local articles that made me go out & take some photographs of my own. It's hard not to want a placeholder, but now you know that "[we] don't upload a non-free image just because the article doesn't have one right now; we can (and will) wait for a free image to be created or released" (from WP:10I). :) hmwith τ 17:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Bad tag"

[The following was copied here from the user's talk page to have the whole conversation in one place for archiving purposes]:

[In this diff, you remove a tag claiming that it was a "bad tag". Why did you feel this way? hmwith τ 19:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What were You referring to in CSD F7 to have the image speedy deleted? feydey (talk) 19:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, the F7 invalid fair use claim tag, since the image is replaceable. hmwith τ 19:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This sounds way more serious than I meant it to be! I'm just curious. :) hmwith τ 19:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an admin I roll by the book so to say. CSD F7 says:

"Non-free images or media that have been identified as being replaceable by a free image and tagged with {{subst:rfu}} may be deleted after two days, if no justification is given for the claim of irreplaceability."

A) It wasn't tagged with {{subst:rfu}} two days ago to justify a speedy deletion B) it was only uploaded 1 day ago. So no speedy could be done. Hope You see the fault in Your tagging. Best, feydey (talk) 19:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I certainly do. I figured that I made mistake in tagging it somehow. It's been so long since I tagged images, so I'm glad I did that rather than just deleting it. This proves that they really do need 2 sets of eyes. Thanks for catching my mistake, & happy deleting! :) hmwith τ 19:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. feydey (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]