User talk:Veggies/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Veggies. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Speedy deletion of images
Please stop marking images for speedy deletion, use {{Di-no fair use rationale}} or {{Di-replaceable fair use}} instead. Since you are using Twinkle, consider using User:AzaToth/twinkleimage.js. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 00:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- How does that work? What exactly do I do with that? Oh, and furthermore, I've been tagging these Google Earth images like this before and I never had a problem. Admins deleted them as requested. -- VegitaU 00:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is that policy requires a 48 hour grace period in order to give the uploader an opportunity to justify image usage. Marking images for speedy deletion is a shortcut that circumvents this general agreement, so while some users might be tempted to follow through with deletion, there's always the possibility of image taggers making a mistake or the uploader getting quite upset at the premature deletion. There's another great tool for tagging images through the "toolbox" on the left side of your screen, information about it is available at User talk:Howcheng/quickimgdelete.js. Either that tool or WP:TW includes the option to tag an image with a dated template and automatically notify the user. Most tagged images will be deleted eventually, but this method allows for greater oversight. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 00:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- For regular photographs or shots that should apply and I fully understand that policy. I just don't understand how you could justify a Google Earth screenshot with the Google stamp down there and a GFDL tag. GE shots are copyrighted and need a fair use rationale. You can use World Wind or other virtual globe software to replace the GE shot. Even if the quality is not of the upmost, there is very little I see that could actually be justified being a fair use. -- VegitaU 01:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- You're absolutely correct, GE satellite imagery is readily replaceable. Informing contributors of this is helpful as it allows them the opportunity to create a free alternative, even if few are likely to act upon it. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 23:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Jawsome. I'll do this from now on. -- VegitaU 02:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- You're absolutely correct, GE satellite imagery is readily replaceable. Informing contributors of this is helpful as it allows them the opportunity to create a free alternative, even if few are likely to act upon it. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 23:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- For regular photographs or shots that should apply and I fully understand that policy. I just don't understand how you could justify a Google Earth screenshot with the Google stamp down there and a GFDL tag. GE shots are copyrighted and need a fair use rationale. You can use World Wind or other virtual globe software to replace the GE shot. Even if the quality is not of the upmost, there is very little I see that could actually be justified being a fair use. -- VegitaU 01:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is that policy requires a 48 hour grace period in order to give the uploader an opportunity to justify image usage. Marking images for speedy deletion is a shortcut that circumvents this general agreement, so while some users might be tempted to follow through with deletion, there's always the possibility of image taggers making a mistake or the uploader getting quite upset at the premature deletion. There's another great tool for tagging images through the "toolbox" on the left side of your screen, information about it is available at User talk:Howcheng/quickimgdelete.js. Either that tool or WP:TW includes the option to tag an image with a dated template and automatically notify the user. Most tagged images will be deleted eventually, but this method allows for greater oversight. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 00:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I have given the reason for use of Google Earth for Image:Palms_Depot_overlay_map_1951.jpg on the description page. In order to locate the exact locations of historic parcels, the precise overlay tool in GE is required, as used by the Yahoo Groups community "Mapping Rails." Esirgen 23:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Iraq War problems
Thanks for monitoring Talk:Iraq War and other pages where some users are making unconstructive edits. I have blocked User:Freetown as his pattern of editing is similar to the sock-puppets of a troll who has been active here for months, with hundreds of accounts and also hundreds of IPs, usually beginning with the number 86. If you see more of this behavior, please let me know so I can investigate the account/IP address and possibly block them. Academic Challenger 05:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help and understanding. I actually filed a sock puppet check user report a few days ago here, but I don't seem to be getting any favorable response. If you could take a look at it and maybe suggest something, I think it would help out the problem. Thanks. -- VegitaU 07:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
RE: Replaceable fair use of Image:Brierdene green.jpg
I really don't think that the image is needed anymore as the place isn't notable, it used to accompany a article on a small cricket club however that was deleted I don't really think it is of any use. Please Speedy Delete it. Thanks. Djmckee1 - Talk-Sign 06:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
{{Trails}} listed for deletion
You may be interested to know that I listed {{Trails}} for deletion. This is just a redirect to {{Infobox Hiking trail}} and not an actual template. If you have an opinion please share it at Redirects for discussion instead of here. -- Patleahy (talk) 19:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
RFCU
In your RFCU filing, you stated that the SSPs were not acted upon, which wasn't wholly accurate; in the first case, a rangeblock was suggested and not implemented. In the second, the accounts were blocked for varying lengths of time. I'm not sure then, what you are expecting CU to do that some other process wouldn't provide (such as AIV or ANI), but you need a rationale for the check. I would suggest you review your filing and see if there's anything you can do with it. MSJapan 23:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Replied on the case. -- VegitaU 10:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Yamato.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Yamato.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of '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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
){kind=link}
A question for you
What was this about? (1 2 3 4) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxim (talk • contribs) 17:47, August 25, 2007 (UTC)
- You mean the replaceable, copyrighted Google Earth images with no fair use rationale? I'm going around tagging them for replacement. What about these two? -- VegitaU 17:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- You were accusing me of vandalism. Maxim(talk) 22:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- You deleted templates without any given reason. Not even an edit summary explaining why…just a quick delete. I'm still puzzled as to why you decided to do that, but, yeah, I figured it was some editor that didn't want his favorite pictures deleted. -- VegitaU 00:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- As a matter of fact I did. Maxim(talk) 13:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- You deleted templates without any given reason. Not even an edit summary explaining why…just a quick delete. I'm still puzzled as to why you decided to do that, but, yeah, I figured it was some editor that didn't want his favorite pictures deleted. -- VegitaU 00:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- You were accusing me of vandalism. Maxim(talk) 22:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
can you please block a user
Hi mate just wanting to know if you can block this user User talk:137.219.47.203 as they just deleted the Shopping in Townsville page and i have seen that you have givin them 2 warnings, in you last warning you say that you would block them if they did it again. Thank you for you help Thuringowacityrep 09:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not an admin, so sorry, but I cannot. If it gets bad enough and you've made repeated warnings, you should report him here. -- VegitaU 03:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey thank you very much for locating this file. What I need to know is if it can be modified to highlight the damn? I'm placing a delete on current image. Noles1984 19:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sure, you can edit it if you like, but add a tag that states that it has been retouched. {{RetouchedPicture}} is good. {{PD-retouched-user}} also works. -- VegitaU 03:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
| This is an archive of past discussions with User:Veggies. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |