User talk:Maxim: Difference between revisions

/archives /talkpage rules

You saved me a trip to arv to (grudgingly) request he be blocked, so I suppose your way's better than mine. Why some people go here instead of myspace I'll never know... YДмΔќʃʀï^→Г_C← 10-26-2007 • 22:37:03

Oh, and according to this, David just did a foolish thing by reverting a revert. It was there when the page was first made, and someone reverted it, and david reverted them, and I reverted david (long chain huh?). Just for clarity I'm not sure he knew what he was doing, but I don't want to argue about my oppinion after all, I'm just some kid in NC. YДмΔќʃʀï^→Г_C← 10-26-2007 • 22:53:20

Thanks. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 23:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted this image (Image:Songsofthecolonies.jpg) even though I had provided a valid fair-use rationale. Please explain. -- Chironomia 01:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake. Sorry about it. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 11:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You also deleted these two images (Image:DeccaDL5428.jpg and Image:DeccaDL4179.jpg), which also had fair-use rationales. Do you have a way of putting them back? Thanks. -- Chironomia 19:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you archived this section without replying to it? :( Waldir 02:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Purely by accident. It was at the top of my talkpage and I'm being mercilessly flooded with messages (I archive anything older than three days).

Hi Maxim. I'd like to ask you about Image:CapeVerde.png. Not being a bit-by-bit exact copy of the Commons' one is a perfect reasoning for an automated process of elimination not to delete an image. But in a human perspective, in this case it seems to me that the image is indeed deletable, since it is visually the same, and might even have less detail than the commons one, which has 8KB while this one only has 7KB. What do you think? Waldir 19:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It has a different name on Commons. If I delete the image, I'll break the display of the images in articles. --Maxim(talk) (contributions) 21:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Only about 3 articles link to it. If I change the links on them, will you delete it? Waldir 19:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, and you're an admin, feel free to delete it yourself. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 11:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok, I understand :) I can tell how your talk page is busy, my watched list has been much longer than the usual, the last few days :P Anyway, I replaced the image in the pages it was used in with the commons' one, and remarked the image page with the nowcommons template. I am not an admin here in english wikipedia, so I can't delete it myself. So, whenever you have time, it's your turn to play now :) Waldir 13:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised you deleted this. Yes, there had been a dispute. The miss was that it did not say what page this image was used on. I added this. What else was missing? We really need an image on this article - to make it a top class article. Can you advise if something else was missing as I plan to boldly improve regardless.Obina 18:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted because its fair-use rationale had issues. Please re-uploaded with a proper rationale. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 23:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of the images on the Fracas! Improv Festival page were deleted, and I am worried that I misunderstood the copyright guidelines they were supposed to be uploaded under. I followed the instructions on the image upload page in order to license the images as Creative Commons images, but they were deleted. The reason given was that I did not give information as to who owns the image, who created it, and what the copyright specifications were, but I did. Can you please explain why these images were deleted so that I can re-upload them correctly? Thanks!

Reed.jacob 22:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't say where you got them from. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 22:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Sorry I am not more well-versed in how these things are supposed to be done, but how/where am I supposed to list where I got the images from? They are my images. I re-uploaded one of them and tried to create an image summary like I have seen on other wikipedia images. Here's a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fracas_Improv_fourguys.jpg I don't know if that's the right way to do it though. Reed.jacob 02:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{PD-self}} is a useful template to put in the description, without using the dropdown menu. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 23:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the pictures were taken by a professional photographer. He has agreed to let them be used publically, as long as he is credited. That's why I used the Creative Commons license that says the image can be used for whatever, as long as the photographer is credited. What's wrong with doing that? Reed.jacob 02:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The external links which I removed from the page are dead links. My edit was intended constructively, I believe they should be removed, since it is inconvenient for people like me to click them and be directed to empty pages...

Sorry for the mistaken revert. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 23:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You undid some vandalism from this you once. He seems to be back vandalizing articles (same articles in the same way), but now he's at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/74.46.215.122 I've been reverting his posts, but they are getting annoying. Can you help? Mathewignash 13:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the anon stopped. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 23:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to add an image of our Governor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_de_Jongh) to his wikipedia article and it was recently deleted citing: Removing instance of image Govdejongh.png that has been deleted because "CSD I7 - Replaceable fair use image"); using TW)

This image is available in every USVI Government Office and is also available on his website. I have directly contacted his special assistant who confirmed I was free to use the image on Wikipedia.

My question is how can I add it so it won't be deleted. I'm new to uploading images to Wikipedia but the process seems really complicated unless you took the image yourself. What do I need to do to keep the image up?

You can't use fair use images for living persons. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 23:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your rvt to Kettle hat because I believe the edit was made in error. Not a big deal, however, you may want to modify your V1 warning on the user's talk page in case this edit was indeed an error. Cheers. BC 19:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I made a mistake. Thanks for the rvt, Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 23:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for keeping Image:4000_interior.jpg and Image:4000family.jpg And please keep this one Image:Rafttruck2.jpg until next summer, when I will have access to this particular vehicle again, as stated in more detail here-- User_talk:Rettetast. I'm new to Wikipedia and am slowly learning. I don't have very much time to spend here as I work 40+ hours a week in a national park.--Lpimlott 22:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. :) Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 23:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Maxim. My compliments on the huge effort you are making to keep Wikipedia clean. I am an admin on Commons where I occasinally also delete a thousand pages on a day, but from what I have seen in the past days, this is your daily quotum. Fantastic effort and thank you for keeping the wiki nice and tidy - or at least trying to.

I've been tagging media that have duplicates on Commons lately. I am using CommonsClash for that. Currently I am tagging about 1.000 media files per day, about 4/minute. I was wondering if this is a manageable workload, or if I should tag fewer or could tag more. In total there were about 35.000 media files to be processed. Currently there are about 30.000 left. Please give me some input so that I do not overburden admins and do not make the most effective use of they time they have. Cheers! Siebrand 22:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it all done correctly, you can put up to 4000 per day in a category. I ran a script through it, and it goes quite quickly, so I'm O.K. with that number. Thanks, Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 22:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:Ckfilm.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Otto4711 03:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I added a fair use rationale to Image:Bt en vivo.jpg last night, but it was deleted today. I don't understand how it was invalid. TravelingCat 04:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 14:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! TravelingCat 03:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re Image:Division of anger.JPG (a book cover with photo to illustrate author bio) was tagged for possible deletion a few days ago here. i took this to mean there wasn't a specific justification for the page in question & fixed it with a link to that page & explanation. as i understand it book covers are justified for author pages, what have i done wrong? the deletion cites I7 but does not say how the rational was inadequate. thx in advance, ben  ⇒ bsnowball  08:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 14:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Maxim! Due to copyright laws all quotes in the article are supposed to be deleted. In Germany Kästner's son Thomas has recently won several lawsuits against people who on the internet quote from his father unauthorisedly. T.Kästner strongly objects to quotes by his father being published on the www. In the German Wikiquote for instance, E.Kästner is a "No quote". Can I delete? I have several sources which verify T. Kästner's lawsuits. Unfortunately they are all in German, I should say --Fromgermany 11:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Germany has no control over the English Wikipedia, as it is hosted in Florida. I'll be in touch with legal counsel over this. I'll temporarily protect the page. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 14:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I do know that German copyright laws are restricted to Germany but Thomas Kästner has repeatedly stated that he wishes all quotes by his dad and his dad's work to be banned from the WHOLE www and not only German websites. Anyway, thanks for your help/effort/support. I don't want to stir up things. I only want to protect Wikipedia from getting into any legal jumble. ;-) --Fromgermany 15:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir or madam, I notice that you have deleted the following images which were uploaded by me, even after I had added {{Non-free media rationale}}, would you please tell me what I had done wrong? Thank you!

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] ^{Talk to ►} Kevin 14:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dearie me, you did everything right. I didn't. I'll restore everything. Sorry, Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 14:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you very much!!! ^{Talk to ►} Kevin 14:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding [Image:81 leaving Cody Wyoming after world run 2006.jpg], I had placed a dispute tag on the page and added comments to the talk page in response to it being flagged for a copyright violation, yet you deleted it without further discussion or review (that I am aware of). I am uncertain: was this usual procedure? Please advise. Thank you, and have a Wiki day! Mmoyer 15:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted because a free image can be found for what the image in question was illustrated. The notice on the talkpage didn't convince to keep the image. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 20:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Farmers'Almanac1818 ZP.png and Image:Farmers'Almanac ZP.png I clearly stated that fair use rationale was provided on the image pages of the originals. I even provided the link! ...and it was still deleted? Gee, and I thought everyone's contribution was welcome, guess not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XcepticZP (talk • contribs) 18:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if this was really published in 1818, then it's public domain now, and was simply mistagged as nonfree. In that case, it could be undeleted. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your rationale did not justify use of the image in the article. That's why it was deleted. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 20:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that Image:1946-10-07 Life-Lady Luck-ad-d.jpg was improperly deleted in the recent round of deletion. Can you please restore it? Thanks. Otto4711 18:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure.  Done Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 20:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From a WP:MOS point of view, it looks ready; I can't comment on the subject matter, since I'm not a follower. The one question I have is this sentence:

• for ten guineas (ten and a half pounds sterling, or $48.67 USD at that time).

I'm not sure the numbers and fractions comply with WP:MOSNUM, but I'm also not sure how to fix it. You might ask Tony1 (talk · contribs) to look at that specific phrase. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted the image Image:CountryStampedeLogo.jpg even though I provided the requested the fair use rationale. Can you explain the reason for this, and if it was a mistake please restore the imgage? Thanks! -Kgwo1972

Mistake. Restored. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 20:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. -Kgwo1972 —Preceding comment was added at 20:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Maxim

What do you mean with Vandalism on Pyramid? It is an article, not a commercial link. Please explain.

Regards John

A diff, maybe? Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 01:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not notice that this image was up for deletion. If you will restore the image, I will add an appropriate fair use rationale.
Thank you,
--JKeene 21:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have 48 hours to add a rationale. I will re-delete it if the concerns are not addressed within the alloted time. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 01:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the image to assure that all issues have been addressed.
Thanks again,
--JKeene 02:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Maxim, I'm afraid I dispute the deletion of Image:1993-ApplicationofEnglishLawAct-titlepg.jpg. Originally the image was tagged for deletion on the basis that it was orphaned. I realized that it had originally been in "Law of Singapore", but the part of that article that the image had been in had been spun off into "Sources of Singapore law". When the problem was brought to my attention, I updated the information on the image page to refer to "Sources of Singapore law". Could you explain why, therefore, that there was an insufficient claim of fair use? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 22:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restored as an error. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 01:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for acting so quickly in restoring the image. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 01:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had fixed the WP:NFCC#10c problem on Image:Crazy Taxi-A Redemption Game.jpg several days ago. Please let me know what the problem was that resulted in this deletion. Thanks. Anomie 00:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Error, sorry. Restored. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 01:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Anomie 02:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you are causing a lot of wasted effort with deleting images without proper discussion first. very unnecessary. if image is missing rationale, go ahead and try add proper rational? maybe? maybe a week is too fast for anyone to react with busy schedules? looking through all the comments its obvious deletion is unnecessary. Collaborative editing Obrez 01:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read /talkpage rules, which you obviously did not. Nor did you read the notice on BetacommandBot's talkpage. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 01:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just reviewed the criteria for speedy deletion and it mentions "Missing non-free use rationale." File:Adam carolla radio.jpg had the non-free use rationale, but it was missing one line from it. Speedy deletion criteria does not mention "Partial non-free use rationale" or "non-free use rationale that requires minor edit". In fact, image was already tagged once, and non-free use rationale was put there, before even the format of the tag changed. You did not review the tag. Please restore. What a waste of effort. Obrez 18:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just restore my pages or I'll get Z-man to do it again, then report you. Tyler Warren ^{(talk/contribs)} 01:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to just be a misunderatanding, someone reverted my removal of the old speedy deletion tag after I undeleted the pages on request. Mr.Z-man 02:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Well.....then....uh...-runs- Tyler Warren ^{(talk/contribs)} 02:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you deleted Image:Russia5000rubles04back.jpg. That image was linked from Russian_ruble article and now that article has all images of ruble banknotes including 5000 front but not 5000 back. Which looks kinda strange. Could you restore the image because it's obviously has the same fair use rationale as other 13 images of banknotes? Anyway, by Russian Legislation currency is not eligible to copyright at all. (Federal Law N5351-1, article 8). Panda34 07:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being vigilant watching the Wayne Gretzky article. I have constantly been monitoring the page almost two years now. I've been asking for indefinite semi-protection for a long time now. Thanks for helping out. Flibirigit 23:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Maxim. I noticed that in Majorly's RfA, you voted twice. Normally, I'd remove/strikeout/indent the most recent vote, but I can't in this particular situation. In this case, I noted that you had cast a vote in both the Support and Oppose sections. I don't know which one is your true vote, but thought you should be notified of this so you can take whatever action is needed. Ksy92003(talk) 01:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both of 'em are my true votes. ;-) Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 01:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is that possible? Well, not gonna disagree with an admin :-) Better safe than sorry. Ksy92003(talk) 01:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting, though. By voting in both sections, and going by the (not really true) metric of 75%, where one oppose vote is worth three supports, you've effectively done an oppose vote worth 2/3 of a normal oppose vote (I think). If you disregard the "not a vote" thing. Hmm. I think the only other permutation possible is two support votes and an oppose vote, which would be 1/3 of an oppose, or even three support votes and an oppose vote, which should, theoretically, cancel each other out. Silly, isn't it? :-) Carcharoth 16:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that metric only works when the percentage is actually 75%. At the moment, it is running at 90%. In other words, the value of support versus oppose votes varies depending on the current percentage. That means that at the moment you would have to support 9 times and oppose once, to have your desired effect of not really having an impact on the percentage. Given that your duplicate votes are messing up the "duplicate vote detector", I suspect an irate bureaucrat may tell you that a "neutral" vote is an easier way of doing this, and that your protest at the process should just be a comment somewhere (either with the vote or in the discussion). It is certainly interesting though! :-) Carcharoth 02:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you appear to have double commented - you opposed and supported. :S -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, all fixed up. I see what you were doing; making a statement. Apologies. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - can I just check on the rational behind the deletion of these images. I had understood that CD covers were acceptable images as per the licensing drop down menu? Could you clarify please?

Many thanks

3seat 06:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:FURG. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 20:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CD/Album covers always satisfy fair use when used to illustrate an article about the CD/Album. As a result, these images should not be deleted under FU unless it isn't being used in that way (or it is redundant, too big, etc). They do not require a detailed FU. Simply identifying it as an album/CD cover is sufficient. Rklawton 20:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not. The fair use rationale specifies in which article the image should be used, so a boilerplate template is not sufficent. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 20:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The boiler plate for a CD/album cover states the limitations. To wit: the image can only be used in articles or sections about the CD/album. In short, the rationale is built in. If the image is used for any other purpose, then the editor would need to add that rationale to the image's page. However, it is not appropriate to delete a CD/album cover simply because an editor doesn't re-state what the CD/album fair use statement already says. And if, for some reason, an editor fails to apply the correct fair use tag (CD/album cover), then it's still not appropriate to delete the image. Simply add the appropriate tag. Rklawton 22:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Including only a boilerplate template fails WP:NFCC#10c. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 22:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for clarification on the policy talk page. You are invited to contribute. Given that the boiler plate specifically states that the image can be used in the album's article, any additional requirement is redundant. I agree that we need a fair use statement for images for other articles or sections not about the album, since this isn't covered in the boiler plate. I ask that you suspend deleting such images until we can resolve this question. Rklawton 22:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...appears to have been deleted despite having a FU. Otto4711 13:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 20:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...appears to have been removed despite having a valid FU. Otto4711 13:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. In the future, can you please remove the bot notice on the talkpage, it's much easier for everybody. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 20:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you deleted some of the articles on Beta's list. I'm not really willing to call it a brainless deletion, but you deleted some pages that I reviewed and sometimes restored, such as Talk:Web 4.0, Talk:Wolfgang Somary and Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica. As you can see, some were edited lately, and contained information about why these pages were deleted, and I think G8 doesn't apply for these. :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thamls for the reminder. : ) Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 20:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have deleted this image even though I used the FU template Template:Non-free_album_cover

Has there been a chance in FU policy? Can you explain why a thumbnail of a CD jacket isn't fair use on en.wikipedia? Thanks. -- Joi 14:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to see WP:FURG and WP:NFCC. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 20:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've had 36 messages in 3 days. Cheers, Qst 21:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]