User talk:Bleh999/20070701

Glasgow incident

Could you do me a favour, and tell me what to tag it with. Cheers. Cs-wolves 20:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Vietnamese child soldier

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)

• See also my take on this image at Vietnam child soldier.jpg. Not downsampled. Enjoy! Original xcf available upon request (but it's 154Mb!) I'm open to improvement suggestions :-) Lupo 12:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I like it a lot, nice job, did you use the GREYCstoration? This is less noisy that the edit by MickStephenson and you fixed the the oversaturated magenta/red streaks. I think the color levels look more natural in your edit too. btw is that a pair of sandals lying on the floor? Never noticed that before. Bleh999 12:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I used it, but not on the sky: there, it failed completely, not doing the whole area! In those areas where it worked, the result was pretty good, but not spectacular. But it forgot to do several rectangular areas in the sky... So I just used it to slightly de-noise the background and the boy (separately, with different settings). The sky is manually color-corrected, blurred, and brightness-adjusted on the right, where the vertical streak was in the original.

Yep, that seems to be a pair of thongs... I didn't notice them either! I've looked so much at color levels and defects etc. that I didn't look at the picture itself. :-) Lupo 13:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

That is probably the best idea (adjusting areas separately), because the sky was more noisy than other parts of the image and applying noise reduction to the entire image causes unnecessary loss of detail, same with the desaturation which seems to cause grey patches if used too much on one channel across the entire image Bleh999 13:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Carfireterro.jpg up for speedy deletion

• Why should it matter to you about the profitability of the this image/footage?? Surely only ITN, who own the rights to this image should care if it is being used or not (NOT YOU!!) - Dreamweaverjack 22:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all that image is on commons, commons only accepts FREE content, that screenshot is fair use and has been deleted from from English wikipedia [1] whoever copied it to commons did by mistake or does not understand copyright very well. Bleh999 01:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Link

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)

Image:John_Hillcoat_(footballer).jpg

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)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/German V-2 rocket attack aftermath and victim

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)

Image:Story.crash.sequence.jpg

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)

Image:German Soviet.jpg

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)

you're welcome. I would like the image to stay as I find it interesting and relevant. My rationale for claiming it was PD was because the Wochenschau newsreels are in the US national archives and that footage is in the IWM in the UK and they had the enemy property act of 1953 which invalidated German copyrights on seized materials, but I notice that Transit Film GmbH claims copyright in Germany and they have a website where you can view the Wochenschau newsreels, so even if it is public domain, it wouldn't be allowed on wikipedia commons, but it only needs to be considered free of copyright in the US to be used on the english wikipedia. Bleh999 18:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

For example read this link http://www.focalint.org/azarticle1.htm Bleh999 18:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Ziad Jarrah image

So, if this is from the German government, what is the source stating this? WhisperToMe 03:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

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)

Woman verses on the Quran

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)

It was judged to be fair use only the article about the movie it is a screenshot from in the deletion request Bleh999 03:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Please use easy to read english, use periods. You're not telling me why its not fair use in this article. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

For example see the image talk page [2] Howcheng left a template that says 'result of the discussion was keep but limit use to Submission (film).' it kind of defeats the purpose of the keep decision if you decide to add it other articles afterwards Bleh999 04:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

If you cant tell me why the image is not fair use, stop taking it out. There were people there who said the use is justified in the Criticism of Quran article. The article contains commentary on the film and is relevant to the article and section and therefore justifies fair use.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Start using image deletion templates

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)

Nazism vs. Neo-Nazism

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)

Waffen SS has nothing to do with nazism? I think not. Neo nazism is based on the former ideology, they are mutually related and that image is relevant to the article Bleh999 11:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

On talk pages

I was wondering why I never got a reply from you, but I found it recently ([3]). If I may offer two suggestions:

• archive your page, don't blank it
• copy your posts to other users talk pages, as otherwise they will never get reply notifications and many, like myself, rarely check other editors talk pages for replies

Thank you, -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

TfD Template:Allegations of apartheid

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)

I asked at the administrators notice board, there wasn't any consensus that users may close template for deletion requests, I reopened it so an administrator could close it Bleh999 16:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

A user can most definitely close a TfD under snowball, and sometimes even when clear consensus is keep. It is done all the time. {{closing}} mentions this quite clearly.

BTW, it is bad form to go to administrators notice board and not tell the involved. --Cerejota 16:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to get you in trouble so it wouldn't have mattered telling you, I just wanted to know how deletion requests are closed, I don't think this is a snowball, I mean we saw Israeli allegations article get re nominated for deletion in a short period of time and it wasn't closed this quickly, you are supposed to allow time for input Bleh999 16:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if I was in trouble or not, it is bad form.--Cerejota 16:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

also the quote from WP:DELETE does not apply to me, since I did not participate in the previous Template for Deletion discussion and neither did I nominate it, that quote applies to someone who repeatedly nominates a template for deletion causing disruption, that isn't the case here, my nomination was in good faith Bleh999 16:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

You are incorrect. In no part does WP:DELETE say that the policy applies only to users who participated in a XfD. I says "users". Period. I does warn against repeated renominations, but doesn't state they have to be from the same user. I read and re-read the text and I do not understand from where do you get this idea.

Understand this: WP:DRV is the process to follow if you disagree with a closed TfD. It doesn't matter if the closing was incorrect, if it was done by an editor and not and admin. It is also were you go if the XfD was recent.--Cerejota 16:54, 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)

Allegations of Puerto Rican apartheid

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)

Hello. I will remove the quote & source by Suzanne, as it is not relevant to the article. If you want to object, please leave me a message, on my or the article's talk page. Thank you.--Victor falk 06:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:German Soviet.jpg

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)

Check and mate

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)

Muller

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)