User talk:Polly/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peter Lorre Undone![edit]

I was a first-time contributor to Wikipedia; now that you've undone my addition I suppose I'm down to a zeroth-time. I'm writing in the hopes of finding out what I did that was objectionable. You marked my edit as being irrelevant to the subject. It was about a song about Peter Lorre which included a vocal impersonation of him. Other references to impressions of Lorre were already on the page; what made mine inappropriate? I am truly confused. Thanks in advance for any further information!

Bfeist (talk) 23:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello, just had another look at the edit, it should be fine if you drop the last seven words and the second external link, as these come across as promotional.Polly (Parrot) 23:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Thank you, Polly.

Bfeist (talk) 00:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstars survey[edit]

Hi Polly. I'm running a small survey about wikipedian barnstars. If you have the time, I would really appreciate you taking a look and participating. The survey can be found here. Thank you! Bestchai (talk) 06:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

challenging editing[edit]

Hi, it is me again. I am not sure what you make of this. I am being tailed by Jza84 over editing the Liverpool suburbs. I am turning to you as you appear to be a) experienced and b) sensible. I am being informed by Jza84 that my editing of Knowsley districts just will not do and is going to be basically reversed. I am not sure on what grounds, but as an example Huyton is in Knowsley MBC and also a town in it's own right but it clearly identifies with the city of Liverpool. And Knowsley is a purely administative borough and not a town (apart from the Knowlsey Village). If I am being challenged I accept constructive critisism. But not trivial timewasters. If you check the talk pages you might get an idea Dmcm2008(talk) 22:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • My knowledge of this locale is sparse at best so I'm in no position to say what is, or is not correct. Having had a quick look through the relevant pages and article talk and user talk pages I think when it comes to matters of this nature some kind of reasonable compromise can usually be found.
    Jza84 is offering constructive dialogue and the compromise they suggested on your talk page seems reasonable. You've got to remember that suburb is a very contentious term and is oft seen as somewhat belittling by the residents of the locality. If you really feel that your version of the article is the correct one then you'd need to weigh in with some heavyweight references to back this up. Other than that, my advice to you is to try to remain civil, apologise to Jza84 for making imprudent remarks and keep on talking about content, don't whatever you do, let it become the sole focus of your editing attention as that way lies discontent and frustration. Polly (Parrot) 23:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pehaps so, I have never said of course I am an expert so proving something via references is a long term objective. However as you say, your knowledge is sparse, I can tell you my knowledge is not, and therefore the user in question is talking rubbish. But I will take on board what you say about, suburbs, though not sure i can agree about 'belittling by residents of the locality'. However that, is purely my opinion. In terms of my dispute with this users, I have in no way found the user to be reasonable so I wont be apologising. If the user has a quest to overturn peoples editing purely on trying to prove something with references, the user is a very sad individual. I make my edits based on knowledge. Dmcm2008 (talk) 23:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC) and good faith. Dmcm2008 (talk) 23:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • You have to remember of course that Jza84 may feel the exact same way about you. It's very easy to become blinkered in content disputes, but ultimately if you cannot come to agreement then you should really consider mediation. Polly (Parrot) 00:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. However i feel the other user has been very blinkered in their editing, and has gone and undid anywork i have done in regards to 'suburbs' whilst not involving a discussion. I am not an expert but as a knowledgeable local my input has been truthful and informing. This user has refused to accept that i have a justified edit. I have been checking the users contributions and has been doing the same to other users often not engaging in dialogue. I do not believe you have to justify every edit - you will be there all year never get anywhere. Atleast I am being honest and not being a vandal Dmcm2008 (talk) 11:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC) My efforts to mediate with the other user have drew a blank. The user is widely reversing any work I have done. I am of the opinion that he is seeking to disrupt my efforts to enhance these articles. I have suggested a middle ground based on the Halewood page but the user continues to reverse any of my edits. Stating my personal knowledge is not what wikipedia is all about. How then, do you gain any info--in this instance of an area--without knowledge? How does a wikipedia reader find out info in an article ie Seaforth is a suburb of Liverpool (and not some place in north west England) if people are not allowed to add that info? The user I am having a dispute with appear over zealous in their quest to remove Liverpool connections. I have every right to add Liverpool connections, as this is the truth!!!! Dmcm2008 (talk) 14:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Polly,
Just a note that Dmcm2008 games several false claims. I've initiated a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography#Suburbs_of_Liverpool and requested citation from this issue. I've also warned him about several incivil remarks made against me. I don't intend to draw out debate here, but felt it necessary to give some balance and context to Dmcm2008's commentary here. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

False claims indeed! All I want is to show how these 'suburbs' are connected to Liverpool. They are, it isnt false, it is factual. Dmcm2008 (talk) 16:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trans_effect_2[edit]

Thanks for the heads up on the licensing stuff. I'm actually getting used to the wiki interface I'll make sure the licensing tag gets in the right place from here on out. Uploading that file while free of licensing issues was still a mistake, I intended to replace Trans_effect which I have since done. How do I delete Trans_effect_2 or should I just wait? —Preceding unsigned comment added by OMCV (talk • contribs) 04:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't worry about it, with the tag in place it'll get taken care of. Polly (Parrot) 17:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright on a Screenshot?[edit]

I recently uploaded some pictures onto wikipedia, but there was a question as to the copyright. What type of copyright should I use If I took a picture on my own camera of an in-game screenshot on Super Smash Bros. Brawl? Please and thank you!Darkhyp (talk) 13:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Even though you took the screenshot the image is still subject to copyright as it's a derivative work from a copyrighted source. Anyways if you wanted to add correct licensing you'd need this template, and for a fair use rationale you could use this template. Remember though that non-free images cannot be used on user pages, hope that answers your question. Polly (Parrot) 17:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for all of your help! ill give it a tryDarkhyp (talk) 20:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good luck, it's easier than it looks really. Polly (Parrot) 20:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pino.jpg[edit]

The image has all the necessary copyright information, please remove the tag. BanRay 20:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New One In Town (or should I say "Two"?)[edit]

Resolved
 – The original 20K.jpg file will be used in appropriate space, but the alternative will be changed. --SCARFACE 17:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You COULD have welcomed me instead of putting up NEGATIVITY on my talk page. Be more careful next time. --20000 Talk/Contributions 21:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unfortunately with the large amount of images uploaded, many with no licensing or incorrect licensing, placing individual messages regarding an image just isn't possible. At least now you have fixed the licensing, though the size may be a problem. Polly (Parrot) 21:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't re-add the image to your user page. Polly (Parrot) 17:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You hurt his feelings and you'll get blocked by an admin, because YOU'RE being uncivil. Us two (20000 and me) have made a consensus to use this on his page and this one. IS THAT UNDERSTOOD? --172.200.239.79 (talk) 19:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm now giving strong support for the consensus to go ahead. I think the Bomb will blow if this can't work. The Wikimedia Foundation says you can use pictures on your page. YOU, Polly Parrot, have pictures on your page. So if he has pictures on HIS page, that means the consensus has gone ahead. You've made yourself a target for revenge. I hope you feel sorry for what you've done. Later... ~~SCARFACE—19:21 • 15 MARCH • 2008~~
        • You may indeed have images on your page, just not non-free images, these will be removed per policy. Oh, and have a nice day. Polly (Parrot) 19:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • STOP now Polly! Isn't your post just a little bit insulting? The argument that you're making is nothing like mine. My argument deals with a case where you want to apply certain language, and I have contended that the language does not apply to this article. Your argument does not parallel mine: the guideline is meant to govern all articles. This is certainly an article; therefore the parts about restricting fair use images to what is necessary to illustrate the article's text most certainly applies. What IS the "commonly held definition of permit for fair-use on a user page"? You don't provide it. I don't understand how anything that either criticizes something, comments on an issue, or critically comments on an issue does not fail "No Original Research". It may be that I'm missing something here, but you're not helping me understand it. The Hindenburg example is an illustration/understanding example. It's not a case that displaying the image is a case of "critical commentary". Are we now discussing whether seeing images of characters helps readers understand them? I just wanted to know what the definition of "critical commentary" that we are using is. Could you help me by providing it? If not, YOU will be the one who suffers. --172.200.239.79 (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • PLEASE let the consensus go ahead before you make another one furious. It's for one's own good. The consensus is what matters, and it will go ahead. Even if it risks one being spammed, the consensus NEEDS to be made. So will you please let us three get the consensus underway? If you do, it'll be the best day of one's life. ~~SCARFACE—20:39 • 15 MARCH • 2008~~
              • It just got WORSE when a Wikipedist deleted the profile image of ATM "Scarface". Unless the consensus gets under way, we'll all suffer until someone comes to the rescue. And that would be Seth Gecko. --172.200.239.79 (talk) 20:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please have a read of this [1], it might enlighten you regarding User page images. Polly (Parrot) 21:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • We've read it all, but there is a problem: that Klp m*****f***er is using some fair-use images on HIS pages. Why can't everybody get the chance to host AT LEAST ONE fair-use image? It would enlighten all four of us. Anyway, we feel let down by Klptyzm dominating over us with fair-use images on HIS page. Unless we have AT LEAST ONE, there'll be no hope. --172.200.239.79 (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • And what fair use image might that be? Polly (Parrot) 21:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hmmm. You've LOST me there. I think it's in one of his Sandboxes. But at least one fair-use image of 20K's has now found a new home. Let's be partners; Scarface's photo is in the CC now, to add to all that... or is it? --172.200.239.79 (talk) 21:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • It originally got removed because I did NOT know how to use the "own work" template properly. So consider that a mistake. ~~SCARFACE—21:20 • 15 MARCH • 2008~~
  • Ah, time for tea, the cup that cheers and calms. Polly (Parrot) 21:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not over yet! As soon as someone uploads a version WITHOUT the BBC logo, the thing will pass. --172.213.0.190 (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here. Here's a [version of 20K.jpg] without the BBC logo. What do you think? I'll put "Solved" at the top once you've considered something. --SCARFACE 17:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think the whole ident sequence is subject to copyright not just the BBC logo. Polly (Parrot) 19:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • What DO YOU WANT me to do then? Trim it until only the 2 is left?? --SCARFACE 19:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just use free images on your user page, the original 2 ident you uploaded is being used appropriately in article space. Polly (Parrot) 19:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Has this been solved yet? I'm waiting for the final call. --SCARFACE 19:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Patience is its own reward or so they say, personally I'd rather have a fistful of dollars. Polly (Parrot) 19:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The original 20K.jpg file will be used in appropriate space, but the alternative will be changed. Is that sensible? --SCARFACE 19:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to what? The BBC are ruthless you know, infinge upon their copyright and they show no mercy. Polly (Parrot) 19:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

deletion of images on Gottfried Helnwein[edit]

I'm a bit confused why you tagged Image:Mm by gh.jpg, Image:Scorpions Backout.png and Image:Sehnsucht helnwein.jpg for deletion, or are you just trying to delete the image caption? And why would you delete the caption, if so? Please undo it or explain your actions so I can correct whatever may be wrong.

BChulmers77 (talk) 00:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The reason being they are copyrighted and you haven't added a fair use rationale for them, but I see you have for one of them. Just do the same for the others and all should be fine. Polly (Parrot) 00:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I corrected that and undid the CSD. These images were uploaded over a year ago... is this rationale thing a new criteria? BChulmers77 (talk) 16:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fair use rationale has been a requirement for copyrighted images for quite a while now. It used to be OK just to add a copyright licensing template but now everything copyrighted must meet the WP:non-free content official policy, which is stricter than Fair Use requirements. Polly (Parrot) 16:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*[edit]

Hi! How can I link to the Windy dinghy article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windy_(dinghy)

from the Windy page?

regards

8-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Perakesson (talk • contribs) 08:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've reverted my edit so there's now a link to the article. Polly (Parrot) 14:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Product packaging[edit]

Hello Melesse, Do you know if self made images of product packaging are subject to copyright? Example here [2], [3] have copyright tags but many others on Commons are [4] [5] licensed as free? I'd have thought the artwork would be subject to copyright. Polly (Parrot) 15:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think product packaging is copyrighted to the artist and/or the product's distributor, so those images on Commons ought to be reviewed. But that's definitely not the first time I've seen something on Commons with an incorrect license. People sometimes upload things here with a mistaken license and I guess some bot sees the {{PD-self}} tag and just copies it and then it slips under the radar. Melesse (talk) 20:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought they would be copyrighted, that's the trouble with bots, good for some things but not really suitable for others. Polly (Parrot) 21:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There really are a lot of these type of images on Commons, they'd all need to be looked at. Polly (Parrot) 21:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Grant[edit]

Hello Polly, you posted an objection to my Helen Grant article, but I am not clear what the objections are. I am new to Wikipedia, and I am still figuring out how it works. If you fully explain your objections, I will do my best to address them. Your advice would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vintagewriter (talk • contribs) 00:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • As I explained in my AfD nomination, I'm not sure that the article's subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines or that some of the claims meet the verifiability policy. Please do make a comment at the AfD and put across your reasons why you believe the article should be kept. Adding some stronger references would certainly help your case. Polly (Parrot) 00:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harrassment[edit]

Hi polly I am sending you a quick note, I am winding up my edits on WP due to being continually harrassed by Jza84 user. I may not necessarily agree with all of your responses with you but you have tried to be the middle ground i guess. Unfortunately Jza84 has systematically airbrushed my edits to do with Liverpool suburbs, he says he has been available for discussion but that is after he has rewritten my edits - and he is very clever with his words and his use of wp rules. Unfortunately as a new editor I do not know how to wind up someone in order to block them for 24 hours then do new versions of edits. I will not get involved in such petty arguements. If the user wants to be a gestapo syle wp monitor let him be. I edited in good faith based on my experience as a local and found his style of response to be insulting. Best wishes.Dmcm2008 (talk) 09:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC) Please note: the user has also removed a section in the Liverpool page districts - an add on of local suburbs ---that existed before I edited. All I have done is enhance it. Unfortuantely as Jza84 wants to be a smartie and remove everything I have edited he has removed this section. If you are interested in goodwill to other users please look at the activities of Jza84. Dmcm2008 (talk) 10:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm sorry to hear this, but you must do what you feel is for the best. Maybe give Wikipedia a rest for a while and come back and focus your editing in a whole diffrerent area, you may find that less problematic. Polly (Parrot) 17:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crysis screenshots.[edit]

I'll take another screenshot, at a smaller resolution (and without Fraps...). Thanks for pointing that out (my bad memory strikes again :/). · AndonicO Hail! 20:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • No problem, easily done and easily remedied. Polly (Parrot) 20:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image Licensing Questions[edit]

Hey Polly, how do I add a license to a photo so that it isn't removed? The image was taken by a friend of mine, and I downloaded it from flickr (not directly). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlealien182 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • If the Flickr photo has a creative commons license then link to the image on the Flickr webpage and add the relevant Creative Commons licensing tag to the image. You really need that direct link to the relevant Flickr page in order to prove the CC license is correct. Polly (Parrot) 22:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Award You The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar[edit]

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Ive seen your reverts, keep up the good work :D Prom3th3an (talk) 23:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About Peter Smith (composer) article[edit]

Polly, if you read the article you will see that there is an album due to be released by this composer within the next few weeks, as well as the already released commercial sample library. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KindAntelope (talk • contribs) 09:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes I mentioned the album in the AfD nomination, trouble is that the references in the article are weak, if you can improve them, then I urge you to do so. Polly (Parrot) 18:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Post it[edit]

Um...I can't take a picture of a Post-it note because it has the logo on the wrapper?????????? Pardon my French, but that's shit! Kodster (Talk) 19:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's a copyrighted commercial logo, but I do take your point, this is a somewhat ambiguous copyright area. If in doubt it's probably best to err on the side of caution. Polly (Parrot) 19:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Speedy Deletion of Grupo Ashta[edit]

If I knew that the article about Grupo Ashta was up for speedy deletion, why did I create that article on them? Ericthebrainiac (talk) 17:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry you've lost me, what is your question? Polly (Parrot) 19:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:F 200611 november07 140873a.jpg[edit]

The Orphan bot notified me that the image is up for deletion because you removed it from the 2 articles I placed it in. I've put it back pending the decision to keep/delete so the orphanbot won't bug me about that image being orphaned.--Cahk (talk) 19:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

doon't delete[edit]

I need it there for external imagery on mariowiki King food (talk) 21:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • If those are screenshots from a copyrighted video game then they can't be used in user space only in article space with a fair use rationale. Polly (Parrot) 21:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hey[edit]

how can I help watch for vandalism/spam/inacuarate postings? And is there a way view pages that lack detail, so I may help to add more information on subjects?

-bus #68- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bus68 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bus68 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GNU or GFDL license to SalviaLyrataCutAwayView[edit]

Yes, I've added the licensing after receiving the error message after the upload, but it's my work, TNX StationNT5Bmedia (talk) 02:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • No you added{{GNU|date=18 March 2008}} which is just an article template about GNU, you need to add {{GFDL}} for the GNU free license. Polly (Parrot) 02:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't cool.[edit]

Seriously... God...

  • Just add a free licensing tag like {{GFDL-self}} and that will suffice. Polly (Parrot) 02:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

tag for SalviaLyrataCutAwaySF.jpg[edit]

been there, done that ... thanks for being steps ahead of image redundancy StationNT5Bmedia (talk) 02:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on a sec![edit]

Please hold on with the tagging of that image, I'm testing a bot :). You can see the current BRFA, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/ImageResizeBot. Thanks! (the image is a resized public domain image from wikipedia) —— Eagle101Need help? 04:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Polly/Archive_3&oldid=1143855165"