User talk:Fasach Nua

Could you comment over at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Turtle crossing sign JPG.jpeg about this image. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late response; yep, it checks out. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your tag was reviewed and your concern was dismissed by two separate editors. Do not edit war. If you would like to stop wasting everyone's time with drive by tagging, and demonstrate that you are actually acting in good faith, then post your rationale on my talk page and we can discuss it. Before you do, I would suggest you actually read the article, because at this point, I very strongly doubt you have. Resolute 23:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fasach,

I wanted to let you know that I moved the discussion you were involved in regarding WP:Featured article candidates/History of Sesame Street/archive1 to its talk page, as per Sandy's recommendation. I moved your oppose, too, but returned it after I was told that I shouldn't have done it. I was also told to ping you, although as it turns out, it's not going to make much difference because it looks like Sandy's going to archive it because of lack of consensus. I also wanted to ask your opinion about an idea I had regarding the article's images. I've suggested that instead of the images being too few or not high enough quality, that we just not have any images at all. Does a featured article, especially one about the article's subject, *need* to have images? What do you think? Be honest, now! ;) Christine (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Am working on a page now that has a lot of images. Appreciate any advice on what to look for in terms of questionable stuff. See here: [1] TCO (talk) 06:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HEY! That was a serious request for help. Would like a gander at these images with a bunch of different licences, and maybe learn myself how to think through some of these issues as well. Also, in particular wonder of this issue of when something is listed as government derived, but it's not really obvious the source (govt document or current web precense). TCO (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had not been on wiki between first and second messages and would encourage you to check activity before leaving follow up messages. I have had a superficial look over this article and for the most part it is fine. I have concerns about File:Collared_Lizard_Albuquerque_NM_Preview.JPG regarding the email (not huge concerns, but concerns none the less), File:Cnemidophorus-ThreeSpecies.jpg is fine, it is basically CC with attributions, File:Reptiles.jpg has serious problems, it is derived from four different images, and the licensing for all must be compatible with the one used on the montage, this is currently not the case! On WP:MOS issues it is generally best practice to have images with faces look into the text, and for lists it is much tidier if all images use the same aspect ratio. Fasach Nua (talk) 14:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are having trouble tracking images back to their source I would recommend tineye Fasach Nua (talk) 01:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks for the comments! TCO (talk) 08:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I restored the non-free use rationale, you gave no reason for its removal. There was a discussion about that image in the FA nom which you started but did not reply to any further, sadly. Why remove the note now that the discussion is over? Regards Hekerui (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your thoughts on this? It sounds good but ... Thanks,--Wehwalt (talk) 19:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not implausible, although I would be wary of terms like "generally considered", the definition of "published" is crucial here, and the method and extent of publication should be stated, along with the states in which the publication was made Fasach Nua (talk) 21:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd really like to see something a bit more authoritative on the legal side, too.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[2] is a photo lawyer's blog. Very far from definitive legal opinion that Wehwalt is going to buy, but still I donno...interesting. TCO (talk) 21:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which entry do you feel bears on this?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None. Sorry.  :( There was one that did bear on something important a while ago. But I can't even recall what that was. I guess if you wanted an opinion you could pay her for one. Although I'm sure you could just look up right sort in DC as well at some big firm. Sorry, too much segue. Brain blood pressure dropping again (grr...) TCO (talk) 22:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. Anyway, including that in Allegro (musical) would be too much trouble for the worth.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have little experience with the 'legality' of images and am presently reviewing a GAN. There are four images. Could you review them? I don't want to pass to GA until I'm absolutely sure the images are legal. The article is Delphine LaLaurie. I simply don't have the expertise to make any decision on the images. Thank you! 56tyvfg88yju (talk) 12:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They all seem fine, either the copyright has expired, or they are freedom of panorama, I would prefer they were tagged as {{PD-EU}} where appropriate so that they can be moved to commons which requires images to be free in the US and their country of origin, and thus allows them to be enjoyed by other projects Fasach Nua (talk) 12:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! We're fortunate to have someone here with your expertise! Thank you again! 56tyvfg88yju (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Hi, could you please specify which images made you tag the article with the copyright warning? Thanks!--Reckless182 (talk) 22:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded this image for possible use in the History of the New York Jets article. You have one side, the other is a Johnny Walker Red logo. My position is that as it contains for the most part dates and city names (plus the team name of the Jets and the football image, I believe the TM refers to the other side, or possibly to the name "New York Jets"), it is too simple to be copyrighted and is PD. If your opinion is adverse, I will of course delete it, that is why I uploaded it to en wiki. Many thanks for your help.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<font=3> Thank you for your image checks and comments — Battle of Towton is now a featured article of the Wars of the Roses! Jappalang (talk) 22:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was just wondering if you could quickly run over the images and make sure they're all okay? It shouldn't take more than a few minutes, and I would appreciate it. Thanks! – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 19:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of File:Stover at Yale book cover image.jpg. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. TCO (talk) 10:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you took part in the first FAC for this article, I though you might be interested in participating in the current FAC for Somerset County Cricket Club in 2009. Regards, Harrias ^talk 20:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:35, 25 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Template:ORList has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your upload of File:Botanic gardens belfast sign post.JPG or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Another one of your uploads, File:Carson Mural.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Wales Ireland 1950.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 18:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:IFA international Cap 1909-1910.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:23, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Famous players generic has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Bloomfield park sign.PNG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned image with no foreseeable encyclopedic use.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Pkbwcgs (talk) 12:32, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Fermanagh outline.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Oak leaf.PNG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]