User talk:Melesse/Archive 53

Ad Carter

Thanks for catching that error. Pepso2 (talk) 12:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Melesse, I fixed that error. Please tell me what is now needed. Thanks. Pepso2 (talk) 12:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you didn't. I didn't flag the image because of the technical mistake in the rationale template, I flagged it because I don't think it meets the non-free content criteria, specifically section 8. Read more about it here. Melesse (talk) 20:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I added contextual info. Let me know what else I should add. Pepso2 (talk) 09:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Ray Bradbury

I have moved File:Fahenheit451rb.jpg to Ray Bradbury where it has more relevance, since that page had no images of Bradbury's books. Please let me know what is needed to be added. Pepso2 (talk) 22:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I added this sentence to the rationale to clarify: The cover illustrates the novel's premise of a future world in which the written word is forbidden.

Smokehouse

This has specific templates for all three pages. What is needed? Pepso2 (talk) 00:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I thought JMilburn did a pretty good job explaining the problem with all the images I tagged (I guess he had tagged other similar ones himself). "Basically, the important thing to do is to ensure that we are using as little non-free content as possible. We need to ask for what purpose we need to use an image- if we don't need to use one, we don't use one." All the images I tagged don't have any contextual significance in the article they're placed in. It looks they're there just for the sake of adding color to the articles, and that's not an acceptable reason with fair-use pictures. Melesse (talk) 04:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so I will add statements to clarify their necessity. But what if you still do not find such statements acceptable? Pepso2 (talk) 09:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Walter Hoban

I discovered the image File:Jerryonjob.jpg was published in 1921, so I have altered this one to public domain. Pepso2 (talk) 10:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Jimmy Murphy (cartoonist)

I added to the File:Tootsmurphy81730.jpg rationale. Do you find this acceptable? "The image is used for identification in the context of critical commentary. It makes a significant contribution to the user's understanding of the article, which could not practically be conveyed by words alone. The image serves as the primary means of visual identification of the artist's comic strip. It illustrates an educational article about the artist, showing his style, technique and his famed characters." Pepso2 (talk) 10:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Image information

An image conveys information. Thus, an image in itself is encyclopedic. Pepso2 (talk) 11:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Um, sure, but that's really not a sufficient reason to not follow the rules regarding fair use pictures. Melesse (talk) 15:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Jerry on the Job

I have deleted these two strips and will replace with a public domain image. Pepso2 (talk) 11:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Shel Silverstein

Context for File:Nowplansilverstein.jpg is given in both caption and body copy. What should I add? I deleted a page that had hijacked this image along with the entire Shel Silverstein page. Is that what was causing the problem? Pepso2 (talk) 22:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's what I have added to the rationale. Please let me know if this is satisfactory: "To identify cartoon collection of the creator profiled in the encyclopedic article. The image is used for identification in the context of critical commentary. It makes a significant contribution to the user's understanding of the article, which could not practically be conveyed by words alone. The image serves as the primary means of visual identification of the artist's cartoon work. It illustrates an educational article about the artist, showing his style and technique. The cover image is of significant importance because it was Silverstein's best known cartoon of the 1950s."

Note the quote from Silverstein's biographer which adds to the contextual unity. She comments on the heightened interest in this cartoon (which must be why it was chosen for the book cover). This image gains in encyclopedic importance because time has erased its importance, as indicated by Google searches which bring up the book but not the line drawing itself. This is similar to the famous back-cover photo of Truman Capote which once stirred controversy, but when I added that fact and the photo to the page on Capote, there were demands that I explain just what the controversy was about. Today that photo does not seem so unusual. Pepso2 (talk) 19:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The book cover File:Shelaroundworld07.jpg is covered in both caption and body copy. What should I add? Pepso2 (talk) 23:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's an addition to the rationale. Let me know if this is sufficient:

To identify early work by the creator profiled in the encyclopedic article. To identify cartoon collection of the creator profiled in the encyclopedic article. The image is used for identification in the context of critical commentary. It makes a significant contribution to the user's understanding of the article, which could not practically be conveyed by words alone. The image serves as a visual identification of the artist's cartoon work. It illustrates an educational article about the artist, showing his style and technique. Most importantly, it is a self-portrait, and as such it reveals Silverstein's self-image. The Silverstein "travelogue" pages had a unique "sketchpad" format which is not seen here but could be added if necessary.

File:Grabsocks56.jpg has three separate templates and contextual information on all three pages. What shall we add? Pepso2 (talk) 00:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's the rationale addition. Sufficient?:

To identify the mass-market paperback collection that introduced Shel Silverstein to American paperback readers in 1956. It is a historically significant work (now a valuable, expensive collectible). The image is used for identification in the context of critical commentary. It makes a significant contribution to the user's understanding of the article, which could not practically be conveyed by words alone. The image serves as a visual identification of the artist's cartoon work. It illustrates an educational article about the artist, showing his style and technique. The cover also demonstrates how Bill Mauldin, the most famous WWII cartoonist, lauded a later military cartoonist.

Various cartooning-related images that you have nominated for deletion

Good work! A lot of these cartooning-related articles utilize WAY too much non-free content, and I'm glad that you're leading the charge in getting this excessive non-free content pruned out and deleted. Too many people think that "no free equivalent" gives them carte blanche to throw non-free content in wherever they want, and as much as some folks would like that to be the case, it's not. So thanks for leading this charge, especially since, between you and me, I believe that the original uploader (Pepso2) either has no clue or willingly disregards the non-free content policies to upload non-free cartooning-related material. I just rescaled it down to a tiny size. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, most of my gnomish work goes unnoticed and/or dis-appreciated, so it's nice to get a little cheer on once and again. Sorry about the misdirected notice, I used to get a lot of those too and it was a little deflating to check my talk page just to see a message about something I didn't actually make a major contribution to. (Also I'd like to assume good faith, but I'm inclined to think you might be right about Pepso2.) Melesse (talk) 18:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I certainly don't want to get in the middle of anything regarding the editor in question, and I hope no one minds my mentioning that the phrase "leading a charge" has a crusade quality that risks throwing out the baby with the bath water. I simply think it's useful to note that, speaking in the most general sense, it would be difficult if not impossible to me to get a comprehensive understanding of an artist's work without seeing an example of that artist's work. We do it for fine artists such as Joan Miró, for instance. An outright ban on giving a single example of a cartoonist's work post-1923 seems as if it works against the nature of an encyclopedia. I hope my saying so doesn't get anyone upset; I'm not advocating for any particular image but simply expressing a cautionary feeling. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

As a way of, I hope, demonstrating my own concern for and understanding of Wikipedia image usage, I've initiated discussion at Talk:Wally Wood#Images about the overuse of images there; have summarily removed two images from Wally Wood for reasons I give on the talk page; and have suggested the removal of at least one more. I've added expanded FURs to just two of the tagged images. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I agree with that, ther does tend to be an over use of NFC for that purpose. Alex Kotzky is a fair example of this. Given the article's length, 1 piece is sufficient, 3 is overkill. Also 2 of the 3 are grossly oversized for this use being at a high enough resolution for commercial reproduction.

There are at least two other issues at work here thought:

1. Images are bing tagged when the do appear to have sufficient explanation of use - File:Alex Kotzky art.jpg seems to cover it under "Other information". A little discrimination may be needed here.
2. Notifying the correct uploader. I was notified for Alex Kotzky art.jpg and File:Teen Age Sex Club.jpg since I uploaded the current, reasonably sized versions - as noted in the "upload" comments. And I see I'm not alone in this as you have notified a bot - DASHBot - which has done the same.
   Please, you've got access to the logs and the deletion history for the images so check them and notify accordingly. You should review the images you've tagged to make sure you've notified all the proper uploaders.

- J Greb (talk) 22:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Edwina Dumm

I'll make that public domain. Pepso2 (talk) 16:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, File:Dummpix.jpg is now public domain. This is an important image since it shows Edwina Dumm as she looked in her early twenties and also her artwork from that same period. Plus it's a fairly sharp photo when compared to the microfilmed-shattered Newspaper Archive ancient photos I've attempted to restore. Pepso2 (talk) 20:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Boob McNutt

I have greatly expanded the rationale for File:Boobnemo.jpg and greatly reduced the image. Melesse, I have to get back to work and don't have time to make all the necessary repairs. What if you insert the proper rationales instead of just tagging them? If so, much appreciated! Pepso2 (talk) 15:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

No thank you, because I'm not actually someone who wants all these images to stay on Wikipedia... Melesse (talk) 01:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Is that because you don't like comic strips or because you don't think of comic strips as art? Pepso2 (talk) 02:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Neither, it's because I think they're being used to extreme excess, which goes against the NFCC guidelines. Melesse (talk) 02:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

If it takes 19 images to show Picasso as an important creative figure in the art world, is that extreme excess? Pepso2 (talk) 10:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

That's hardly a fair analogy, seeing as how out of the 19 images in the Picasso article, 12 (63%) of them are public domain and not subject to the NFCC guidelines. Not the same case with the articles your uploads are in. Melesse (talk) 10:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

What is your favorite comic strip? Pepso2 (talk) 11:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Non Sequitur. How ironic. Melesse (talk) 11:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Fixed issue with image

See my discussion page CCeducator 19:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CCeducator (talk • contribs)

Comic strip artists

Long-running comic strips have had more than a single illustrator. Pepso2 (talk) 15:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

File:.AdFontesAcademy Falcon logo_r.jpg

Hello, Melesse. You have new messages at [[User talk:--CCeducator (talk) 21:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)|User talk:--CCeducator (talk) 21:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)]].
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Note: I have reloaded the file. It was in use on Ad Fontes Academy -- see sports.

Not clear why it was deleted

Thanks for the message.

Melesse, Thanks for the vital message. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nil pat13 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

File:World Trade Center 2.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:World Trade Center 2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. –Dream out loud (talk) 04:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Soori_climax_scene.svg

Hello Melesse, thanks to prevent me about my uploaded image which is unlicensed and orphaned. I will soon put the image in the article : Soori (film), after I would have written a longer plot. Thank you. Terminator92 (talk) 17:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Deleted Images for Industrial Computer Source

Hello Melesse,

You're shown as deleting the images File:Sourcebook Cover.jpg and File:Sourcebook Cover Bak.jpg and give the reason as F11. I am the author of those photographs which should have been indicated in the files. In addition, I was the original owner and author of The Industrial Computer Sourcbook as referenced in the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Computer_Source. Permission to use these images was freely given. What are you looking for regarding evidence of permission? Would you please respond to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rackmount-guy?

Thanks, David Rackmount-guy (talk) 19:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll reload and fix the permissions. I'm also the webmaster for www.chassis-plans.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rackmount-guy (talk • contribs) 21:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding File:CIUK18.jpg

Hi Melesse,

I didn't get back to you sooner because I've not been on Wikipedia much recently because of real-world stuff!

You put the above image up for deletion because "it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created".

The reason why the image was on the page was to illustrate the difference between an original US cover and the new UK covers. As such, I do not see how a freely licensed media could be found/created!

I think that it is a useful addition to the article (although to be fair, I hadn't added anything about the covers on the UK versions being digitally cleaned-up and enhanced, but I have now done so) as it illustrates this difference.

Would you please re-consider the deletion? If you still feel that the deletion was valid, then I will consider taking this to deletion review, but I'd rather sort this out informally!

Incidentally, I also feel that File:Classics Illustrated UK.jpg was also a valid use of an image, illustrating a UK cover in the section about the UK versions of CI. Again, there is no way a freely licensed media could be found or created in this case. Although I feel that this should be undeleted also, I do not feel as strongly as I do about CIUK18.jpg!

Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't actually delete the images, I just nominated them. That said, I stand by my nomination. The article has plenty of creative commons licensed images of the American versions, and I don't feel the UK versions are different enough to warrant using fair use images. Melesse (talk) 01:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I understand that, and while I'd agree about the Classics Illustrated UK.jpg file, I still feel that the other one adds to the article. I'm away on holiday for a few days (yes!!) so I'll consider whether to go to review or not. If I do, I will (of course) let you know so that you can comment should you wish to do so. Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Zbirka Duhy back.jpg

Sorry, I'm lost here. What exactly is wrong in its description?? I checked it but still can't figure it out... The same as for [File:Zbirka Duhy.jpg]. Thanks for letting me know. Uzerakount (talk) 04:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The rationale you copied is for the front cover of albums. Back covers of albums are rarely used in articles so when they are they need a separate rationale explaining why the article is improved by including the back cover as well. Melesse (talk) 01:17, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for a response. Back covers of those releases prove presence also the featured artists, that is why I used them. Could you recommend what information I'm supposed to add to their files' descriptions, please? Uzerakount (talk) 09:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

That kind of information would be better conveyed with a track listing with a citation, maybe from the label. Fair use images aren't used to "prove" things, citations from reputable sources are. Melesse (talk) 09:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)