I will normally respond here, but if you'd like me to reply on your talk page, please let me know.
If I post on your page, I will notice any reply you leave for me there, but if you prefer to respond here, that's fine.
If you disagree with an edit I have just made to an article, it's quite likely that I'm in the process of typing a post on the article talk page, so please wait before complaining here!
I normally archive my talk page when it has about fifty threads.
The design of this talk page (and of my user page) was a gift from Phaedriel.
Hi Elinor. I remember you asked about this page a couple of months ago. You might want to take a read now, as it's been done over very well. I can only take credit for a couple of paragraphs; User:Casliber did most of the heavy lifting. I think we have excellent coverage there now and it should soon by off to FAC. Cheers, Marskell 15:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Marskell. Thanks for letting me know. I haven't looked yet, but I definitely will. You and your colleagues did a great job with some of the other big cats. ElinorD(talk) 02:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Picture
Obviously you didn't get the joke about Cookie Monster, hence the picture. Also, I think you should ask the user before removing pictures from their talk pages. Lastly, if you are going to claim "no non-free images in userspace" you are going to have to remove all the images on that page, not just one. - NeutralHomerT:C 06:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to disagree, Homer, but Elinor was correct per WP:NFCC#9. It looks like the other pictures on Phaedriel's talk page are all free ones. But copyrighted images unfortunately aren't allowed in userspace. Videmus OmniaTalk 06:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That may be so, I don't know, but I don't think The Henson Group is going to come after us for a "COOOOKIEE" joke. People need to lighten up...seriously...and stop taking the fun out of everything on here. You add a picture, a harmless Cookie Monster picture, and it gets taken down, policy is cited, people are messaged....over a joke. Sad. - NeutralHomerT:C 06:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand where you're coming from, but policy is policy. It's better that Elinor removed the image in a nice way, rather than having a bot show up to give Sharon a rude warning about having copyrighted material in her userspace. Videmus OmniaTalk 19:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Neutralhomer. Sorry for delays in responding. In case you've missed it, I responded to another post recently, but archived very soon after, so you can find it at User_talk:ElinorD/Archive07#KDKA_Question. To deal with the cookie monster issue, it has nothing to do with getting the joke or not getting the joke. Nor has it anything to do with whether or not the Henson Group is going to come after us. If our only concern were to avoid being sued, then we wouldn't have a prohibition against using images where the copyright holder has granted permission to Wikipedia to use them but has not released the images under a free licence which allows anyone to use them for any purpose whatsoever, including modifying them and selling them. I'm sorry if it made you feel snubbed in any way; that was not intended. Speaking as a friend of Phaedriel, I can state without hesitation that she would not want to have copyrighted images on her page, and she would not want anyone who had put them there in good faith to be hurt. See here for an example of her thoughts on that issue. So I'm afraid that image did have to go, but I hope you can see that removing it was not meant in any way to hurt anyone. Regards. ElinorD(talk) 12:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody in Toronto loves you (and other admins)
Just as a heads-up, the IP you blocked as 67.71.143.132 is the same person as 70.49.243.239, whom I blocked last night for racist personal attacks. This person doesn't seem to like admins. Raymond Arritt 14:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, nice to be loved by someone like that. :-) Cheers. ElinorD(talk) 12:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, ElinorD. The arbitration case in which you are listed as a party to has opened. Please provide evidences on the evidence page for the Arbitrators to consider. You may also want to utilize the workshop page for suggestions.
I'm supplying the popcorn.--MONGO 21:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense, that's my privilege. I have a popcorn maker, so if I supply the popcorn, it will be fresh and we won't run out! I recommend some grated Cheddar cheese on top. ElinorD(talk) 21:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, technically you weren't supposed to add to the statements on the main case page after I've started working on it, but since 1) I left while starting it and 2) you were listed as involved and didn't have a statement, I'm letting it by. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 07:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, Penwhale. I appreciate it. In my own defence, though, I typed the whole thing (which took a considerable amount of time) into the "edit this section" box at the main RfA page, and when I press "save", I got an edit conflict. You had opened the case. I had selected and copied the text of my post to the clipboard before trying to "save", as I generally do, for fear of edit conflicts, so, even if I had known that I wasn't supposed to add to the statement, I'd probably have felt slightly justified in that case. Anyway, thanks. ElinorD(talk) 12:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The MONGO-cowstar
with naughty embedded link
Moo...now you have a MONGO-cowstar. Aren't you lucky?
Hello ElinorD, I am puzzled by something. I was reading the Theosis article today and noted that St. Ireneaus is listed under the Greek Orthodox section. I have always thought of him as "belonging" as much to the Western Church as to the Eastern Church. Given that I am not Catholic and may not understand some of the nuances I thought I might seek your advice. My initial objective is to move his comments down to the Catholic section, but I will wait and hear your thoughts. The quote used comes from his Against Heresies (Didn't he write those as Bishop of Lyons?). Cheers. --Storm Rider(talk) 00:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay, but actually, it's not something I know a great deal about. I've had a look though. As far as I know, Ireneaus wrote Against Heresies in Greek, but it only survives in a Latin translation. I believe he's counted as a Latin Father of the Church. But I imagine that any saint who lived at a time before there was some kind of split would be claimed by both groups. For example, the Anglicans who recognise saints would count Agnes and Lucy and Sebastian as saints, but not Edmund Campion or Robert Southwell. I'm sorry I can't really help you, though. Most of my edits to Christianity articles are just vandalism reverts. ElinorD(talk) 02:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My guardian angel
I thought I'd give a picure of a guardian angel to my guardian angel. Thanks for all your help and advice over the past couple of weeks. Videmus OmniaTalk 03:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, and thanks for all the good work you do. ElinorD(talk) 12:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
Thanks for reverting that odd message on my user page. I have no idea what that is all about. =\ -- Gogo Dodo 20:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Just some troll, I think. ElinorD(talk) 12:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello ElinorD, would you mind looking over these two edits of mine regarding CSN? [1][2] I've never closed a discussion there before, and would like to know if I've done the right thing. Feel free to rollback my edits if necessary. Thanks. Acalamari 21:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. :) Acalamari 16:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin's talk page
If you're interested, I sent it to WP:ANI. Jd2718 02:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I saw it. Thanks for letting me know. I remain mystified as to how anyone would want to restore messages from someone who had been asked not to post on someone's talk page, when those message had been removed by someone known to be friendly with the users from whose page she was removing them. ElinorD(talk) 02:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested source book
Elinor,
Thanks so much for your work on the 85 martyrs of England and Wales. I've added this comment to the discussion page--
Hugh Grant
Hugh Grant was executed along with Marmaduke Bowes in York in 1585, and should be added to this list. A Good source for additional information on some of these martyrs is--John Paul II's Book of Saints, editors Matthew Bunson, Margaret Bunson, Stephen Bunson, Our Sunday Visitor Publishing Division, Huntington, IN, 1999. ISBN 0-87973-934-7.--Ajschorschiii 12:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
The JPII saint book also has long lists of martyrs from other countries, which can be added as wiki categories at some point.
My contact information is linked to my user profile should you wish at some point to directly correspond.
Thanks. I'll take a look. ElinorD(talk) 02:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On blocking
In response to your statements here. No. Guy already acknowledged that he made the blocks without any basis in checkuser results. Indeed, that was clear from the start. Requesting clarification from an admin is, of course, a good thing... when there is uncertainty. However, that wasn't the case here. He blocked because they looked like sock-puppets, and I don't agree with that. Nor, I believe, does policy or consensus. --CBD 14:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I read what Guy wrote, and while he didn't specifically say that he knew of a checkuser result, he certainly didn't deny it, and I can confirm that an admin with checkuser access had sent an email to several admins, including Guy, stating that it was a sock. Regardless, it certainly would be better for you to deal directly with your fellow admin if you query a block, rather than turning up at the talk page of someone that you admit looked very like a sock, to complain about the admin, when you were not in full possession of the facts. ElinorD(talk) 02:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Health effects of abortion
I notice that you recently got involved in an edit war on made contributions to the Abortion page. I would appreciate it if you would also contribute to the associated discussion on Talk:Abortion. Thank you. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 14:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly wasn't involved in any edit war, and was hardly involved in editing the article either. ElinorD(talk) 02:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support MONGO-- but support him differently
Elinor-- your support of MONGO is virtuous, but he needs his friends here to help reign in his incivility and personal attacks-- not to endorse those sides of him. In the end, we, the community, bear most of the weight for his desysopping-- if we had done a better job of communicating to him that he had a behavior problem, he could have used that feedback to learn from his mistakes.
Instead, we the community, endorsed him and "defended him" to death, until his behavior grew to the point of being completely indefensible.
Just my two cents-- take or leave it, as of course, we do with all information. --Alecmconroy 12:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine if the community had done a better job of supporting him, and especially if you hadn't turned up at his page to make numerous protests at his perfectly valid removal of links to a site which that ArbCom ruling said must not be linked to, continuing to pester him after he had made it obvious that your posts weren't welcome, he might not have felt so frustrated. Speaking of communicating behaviour problems to friends, telling someone who wrote an outrageously insensitive and obnoxious post which trivialised the experience of being harassed that it "made you chuckle"[3] does not strike me as a fine example of fraternal correction. ElinorD(talk) 02:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your messages. I am a 15 year old boy and I love the singer Amal Hijazi. I DO want to include a picture just to illustrate the page and make it look good. Other pages of Arabic singers Nancy Ajram, Nawal al Zoghbi and Angham all have pictures. Why don't they get deleted?
I don't understand the policy. I'm really sorry. I don't want to be blocked since I love Wikipedia and I WANT to improve the article on Amal Hijazi. There are hundreds of pictures found in the web and even on her official fanclub. There are some pictures created by her fans also.
Please Elinor, I want to upload some pictures on Amal Hijazi. It is fair. I hope that you help me.
As I've explained on your talk page, you'll need to make yourself familiar with our image policies, and to stop uploading images until you're sure that they comply. ElinorD(talk) 02:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Aoclogo.gif
Hi, could you please undelete Image:Aoclogo.gif? I, as the uploader, was never notified of the tagging for request of additional info or tagging for deletion. --Soman 23:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done, but please take care of it as soon as possible, or another admin will probably delete it again, without realising that it has just been undeleted! ElinorD(talk) 23:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To prevent some other admin from automatically deleting it while working through the speedy deletion categories, I've changed the date for the tag, to give you a few days to get the everything sorted out. It also needs a rationale, so I've added a tag to say that. Cheers. ElinorD(talk) 23:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Apo-crest.jpg
I find your recent speedy deletion of this image from the Alpha Phi Omega article to be a very bold and unacceptable move. For one, the image has been on the page for at least several years now, so having problems with it now is rather surprising. But it would have been a more acceptable move to list the page at 'images & media for deletion', and let us know on the talk page of any image copyright tag issues. While the image copyright is owned by the national organization of Alpha Phi Omega, the wikipedia page is maintained by members of the organization, and obtaining permission from the national office to use the image is likely not to be a problem. I also don't see why this is a huge problem; as this is a corporate logo, fair use should apply -- are you going to go around deleting the logos of corporations from pages like Wal-Mart and Google now? Dr. Cash 03:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't blame the deleting admin when an image does not comply with the non-free content criteria. The image was deleted for lacking source and license information, which is required per WP:NFCC and WP:CSD. I understand that it certainly could qualify as fair use; I recommend that you re-upload the image with the correct source, license, and rationale. I don't believe the Wal-Mart or Google logos will be deleted because those images have the correct source and licensing information. Videmus OmniaTalk 03:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use for fraternity crests have been clarified multiple times by the WikiProject for Fraternities and Sororities. This is a perfectly valid complaint against this admin, especially because the policy cited (WP:CSD#I4) was not followed. No seven-day notice was given, nor was any comment posted on the talk page for the article that had the image. Administrators are not exempt from following policies. Wikipedia expects better from its administrators group, and this action is certainly not becoming of the trust given by the community to this individual. Justinm1978 03:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of what a Wikiproject says, the image page is required to have the necessary information per WP:NFCC. The notice applies to the uploader, not to an article page or Wikiproject. Trust me, Elinor is following the policies correctly. I recommend that you look at other logos for fraternity crests to ensure they comply with the policy. Videmus OmniaTalk 03:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except that's not the policy that was cited, he cited WP:CSD#I4 as his reason for deletion. This policy does apply in this case, but he didn't follow it by not allowing 7 days for it to be addressed. I recommend you re-read this policy before saying someone followed it when they did not. Justinm1978 03:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's kind of odd to have people stating that I didn't allow the seven days, when they can't see the history of the deleted image and don't know who the uploader was. The image was tagged by OsamaKBOT at 19:51 on 7 September, and the uploader was notified the same minute.[4]. ElinorD(talk) 02:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if I misunderstood - was the uploader not notified when the image was tagged? Who was it? Videmus OmniaTalk 04:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember who the original uploader was because the image in question was attached to the page for quite a long time, which is another reason why I find this administrator's actions unacceptable. If you look at this administrator's edit history, it looks like she deleted quite a few images/logos from articles today, and there doesn't appear to be any evidence of her notifying anyone on talk pages either. I think this administrator might be going "rogue" and it might be good to desysop this person. Dr. Cash 04:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may be unfamiliar with image deletion processes. Normally images that do not comply with policy are tagged by bots or volunteers. The uploader notification is also done at that time. The placing of the tag puts the image into a dated deletion category - an example would be Category:Orphaned fairuse images as of 21 September 2007. For the example category I just listed, on 28 September or later an administrator will go through the category and delete all the images which have not been brought into compliance with policy in the designated time frame. The deleting admin does not need to notify anyone further because that step was done at the time of the tagging. Videmus OmniaTalk 04:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the defence, Videmus. Needless to say, I endorse it. I replied to the complaints here. ElinorD(talk) 02:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, thanks, Videmus — I think. It's actually the second time I've had that box placed on my talk page. I've taken the liberty of substing it, so that I can remove the category when I archive this page. ElinorD(talk) 02:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it was just sarcastic, given the comment above - you're probably one of the least rouge admins I know. :-) Videmus OmniaTalk 00:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a heads up
An ANI section has been raised about your deletion spree here. Please comment there (I'm slightly confused, still trying to figure matters out). — xDanielxT/C 05:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as how no one has notified you... you get a wonderful new Allegations of aparthei...erm...admin abuse at WP:AN/I! Hurray! (or not :-p) Keep up the good work :-) --Iamunknown 05:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I see you already have a notification section. --Iamunknown 05:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Beat you by one minute. :) — xDanielxT/C 06:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now Elinor will be in for a double surprise (as if one were not enough) when she gets on Wikipedia ;-) --Iamunknown 07:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is Elinor's second ANI complaint in three days. I conclude she is just a trouble maker and ought to be desysopped poste haste. She really needs to stop being -er- such a hard worker.;) Sarah 07:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats on doing so much positive work that you've earned a little controversy. (No good deed goes unpunished.) And congrats also for your show-stoppingly level-headed response on ANI. You're an angel -- keep up the good work. (But you still have a ways to go before you get to play in my ballpark, young Padawan.) – Quadell(talk) (random) 20:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support, everyone. I guess being involved in controversy means either that you're a good admin or that you're a bad one, but never having any controversy probably just means that you're a bad one. ElinorD(talk) 02:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've uploaded it again...and I think I've filled in all the correct licensing bits. Could you let me know if anything is missing..cheers MrMarmite 08:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks okay to me. It would probably be better to mention where you got it, and who holds the copyright. I personally don't tag images of logs or album covers as unsourced, because it is generally obvious who holds the copyright, but others do tag them, and it's quite possible that if I'm working my way through a category of several hundred images awaiting speedy deletion I could delete a logo. I'm still hoping that some kind of clarification will be given about whether logos, book covers, album covers, etc., where it's obvious who holds the copyright, should be treated differently from other kinds of unsourced images. ElinorD(talk) 03:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that you removed the picture from the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CrossLoop site. I want to share this page with some of my colleagues and family overseas and I feel the page is not complete without showing the pic of application. Is it possible to add a picture to this article? Could I take a screen shot of this application from my mcahine and post a picture?
Hi, anon. I deleted that image because it didn't have a fair use rationale.[5] The uploader was notified on 11 September that the image might be deleted, but he didn't fix the problem. I imagine that if you write a rationale explaining why the image is necessary to the article, it should be okay. You can ask about it at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. ElinorD(talk) 03:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm looking to have the images Image:Franklin Inn 03 by MNK.jpg and Image:Franklin Inn 04 by MNK.jpg undeleted, as I have proper Fair Use rationale to supply in the image description. They would also be a boon to the Franklin Inn article, as they provide a very large amount of information that the administrators, members, and people who frequent this historic site would be happy to see on Wikipedia. :-) Thanks, אמרSteve Caruso 16:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry about the delay in responding. I've been a bit careless about responding promptly to questions recently. However, in this case, I was actually thinking it over, and wasn't sure what to respond. There are already some free images in that article, and we're supposed to be conservative with non-free material. I don't actually think that those images would contribute so significantly to the article as to justify their use, but I'd be happy to get a second opinion from another admin who is experienced in making decisions related to deleting or keeping non-free images. I'll ask one or two other admins for their opinions in the next day or two. If you're not satisfied with the outcome, you can try deletion review. ElinorD(talk) 03:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believed that all information about the real name the editor in question had been removed from the site and that the editor in question no longer believed the site qualified as an attack site as stated: "I'm glad to see TNH's act of moderation and withdraw my objections to linking to her website." [7]
I certainly did not intend to link to revealing information, I included a link to the text I quoted so that other's could verify the correctness of my quoting. Uncle uncle uncle 22:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I understand. I think the question to ask is whether what you're saying is so necessary as to justify the side effect of having another editor's real name made more accessible to people that he might not want to share that information with. There are times when I refrain from posting some relevant information (and I'm not necessarily talking about this case) precisely because it might have consequences for someone else that I didn't want or intend. ElinorD(talk) 03:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you appear to have responded in the arbitors section (you being a party!) LessHeard vanU 20:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Strike that, you were responding to an arbitor - the formatting confused me. LessHeard vanU 21:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's confusing trying to decide where to post, and in fact in one of my first posts in that case, I forgot I was a party and commented in the section for "others". ElinorD(talk) 03:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User page
I don't mind that you restored my user page unintentionally as it just saves me the time of asking. Also, regarding the kind thoughts you left on my talk page a couple months ago, I only caught them recently, as I haven't checked my talk page in a long time. Thanks for those, and for the welcome back message, too! You're not leaping to conclusions either. I gave it some thought and figured it's not worth leaving when I've still got an interest in the project. Thanks again! -Severa 22:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, and I'm very happy to see you back. ElinorD(talk) 03:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Making Light query
Hello,
As mentioned in my note above: "All information about the real name the editor in question had been removed from the site and that the editor in question no longer believed the site qualified as an attack site as stated: "I'm glad to see TNH's act of moderation and withdraw my objections to linking to her website." [9]"
If I provide links to specific (non-inflamatory) comments from the blog, will you delete the links/entire post?
It goes without saying that I would not link to harassment, but I'll say it anyway.
Will I delete the links/entire post? Probably not, but I'd encourage you to think carefully about how easy it might be to navigate from something you link to to something that distresses another editor, and to ask yourself how necessary your links and references really are. ElinorD(talk) 03:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Krocheck. Check this message from our founder. Also, if you check WP:CSD#I3, you'll see that we don't actually accept non-free images that have permission from the copyright holder, because part of our aim as a free encyclopaedia is that everything on it should be allowed to be taken, reused, modified, and sold by others. Sometimes people are willing to allow their images to be used, but not commercially, or they might not be happy to have derivative works made. We want to encourage people to license their material in such a way as to allow anyone to use it for any purpose. That said, if an image has permission from the copyright holder, that doesn't automatically mean that we can't use it. It just means that we can't use it as liberally as we would use a free image. We can still use such an image as fair use, if it adds significantly to the article in which it's used, and if there's no free alternative, or any reasonable prospect that a free alternative could be created or obtained at some stage in the future. Take a look at WP:NFCC, and if you think you could write a good rationale to justify the use of the image, I'd be happy to undelete it. ElinorD(talk) 03:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Louise Post
That image needs deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karpenks (talk • contribs) 15:47, 28 September 2007
If you're talking about Image:Louise1.jpg , I expect it will be deleted soon, as it has no source information. ElinorD(talk) 03:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes,you can re-upload it.Sorry about the trouble.Coolgirly88 14:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Please reply on my talk page, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolgirly88 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Elinor, I found the posting above on my talk page and I am a bit puzzled. I only uploaded a handful of pictures and have already discussed this with another admin, User:Quadell. He already overstated my uploading after looking through my log - but only after I asked him something. I don't know why you go through my logs. Maybe you are a bit too preoccupied with removing images and copyright questions. I tend to focus on content and hence have not much time for such issues. I also must admit that I find WP's image policy confusing, to say the least. But anyway, I don't see why you had to lectured me like that, especially since I already sorted things out with Quadell. Str1977(talk) 14:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removal of Dirty Trixx image
Hello
I am querying why you removed the Dirty Trixx image from the John Lowery Wiki page?
I am still trying to figure out the editing process and image upload of wiki, (can not figure how to edit an image and put the full credit details on the image once uplaoded), but I want to assure you I have the right to use that image.
1) That image is of my boss aged 12 in his first band and is relevant to the Childhood history on the John Lowery wiki page. I work for John Lowery on his official website and my space page - links are in the Wiki page.
2) If I could figure how to change the image to get the credit up, then I would have - what gets me, without being offensive, is that another contributor has given me time on images, whereas you did not and did not explain why - I would appreciate if you could tell me why.
I'm still trying to figure all the image copyrights, and all the tags, so a little help would be appreciated and alittle talk instead of a wholesale removal with no discussion.
Hi there. I'm in the process of following up the thread I started at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive104#Review of deleted US Civil War generals pics, and I'm contacting some of the administrators involved to see if the processes can be improved to avoid this happening again (you speedy deleted 6 of the images: [10]; [11]; [12]; [13]; [14]; [15]). The deletion reason you gave was unclear ("lacking sources or license information"). I'm presuming that the reason was lacking license information. When I review cases like this, it helps if the deletion reason is more specific, as in this case there was source information. As I said in that thread:
"I'm also mystified as to why these pics were deleted like this, without any sort of effort to salvage them. Could the deleting admins clarify this? I understand it was probably part of a "clearing the backlogs" effort, but still, it is a lot of effort to undo all this and restore the links on the articles. Of courser the original uploader should have done better [...] At the very least, admins looking at these pics should do better than the uploader and take more care than the uploader did. And a general plea: when you see an old B&W photo in a 'speedy deletion' category, please stop and think "hang on, this might be an old public domain picture - it is probably worth changing the tag on this so someone else can investigate this if I don't have the time""
What do you think is the best way to avoid this happening again? As a general point, do you think contacting individual admins is the best way to avoid this happening again, or should something be added to a policy page somewhere? Do admins who clear CSD regularly keep themselves updated with changes to policy pages? My view is that indiscriminate clearing of CSD can end up biting editors who stop contributing. Carcharoth 11:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![[5]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=Image%3ACrossloop.jpg){kind=link}
.PNG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[10]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Image:Ellison_Capers.jpg){kind=link}
![[11]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Image:John_Bratton.jpg){kind=link}
![[12]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Image:John_Bullock_Clark%2C_Sr..jpg){kind=link}
![[13]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Image:Pinckney_D._Bowles.jpg){kind=link}
![[14]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Image:Thomas_J._Churchill.jpg){kind=link}
![[15]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Image:Robert_Hall_Chilton.jpg){kind=link}