User talk:Nv8200pa

Nomination of "Sixth Street Austin" for featured picture

Hi Larry,

I'm new here and didn't see another way to let you know that I'd nominated your photo "Sixth Street Austin" as a featured picture. It has been the desktop background on my MacBook for a week, and I'm more blown away every time I look at it.

Also, great beginning of the article on Armadillo World Headquarters and shot of plaque. There's a pic of the unveiling on my MySpace (1st link below), and if you're a fan of AWHQ, you might like the South Austin Museum of Popular Culture (2nd link). We're on the Austin Museum Day tour this Sunday (9/23), so do drop by if you're back in town!

austinmuse/Gloria B. H.

http://www.myspace.com/austinmuse
http://www.myspace.com/samopc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Austinmuse (talk • contribs) 05:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:William_styron.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:William_styron.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 17:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back!

Good to see you back - now get to work, the image categories are backlogged again. :) Videmus Omnia ^Talk 18:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back. Substantive policy disagreements aside, I recognize this is important, needed work that you've chosen to focus on. Thank you for that. ... Kenosis 19:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Undeletion request for Image:Converted richway.jpg

Hello, I noticed you deleted Image:Converted richway.jpg. I didn't know it was listed on IFD, else I would have disagreed with the nomination. Is there any way this image can be restored, or moved to commons? I do believe the image added encyclopedic value in the context it was used in on Richway Department Stores and Target Corporation. Regards, Tuxide 22:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Undeletion request for Image:Justinpicture1.jpg

The image is not a candidate for deletion under NFCC #1. Its purpose is to show the subject of the article as he appeared at the time in question. Your statement that it is merely used for identification is simply untrue. A central question in the events for which Berry became noted is whether, in the face of his advertising the site as containing only images of himself over 18, that a person could look at his advertising images and determine that was false. Any textual argument in that regard would tread on OR. Rather, the image is there to show how he looked then, because how he looked then is an important part of the story the article tells. Identifying the subject is not the intent or purpose of the image. Therefore, I request that you undelete it. --Ssbohio 05:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It looks as if the image was deleted as the result of an IfD discussion; the proper forum would be WP:DRV if you feel that policy or process was violated by the deleted admin. However, looking over the discussion, this looks like a good deletion to me. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 13:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

By my reading of policy & other documents, the proper forum is to discuss the matter first with the deleting admin. The action was taken against clear consensus and without regard to the ongoing discussion/rewrite at the article in which it's used, a discussion which explains why the previously 100k article is now around 10k while language is worked out. The way the deleting admin recorded the deletion would open a subsequent upload of the image (after the article's text is fixed) to a speedy deletion as the recreation of deleted conent. At the very least, could the image be redeleted with a less onerous reason given? --Ssbohio 14:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from, and have no opinion or prior experience with that particular image. However, keep in mind that local consensus on a particular page or image cannot override the larger consensus of policy (in this case NFCC #1, and the Foundation's licensing resolution specifically addressed non-free images of living people. What I would recommend is fixing the article issues first, then going to deletion review to present your new rationale for the image's use to request undeletion. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 14:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

While I take your recommendation to heart, I have to insist that, by any plain reading of WP:NFCC#1, the image is keepable. Let's look at the test in NFCC #1 & evaluate this image:

• Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.
  • No free equivalent could be created to show what Berry looked like as a webcam pornographer at 16 or so no matter how we approach him as a 22-year-old anti-child pornography speaker & educator.
• If non-free content can be transformed into free material, this is done instead of using a fair-use defense.
  • The only way I could see to accomplish that with this photograph would be to ask Berry to permit its release under GFDL. Permission would be impossible to obtain and it would be (to my mind) cruel even to ask Berry about it.
• Non-free content is always replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available. "Acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose.
  • There is no freer equivalent available Berry will never be a teenager again, and, since his appearance as a teenager is one of the issues raised by his critics, letting the reader draw their own conclusion seems more prudent & more neutral than telling them one way or the other what to think.
• As a quick test, ask yourself: "Can this image be replaced by a different one, while still having the same effect?" If the answer is yes, then the image probably does not meet this criterion.
  • As the effect is inextricably tied to the age of the subject as depicted on the websites he administered, there is nothing that would have the same effect as depicting him as others saw him at the time. It is intrinsically true that Berry portrayed himself a particular way when operating his websites. The only neutrality we can have on the subject is to show the "facts" -- Berry's image then -- and let the reader draw their own conclusion.

What say you? --Ssbohio 19:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Veronica webb.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Veronica webb.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 14:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:All in the family 2nd season DVD.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:All in the family 2nd season DVD.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 14:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Kabul_Terry_Fox_Run.jpg

How did you find consensus for deletion here? I notice you did not officially close debate and state your decision in an ifd-top/bottom box as is usual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DoubleBlue (talk • contribs) 02:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Possibly Unfree Image:Brycecanyon-window.JPG

Since when does the mere "possibility" of an unfree image demand its speedy deletion? And who made you the image copyright police?

For your information, the photograph that gave you so much concern was one of my own, which I personally took and uploaded to Wikipedia to better communicate the beauty and geographic diversity of Bryce Canyon.

How do I get it back on to the page now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Busterfreak (talk • contribs) 15:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

related Justin Berry IfD

Hi. As the guy who came to the opposite decision on the other Justin Berry image, you may have something to add here.

I really don't mean to kick against process, but opposite decisions on two very similar images nominated for the same reasons does seem to me to leave the question of fair-use criteria unclear, and I'd like to get an authoritative statement on why one image is acceptable and the other not.

Thanks!

DanB†DanD 23:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

?????

Well, now the discussion has been closed, but no outcome is yet listed. And the note I added on the history of deletions and reverts is not included in the discussion as listed. I think it should be added to the box, but hesitate to do so myself.

What is the outcome? Who is deciding it?

DanB†DanD 01:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)