User talk:Andyjsmith/Archive 1: Difference between revisions

Template:Archive box collapsible

See the tag you added: [1]. The license tag isn't invalid, you didn't give 48 hours notice (it wasn't even uploaded 20 hours before you marked it!), and the claim that it fails some part of the non-free content criteria is disputable. It's a newspaper scan marked with the correct newspaper non-free tag, has a rationale. If you want to dispute the rationale, you should discuss it on the talk page or at least mark with {{subst:dfu|reason}}. That would be the appropriate method to handle this, not marking it with db-badfairuse. I'm sorry I did not leave a rationale for my rolling back your edit; rollback doesn't make it easy to do so (not that that is a valid excuse). I hope I've helped you. If you have questions on how to handle an image problem, please ask me or at Wikipedia:Image copyright help desk in the future. Thank you. MECU≈talk 18:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. (As it happens it's been speedied anyway!) andy (talk) 18:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How the hell did I miss that? XD Mental Note: read the nonsensical drivel before editing, next time. Jammy Simpson | Talk | 00:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I see you've notified User:Harrisonlatour of a fair use problem with a recent scanned picture of a newspaper caption. He recently uploaded this newspaper clip: Image:OklahomaCounty1.jpg. I'm a bit ignorant when it comes to legality issues with images, but I suspect this image is questionable, and seeing the user's long history of image copyright violations, I am even more suspicious. Would you take a look at his recent image for me? Thanks! Okiefromokla ^questions? 04:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It's clearly a recent article (2007?) and therefore it's copyright. The original image from 1907 won't be copyright but I think that the reproduction of it in the newspaper will be. In any case the caption at the bottom of the image will definitely be copyright. andy (talk) 09:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I suspected as much. Thanks. Okiefromokla ^questions? 23:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not an admin, how can you threaten to ban me? How odd. Anyway, you've made no case as why the Wannsee Conference sholdn't be considered a business conference, so I've replaced it.139.48.25.61 (talk) 16:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I would have thought it was simply mistaken apart from (a) the peculiarity of the edit and (b) the warnings you have recently received. You have already received a recent level 3 vandalism warning and another one at the same level seems entirely appropriate. Any edit can warn of potential action because of disruptive activities. I am reverting your edit - please see the talk page for my reasons. andy (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. You couldn't figure out that I meant Convention (meeting)? You're not filling me with confidence in your knowledge of business-related ephemera.139.48.25.61 (talk) 20:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ensure you and your partners go through all of my works and put them up for deletion. I am not going to fight them nor will I be bothered adding anymore data to Wikipedia. I hope you and your partners have that erection of satisfaction. (talk) 08:42, 27 May 2008 (EST)