Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2008 June 19

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete G7 - Author's request

--Resolute 19:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

Image:Brian_Christmas.JPG

Image:Brian_Christmas.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bfalexander (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned user photo. Kelly ^hi! 03:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and delete this one. I don't need it anymore ---Brian Alexander (talk) 06:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. I do not believe a map based on text from a book is a derivative work. However, the image was an orphan and the source material was not cited well enough to not have this image be considered original research. -Nv8200p talk 01:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Narniamap-astrokey44-crop.png

Image:Narniamap-astrokey44-crop.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Nesnad (notify | contribs).

• This is a derivative work and cant be used here. As the image description says it is a "personal drawing of a fictional world" which makes it a derivative work. We have already agreed to delete fictional maps from commons: the middle earth maps were deleted as being derivative. It is better to use the original maps under fair use than trying to remake them anyway. --Roke 03:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Hello! I didn't make this picture, simply uploaded it over here... But not sure how it can be derivative if it comes from imagination. This isn't (I believe?) a direct derivation of some work, it is a map based on the imagination of the author. Trying to copyright imagination is like trying to copyright a concept. no? Maybe I'm confused. Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 18:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete G7 - Author's request

--Resolute 19:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

Image:Kit left arm shoulder stripes white stripes black collar.png

Image:Kit left arm shoulder stripes white stripes black collar.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Chandler (notify | contribs).

• I named it incorrectly and It's therefore unusable with the Football kit Template, and I've already uploaded its replacement under the correct name — chandler — 05:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: the image is on Commons and showing through. -Nv8200p talk 01:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Airoli_bridge_from_the_air,_Maharashtra,_India.jpg

Image:Airoli_bridge_from_the_air,_Maharashtra,_India.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Gaurav (notify | contribs).

• Derivative work of a Flickr photo which is "all rights reserved" - found here Kelly ^hi! 06:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello! That photo is mine as well; the specific image uploaded to Wikipedia is here, and is licensed under CC-attribution. Just to simplify things, I've changed the original image to CC-attribution as well. Thanks for warning me before deleting the image! -- Gaurav (talk) 07:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can this be closed now, since the licensing problem has been fixed? Nyttend (talk) 14:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the image is now on Commons, so I say delete the local copy per CSD I8 and close this. Thanks. Kelly ^hi! 14:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: deleted. Lack of permission to release image to the public domain. -Nv8200p talk 01:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Adel-tinys-horse& buggy.jpg

Image:Adel-tinys-horse& buggy.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rabbit.runner (notify | contribs).

• Image claims to be PD-author, but I'm sure that it's not public domain: it's taken in 1951, and a deceased person surely didn't and can't provide an OTRS ticket. Also, author isn't given, unless "Michael R. Emmert" is taken to be the author. Nyttend (talk) 13:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps I fail to understand the nuances of public domain licensing. This particular picture is un-copywrited, un-licensed and the person who took the photo is deceased. Plus there is no one who desires to protective licensing over the picture. Perhaps there is different licensing rules can be applied to this picture. --Rabbit Runner - Those who dance, appear insane to those who do not hear the music. 15:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabbit.runner (talk • contribs)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as copyvio.

--ViperSnake151 12:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:1089910327 d1147ed468.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Manaspunhani (notify | contribs).

• I doubt this is image is CC-BY-SA. ViperSnake151 15:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete apimages.com very specifically states that all material is copyrighted, and that a written license is required for use. Definitely not CC-BY-SA. Resolute 18:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Copy-vio CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 01:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This image is licensed under Atrribibution Sharealike 3.0 by Asscoiated Press..Manaspunhani (talk) 12:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • hahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahaha. No it's not. -Nard 10:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You just brought a smile to my face :) ViperSnake151 11:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was

keep. Identity confirmed via OTRS. howcheng  {chat} 22:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Michael Q. Schmidt at wrap party for Yesterday Was A Lie.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by User:Mqschmidt (notify | contribs).

• Here's the timeline for this image:
  • 15 August 2007, Mqschmidt (talk · contribs) uploaded the file, saying "This picture was taken at the wrap party for the film "Yesterday Was A Lie", September 2006"
    • The picture was taken by an associate when I handed him my camaera and said, "please take a picture of me with the director and the two beautiful co-stars". MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 18 January 2008, Nv8200p (talk · contribs) deleted the file, following an IfD. Lots of text at the IfD; peruse if you wish.
    • Yes, please peruse... it will be quite enlightening. Pay close attention to why it was deleted and why it was returned. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 19 January 2008, Nv8200p (talk · contribs) restored the image, saying "Restored at request of User:MichaelQSchmidt who claims copyright on the image. Per WP:AGF I am restoring."
    • True again, at my request... as the reasons for it being deleted had changed and it is MY picture. Even here you are unable to assume good faith? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 20 January 2008, MichaelQSchmidt (talk · contribs) edited the image page to say "This picture is cropped from a larger group shot, taken for me and with my camera by an associate while I was attending the wrap party for the film Yesterday Was a Lie. There is an uncropped version on IMDB if one wishes to make comparisons. I created the original. I created its cropped version. As the copyright holder of this work, I hereby grant the permission to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts."
    • Well, duh. I had to assert publicly that I owned the image and state where and when and why and how. Isn't that Wiki policy? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 17 June 2008, Cumulus Clouds (talk · contribs) nominated the image for speedy deletion, saying "it is a copyrighted image uploaded by a permanently blocked user. Rationale provided by seperate user claims to own copyright, but that user is now long absent and has editing pattern substantially similar enough to blocked uploader that account is probably a sock." I subsequently deleted it on the 18th.
    • Ignoring consensus...and revisiting the scene of his earlier and overruled deletions. Long absence? Hardly. I have been watching. Why do anything that would then be claimed as a COI? And though the original upload was by someone later blocked, it is still MY image and I re-asserted just that. My "absence" was only to avoid bumping heads with you. I'm back, and will be paying close attention. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 18 June 2008, BQZip01 (talk · contribs) left a message on my talk page requesting restoration "...of Image:Michael_Q._Schmidt_at_wrap_party_for_Yesterday_Was_A_Lie.jpg. This image may have been missing an appropriate tag, but at one point I believe this image had such a tag. If missing, it was a simple oversight and can/will be corrected. [The image was explicitly allowed by the person in the photo (using their camera and from their website)]. Please restore accordingly. If you won't restore it permanently, please restore it long enough to have it reviewed under WP:IfD. Thank you."
    • Logical. Proper. Respectful... and ignored by CC MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 18 June 2008 Cumulus Clouds (talk · contribs) replied on my talk page saying "There is no reasonable way to ascertain if that account is actually the person who owns the rights to the photo. The photo was already reviewed once under IFD and deleted. It was properly deleted and should remain so."
    • Huh??? It was deleted in error before consensus was reached because the administrator who deleted it thought that its removal was at my wish. It was then returned by that administrator when I explained to him that my reasoning had changed. Who do I have to prove to that I am me??? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 19 June 2008 (today) I've restored the image and put it up for discussion here.
    • Please... let wiser and calmer heads prevail. Thank you. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I personally abstain, as this is already complicated enough... Mike Peel (talk) 20:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete:

• Well, to complicate matters even further, the original uploader was blocked for producing a whole galaxy of spam articles centering around Paris in Jail: The Music Video. User:L.L.King would later be blocked for abusive sockpuppetry after engaging in the exact same pattern of edits centering around both Paris in Jail: The Music Video and Michael Q. Schmidt. That user's sockpuppets were also confirmed by checkuser. After L.L.King's block, User:MichaelQSchmidt registered and began editing the exact same articles as his forebearer, defending them in AFD and IFD discussions and eventually editing this image, claiming to own the rights. This image is materially identical to a picture which appears on IMDB for Michael Schmidt. User:MichaelQSchmidt claims that he owns the camera from which it was taken and therefore owns the rights. That user has not made any edits since March 2008.
  • And so to simplify... This matter was originally addressed in January 2008 and resolved by consensus in both IfD and AfD. Is it policy for editors to wait 6 months and repeat their earlier and defeated deletions if they are unhappy with the result of an earlier consensus? The L.L.King sockpuppet case is 6 months gone and dead. Raking those long-dead coals is most definitely intended to "complicate matters even further". That I was informed around that time by fans that an article about me on IMDB was being twisted and bent got my interest, and that's when I registered and took an interest. If it were not for CC's own actions, I would never have come aboard. If one looks at the L.L.King history, one will see many things done by his group that I took no interest in. I am only concerned about being made a fool when someone took it upon himself to deconstruct my life and career. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The question, at present, is whether User:MichaelQSchmidt owns the rights to that image and whether they are User:L.L.King masquerading under yet another alias, which would make this image a violation of G5. Since both cinemapress.biz (a website ostensibly written by one "Leon L King") and mqschmidt.com are both registered to Michael Schmidt, I would argue that User:MichaelQSchmidt is yet another sockpuppet of L.L.King. Secondly, User:MichaelQSchmidt alleges that he owns the rights to the image but offers no proof of ownership and the image itself carries no meta-information. Once the status of the image was called into doubt, that user rewrote the image caption and released it under the GFDL. This is contrary to its current listing as being copyrighted on IMDB.
  • Who do you think submitted in to IMDB? It costs. Those images just do not appear by magic. IMDB has the use of it there only as long as I have it up. I posted it to my IMDB gallery... alnong with many others. I paid for it. I have that right. Posting it there did not remove my right to use my image elsewhere. Go ahead to my IMDB page and see. Go ahead to my web site and see. The only one who continues to question is you. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Last, nobody has obtained any verifiable proof that User:MichaelQSchmidt is, in fact, who he says he is and whether this is another sock of User:L.L.King. The username, without verification, is a violation of username policy, but since they have not made any edits since March, UAA declined to take action. Since the uploader is currently absent, since the image origin is in doubt, because the claimed owner is likely a sock and because the image is listed as copyrighted on IMDB, it should be deleted. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh... I am most definitely not gone... Being too busy working in the real world to be able to sit for hours at Wiki should not be a crime. UAA declined to action because your allegations had no merit. There was no action to take. DO not for one instance try to further confuse the issue. I am most definitely the Michael Q. Schmidt that was born in 1953 to Marie and Fred... the Michael Q. Schmidt with some projects listed on IMDB... the Michael Q. Schmidt that can be found with any Google search... the Michael Q. Schmidt who does not feel the need to have to prove it to you simply because you say I am not who I am and because I do not hide behind the anonymity of a username other than my own. All your spurious allegations are intended to confuse. That L.L.King and group edited my article, has been resolved. That boat has sailed. That fire is out. That issue is long dead. It was resolved six months ago in both a IfD and an Afd. 1) I am Michael Q. Schmidt and use MichaelQSchmidt as my username. Prove differently. Oversite already has my informations, my address, & my contact info. But then... so do you. You saying something "may" be so does not make it so. Your mis-statements are not fact... specially when you absolutely know different and I know you know different and oversight knows you know different. Who verified the anonymous name "cumulus clouds"? Who verified you? Who made you the boss of me? 2) The uploader is "gone" because he is blocked. Duh. You make it seem like the image was abandoned in trying to further confuse the issue. As original and current copyright holder of the image, I re-asserted my ownership last January here on Wiki... and still maintain it over on IMDB and on my own website. And the image does not include "meta information" because it is MY image... MY original work... cut and cropped and resized by me on my computer and not one downloaded off another's webpage.... further proof that the image is my property (thank you). MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I first thought this was a mere oversight by an individual admin with regards to a valid picture. Accidents do happen. Since the file was deleted, I was unable to ascertain why (the history and talk page were deleted). When the file was restored by Mike Peel and I read the circumstances regarding this, my jaw literally dropped . It now clearly appears that Cumulus Clouds (talk · contribs) is attempting to subvert numerous previous decisions by administrators and make outright false statements interspersed with enough true statements to make a story sound plausible in an effort to delete this picture.

1. TRUE: A confirmed sockpuppeteer named L.L.King originally uploaded the photo.
2. MISLEADING: "It was properly deleted and should remain so." The photo was deleted, but was immediately restored when the license holder granted a specific license under which the photo could be used. Accordingly, it was restored by an admin.
3. TRUE: "Rationale provided by seperate [sic] user claims to own copyright..."
4. IRRELEVANT: "...but that user is now long absent..." There is no requirement to post to Wikipedia X many times in a month for a post/image to be considered valid. It certainly doesn't mean we should delete everything he ever posted simply because he hasn't posted since March.
5. INTENTIONALLY MISLEADING/FORUM SHOPPING "...and has editing pattern substantially similar enough to blocked uploader that account is probably a sock." That CC thinks someone is a sockpuppet is the assumption of bad faith/assumption of guilt. Mr. Schmidt has done nothing wrong on Wikipedia and no checkuser or sockpuppet case has "proven" it to be true. CC's suspicions are irrelevant and this is the wrong forum for such a debate in the first place (take it to WP:SSP, please. Don't try an end run around the processes). To be Wiki-associated with impropriety by another user is misleading and does a disservice to Wikipedia's contributors.
6. Missing information: CC then tried to have the entire article deleted through AfD and failed. Furthermore, he made edits to the page after the image was restored and somehow didn't notice that the image was still around?

Imdb may claim a copyright on the picture, but they may not have one (it wouldn't be the first time). This kind of behavior has to stop somewhere and I guess this is as good a place as any. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note from copyright holder: I paid to have the larger group image posted in my gallery on IMDB. Their "copyright" is to protect me and my rights. I could have the image removed anytime I wish, but since I paid $35 to have it placed there, I am loathe to remove it simply to prove I have the legal right to do so. The cropped image on Wiki is my own work, taken from the original group photo. What other proofs past the GNU provided is needed? Please read my comments and reconsider any 'delete' votes. Thank you. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless valid OTRS permission is obtained. -Nard 23:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• OTRS template is now on page for Image:Michael_Q._Schmidt_at_wrap_party_for_Yesterday_Was_A_Lie.jpg. Awaiting next step by OTRS volunteers.

• OTRS has confirmed the identity of the individual in question, a Wikipedian, but is still awaiting feedback on this specific image.

• Delete unless OTRS permission confirmed, per N. Kelly ^hi! 23:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• OTRS template is now on page for Image:Michael_Q._Schmidt_at_wrap_party_for_Yesterday_Was_A_Lie.jpg. Awaiting next step by OTRS volunteers.

• OTRS has confirmed the identity of the individual in question, a Wikipedian, but is still awaiting feedback on this specific image.

• COMMENT FROM THE CONCERNED PARTY Leon King as a publicist (blocked as a sockpuppet by his lack of understanding Wiki guidelines) had use of the image being debated... given him by me. When the King group was blocked, the rights to that image still belonged to me. It was agreed last January by an administrator that the image had proper OTRS and was returned. My picture. With my permission. What else is needed? If CC was at the wrap party for Yesterday was a Lie, he would have seen me. My camera certainly did. Myu friends did. My fellow actors did. What does Wiki require from me? Does someone wish to visit my home and go through all images on my compter and check image date stamps?

If one searches my name on IMDB one can certainly find that the image is of me. If one searches Google for "Michael Q. Schmidt" there is certainly ample evidence that I exist. Do I have to prove I am who I say I am???? Please CC, let it rest. Sadly, this matter was settled by AfD last January... you did say you'd come back to undo everything again... and here you are.

Administrators seemed okay that I was and am who my mother gave birth to. I do not have to prove anything to CC.... though CC did make a big point to pass out my home address and phone number last January (thank goodness I was able to have oversite remove the entire reference before someone came knocking at my door).

I will now ask the membership at large, specially those with more knowledge of Wiki ways and means than I, to find the ways and means to stop the CC vendetta... and yes, vendetta is the word... specially when CC promised to NOT abide by the AfD decision and then waited 6 months to repeat the exact same deconstruction actions that he began back then.

I am unversed in Wiki... but does that mean I must be repeatedly bullied? I appeal to any and all who have the knowledge and accumen to undo CC's continued and repeated vandalism (check the histories) And yes, when CC ignores the AfD consensus and repeats the same deconstuctive acts over and over... it IS vandalsim. It is rude. It is arrogant. It is unconscionable. It was pointed out months ago that he has the agregious habit of removing cogent references from articles and then remove the article themselves as being unsourced. Who does he think he is kidding? Does the passage of six months make all that history go away?

And as for why I have not been back to this article (though I see that others have made improvements).. is it any wonder? Realy??? Anything I say or do will be called a conflict of interest by CC... including my umbrage at his continued deconstructions and my personal response here. Please CC, stop.

I am a beginner here. I have a life outside Wiki. I do not have the knowledge and skills to fight this person at every turn. I do not have the free time that he does either. HELP. ANYONE. PLEASE.MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep in case my vote was not obvious... and even though CC will claim COI, I vote Keep... on principle alone... keep (Just in case this was not obvious, and though CC acts as if Wiki is not for just anyone to edit). I own the picture. I publicly acknowledged this last January. I also was the specific person who used his debit card and paid the IMDB fee to post the image to my IMDB picture gallery. No one else paid for it. No one else arranged to have it taken. Just me. I was restored last January 18 and on the 19th I added to GFDL info. Why does CC coninue to assume bad faith of anyone who disagrees with him? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - OK MQS, no doubt you are who you say you are. You mention OTRS clearance above, do you have a ticket number? It seems like the best course is for you to verify your identity through one of the private channels, OTRS or permissions-en at the mailing list (sorry, can't remember the exact address). Then they can verify your copyownership on the image. Bob's yer uncle. It would be better if we could AGF, and I'd !vote keep based on your assertions, but you can settle it definitively through the formal route. Franamax (talk) 04:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• On the contrary, it is very unlikely that this user is who they say they are and is, in reality, a sockpuppet of User:L.L.King. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Hello Franamax... Addressing the issue at hand, I wish to thank you for granting that I am indeed me. 2 others had mentioned this OTRS thing. What exactly is it? To what mailing list do you refer? To what ticket number do you refer. Why/how does this affect the image I created myself from my own digital camera? As I have repeatedly stated, and what has been taken advantage of by one, I am a Wiki neophyte. I have an extremely busy schedule. Heck, I have 2 films projects to shoot and a tapping for the new Gong Show over the next week, so will be unable to follow this all as closely as I would like... but any help in clarifying this matter and in saving myself from deconstructionist tactics will be apprecaited. What do I need to do. - Michael MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I have corrected the reference. Having someone insist that I am not me rankles. If you'd like to re-edit and do a strikeout, that'd be fine. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• This is your only warning to remain civil. Further violations will result in administrative action. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've asked a more knowledgeable editor for some advice on the OTRS/permissions issue, so hang tight. They may have just gone to bed, so hang on for a day; there's a few more doors I can bang on for help. To both MQS and CC, playing around with back-and-forth sniping does neither of you credit. Did you guys ever hear of "be the better man" or "rise above it"? Settle down, let's talk about the picture, not the people. Franamax (talk) 07:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that was awful darn quick. Here's the procedure and the people to ask, click here. 24 hours a day, there's people ready to help :) CC, can you provide the link to your sock puppet report, since you're so insistent on the subject? Lets get all these issues rolled up, no? Franamax (talk) 07:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the sockpuppet case HERE and the checkuser HERE that caused me to join Wiki to learn what was going on. What was happening then made made me very angry, and that us reflected in the histories. I apologized and mended my ways. That's reflected as well. I was for a while adopted by LaraLove. The AfD and IfD seemed settled... six moths ago. Now history seems destined to repeat. I will now go study the links you sent. Thank you. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 08:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• OTRS template is now on pageImage:Michael_Q._Schmidt_at_wrap_party_for_Yesterday_Was_A_Lie.jpg. Awaiting next step by OTRS volunteers.

• Your account was registered after the checkuser was performed so there would have been no way to tell if you had been using the same IP as L.L.King before that case was completed. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 08:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and thanks to MQS for the links. Cumulus, I'm sure that an experienced editor like you would not be idly throwing around claims of sockpuppetry, so I'll ask again - can you give a link to your currently active WP:SSP report? Franamax (talk) 08:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent an email to both supplied addresses for OTRS. In my inexperience, I thought the provided GNU was enough. When I receive a confirmation, I will continue with the process. Thank you. And since I have myself shown VERY careful regard for Wiki policies and guidelines, does an allegation that I am doing someone else's bidding really stand up? Specially when it has already been long aknowledged (and settled) that L.L.King was part of the publicist team (now blocked) that was promoting me last year... and the reason I came aboard in the first place? Its a matter of record and no one is hiding it. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 08:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to stick around english wikipedia, which hopefully you will, you will definitely need to grow a thick skin. There's lots of prickly personalities around here, just like there is anywhere else you go in life, and you don't really get to choose. As far as CC and the specific sockpuppet allegation, I've asked above for the link to the report he has presumably made. Cumulus needs to either substantiate the claim or stop making it. Franamax (talk) 10:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the link to the Claim. After the matter of the article about Michael Q. Schmidt survived a turbulent AfD, I thought the matter settled by consensus. I was wrong. Check the history and see why I am saddened and a little bitter. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 12:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta concur with Franamax. These claims of sockpuppetry have not been substantiated (at least not yet) and should cease. Should they be proven true, that is a different matter, but we are putting the cart before the horse here. Furthermore, . Mr. Schmidt, please don't break up someone else's comments with your own unless they request you do so. I realize it is much easier to discuss what you wish in its respective context, but it breaks up the original poster's intent. I know it is not your intent to do so, so please don't do it in the future (FYI: I've been rebuked over that before too, so you're in good company!). — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Ahhh. I see now what was being referred to. A clear explanation is always most helpful. Still learning. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was

speedy delete as vandalism/disruptive; noted possible copyvio in deletion summary. —C.Fred (talk) 21:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Weegee-1.gif

Image:Weegee-1.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by NahnB (notify | contribs).

• totally a copyvio ViperSnake151 22:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.