User talk:Kingsindian

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Kingsindian!

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 13:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brittany Pettibone

[edit]

I see you have been editing the Wikipedia article on Pettibone. Over here I uploaded an image of Pettibone from Flickr. This had been wrongly deleted on Wikipedia where it was originally uploaded due to confusion over the photo's provenance. As noted on the image talk page and in my conversation with the original uploader from Wikipedia, Pettibone took this image of herself and confirmed on Twitter that the Flickr account where it was uploaded on a valid free license is her account. Took some sorting, but the image can now be put up on her Wikipedia page. Unrelated to this, since you suggested the possibility of the article being deleted, I did find another source discussing her, which was an Associated Press story (as AP seems to delete older articles the other link would be preferable). Not sure if that would change your mind about it, but my own opinion is that she satisfies all the inclusion criteria and the fact she set up Flickr to get an image suggests she doesn't mind having a page. Only other issue in the meantime is that someone should remove the "neo-Nazi" category from her article since it fails the categorization policy and BLP policy.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:45, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed "neo-Nazi" category (I forgot to do it when the Searchlight reference was removed). As for the rest I have AfD'ed the article for now; the AP source is another passing mention of the sort which is already present in the article. If the article survives the AfD, I'll change the photo. I am not too familiar with the photo policy on WP, but if it was a selfie, it would probably be ok. Kingsindian (talk) 10:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call the AP source a passing mention myself. Her GoFundMe situation is covered in roughly a sixth of the article in word count and is used to illustrate a general trend relevant to the piece. Passing mentions would be the Newsweek, Slate, Buzzfeed, Mother Jones, and SFGate articles. Are you discounting Gilroy Dispatch because it is a local piece?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Taking the points in reverse order: The Gilroy Dispatch article is about her sci-fi work, and doesn't mention politics at all. Is she notable for her sci-fi work? I think no. In contrast, most of the article is (and will continue to be in the future, if the past is any guide) about her political views and activities. For this aspect, all the coverage about her is in passing. The AP article is about Twitter and general steps these platforms deal with abuse; it mentions Pettibone's campaign on GoFundMe in a few lines. If there are a few notable profiles of her discussing her political activities, then I would consider a BLP making sense. Kingsindian (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pay attention to copyright
File:Unosat-gaza.png has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.

The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)


  • This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: False licensing claims. The notice in the image itself clearly specifies {{cc-by-nc-sa-3.0}} (which is non-free).
Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Afrikaans  asturianu  azərbaycanca  Bahasa Indonesia  Bahasa Melayu  català  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎  English  español  euskara  français  galego  hrvatski  italiano  Lëtzebuergesch  magyar  Malti  Nederlands  norsk bokmål  norsk nynorsk  oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча  Plattdüütsch  polski  português  português do Brasil  română  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  Türkçe  Tiếng Việt  Zazaki  Ελληνικά  беларуская беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  български  македонски  русский  српски / srpski  тоҷикӣ  українська  հայերեն  मराठी  বাংলা  മലയാളം  ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ  မြန်မာဘာသာ  ไทย  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  עברית  العربية  فارسی  +/−

LX (talk, contribs) 11:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@LX: It appears that I misread the license on the image. I am fine with the image being speedily deleted. Kingsindian (talk) 11:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]