User talk:Stadt64

Hi!

Thanks for uploading File:Michael C. Hall as Dexter Morgan, 2012.webp. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Michael C. Hall as Dexter Morgan, 2012.webp. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of non-free use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of non-free use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable non-free use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable non-free use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file's talk page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you tag this file for speedy deletion per WP:G7 since two "identical" non-free images aren't needed and requesting speedy deletion per G7 would show that you understand this and weren't trying to pull a fast one. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Michael C. Hall as Dexter Morgan publicity photo, 2012.webp. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reuploading the File:Michael C. Hall as Dexter Morgan, 2012.webp under a different name wasn't really a good idea and kind of shows you don't have a very good grasp of either Wikipedia's image use policy and Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. While non-free images are sometimes allowed to be used in the main infoboxes of stand-alone articles about fictional characters, generally only one image is needed for such a purpose as was mentioned by Gråbergs Gråa Sång in his response to your question at the Commons help desk. Additional non-free images are much harder to justify, particularly like in this case when it's of the same actor who basically looks like they do in real life. The article Dexter Morgan already has a non-free image being used in the main infobox that seems sufficient for Wikipedia's purposes and primary identification; so, there's no need for two non-free ones for that reason. If, for some reason, you feel the one you uploaded is a better image, then you can either be WP:BOLD and replace the one currently being used with the one you uploaded or you be WP:CAUTIOUS can propose replacing it by starting a discussion on the article's talk page. If you're bold and noone disagrees with you, then great; if, however, someone disagrees with you by restoring the current image, you're going to be expected to establish a WP:CONSENSUS in favor of the one you prefer through discussion on the article's talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:07, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to this so I am trying to figure out what I'm doing. I removed the template in the image due to me replacing the old image with the recently uploaded one in the infobox. However, if I explicitly comment on the character's clothing in the article and use the picture as a reference, could both images stay? Also yes, I will take on board the last bit and I will start a discussion on the article's talk page. 1zdoqnrh5 (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the character's clothing or appearance has change so much since the series began that it's something reliable sources (not blogs or fansites, but actual reputable reliable sources) have critically discussed and content about that is added to the article, then perhaps a non-free image related to such content could be added; however, there's really no major costuming, make-up or prosthetics involved with this character's appearance and he basically looks the same as he did when the serious started outside of perhaps some natural aging. So, I think it would be hard to justify any additional non-free images of the character in that article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:20, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand however, the character dresses like that when he is about to commit a crime and it is a signature staple throughout the show. Which, in my opinion would be deserving of a mention and I don't think it is mentioned in the article currently and I could definitely back it up with official sources. So could I do that? 1zdoqnrh5 (talk) 21:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should discuss this on the article's talk page, but, in general, it's unlikely that two non-free images are needed just to provide the same information that one does. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your removal of the template. Since {{di-disputed non-free use rationale}} says in bolded text, do not remove this notice from files you have uploaded, your edit summary of I have addressed the concern and am allowed to remove this template. is concerning. Please be careful to follow Wikipedia policy, especially in the area of copyright. If you have any questions about this, I'd be happy to help answer them. jlwoodwa (talk) 01:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it said I could remove the template if I addressed the concern, which I thought I did. How do we resolve this? 1zdoqnrh5 (talk) 10:38, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at it again, I can see how you interpreted it that way. The wording is somewhat self-contradictory; I've raised this issue on the template's talk page so it can be improved. Anyway, since you've discuss[ed] the matter on the talk page, an administrator will look at your comment before deleting the file; if they agree that the rationale is fixed, they won't delete it. Anyone else can also remove the template, e.g. Marchjuly if he thinks his concerns have been addressed. jlwoodwa (talk) 11:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Michael C. Hall as Dexter Morgan publicity photo, 2012.webp. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:29, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism. Infobox was deleted. Infobox has been restored. Image is now showing on the article again. 1zdoqnrh5 (talk) 23:39, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Spider-Man: No Way Home, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. adamstom97 (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How was it not constructive? I literally removed unsourced material. Do you want unsourced material on the page? Maybe I'm wrong but I don't see it mentioned anywhere else, in detail either. 1zdoqnrh5 (talk) 01:24, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, apologies. I definitley did not see the part where it mentions the upcoming sequel. My bad. 1zdoqnrh5 (talk) 01:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Dexter Return To Sender Episode 5 Season 1.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 07:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have given my opinion of it at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Stadt64 (talk) 19:46, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please ensure you engage in a discussion before deciding to add the photo back in. Furthermore, adding a hidden source comment in the info box stating “do not remove this photo” is quite ridiculous, per WP:STONE nothing is permanent and you have no more authority than anyone else to make such a statement. Thank you 61.127.146.8 (talk) 11:41, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not censored. Go elsewhere if you don't want to see the photo. No one has the authority to move that photo to begin with. A high ranking editor even thanked me for restoring it. Do not add it back. You yourself have zero authority to tell me what to do. Stadt64 (talk) 22:21, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not speaking on any authority. It doesn’t matter if a “high ranking editor” thanked you, you shouldn’t be trying to seek praise from others. I’ve removed the image, I’m going to open a discussion about this in the meantime. Before I do, why don’t we compromise and put a less confronting image up like a police sketch or whatnot. I understand Wikipedia is not censored, but several comments have been made on the need of that photo. Thank you 61.127.146.8 (talk) 09:38, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just adding onto my own message. Since we can’t see eye to eye I’m going to request for someone neutral to take a look at the article 61.127.146.8 (talk) 09:51, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bother, I'm reporting this issue to WP:ANI, they'll take over from here.

Also don't take this the wrong way, but please do not tell me who I should or shouldn't take praise from. I was merely trying to point out that a high-ranking editor agreed with the action I took. Stadt64 (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, please let me know when you’ve made your report so I can voice my side. 61.127.146.8 (talk) 20:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stadt64, please define high ranking editor because I am completely unaware of use of that term anywhere on Wikipedia. And who is this so-called "high ranking editor"? Cullen328 (talk) 19:20, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m pretty new to Wikipedia but maybe Stad64 means someone with a large number of edits or contributions? Still, doesn’t really make anyone better than anyone else, regardless of how many edits someone has 61.127.146.8 (talk) 20:35, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I expect that Stadt64 will answer my two questions. Cullen328 (talk) 01:46, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Never said anyone was better than anyone else. Just used it as a point. On reflection, it was flawed but at the time I thought it was useful in the discussion. Stadt64 (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328 A high ranking editor isn't an official term on Wikipedia, true, but I define it as "someone with experience and contributions". And the user who thanked me was Aspects. Stadt64 (talk) 21:06, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stadt64, Aspects is a highly active editor but they have no more authority on content matters than the IP editor that you have been arguing with. Cullen328 (talk) 21:19, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I still think removing the image isn't the right idea. I understand it's somewhat graphic but compared to other stuff on Wikipedia it's pretty tame. It's also the subject of the article. Stadt64 (talk) 21:32, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it’s not needed. A police sketch which is less gruesome would suffice for context 38.87.93.150 (talk) 06:20, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:RobertRayfordphoto.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:12, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:RobertRayfordphoto.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Matthew Perry. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Opolito (talk) 00:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Unidentified Kirkham baby boy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unidentified Kirkham baby boy until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:01, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]