User talk:Abu badali

This user may have left Wikipedia. Abu badali has not edited Wikipedia since August 2008. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

1. From Apr 1 2004 to Aug 21 2006
2. From Aug 21 2006 to Oct 31 2006
3. From Oct 31 2006 to Feb 28 2007
4. From Feb 28 2007 to May 30 2007
5. From May 30 2007 to Aug 25 2007

Don't do this. Requiring some measure of verification is reasonable, undoing an adminstrative decision is not. Next time, bring your concern to the closing admin. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it won't. I'm sure that you will bring any future concerns about improper closures to WP:DRV or the closing administrator's attention. I am also sure that you are aware of WP:POINT. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please help constructively improve image rationales rather than jumping the gun through the IFD process when such noms are not really necessary. I've noticed that a couple of your nominations were based on reasonings that were easily and quickly fixable. --Strothra 01:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could try to improve myself if you could give me examples of such "not really necessary" nominations and how the could have been quickly fixed. --Abu badali ^(talk) 00:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following IFD noms are prime examples: [1], [2], and [3]. All of which have been fixed. --Strothra 00:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Arafat_in_Lebanon.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Abu badali ^(talk) 18:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the more accurate url to the file page. It is located in a pdf document about the photographer's stay in Beirut. The author of the photo is a wiki:user of the German Wikipedia. I copied the license tag that he used. You can try contacting him for more information. I will myself also. Al Ameer son

Thanks! But please, add a link to the de.wikipedia page where he released this as free material. Later, we could move the image to Commons. --Abu badali ^(talk) 19:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but you can clarify the link I am supposed to add to the image file on de.wikipedia. Once again sorry for inconvenience. --Al Ameer son

No incovenience at all! You should explain in Image:Arafat_in_Lebanon.jpg where did the image's author released the image as cc-by-sa-2.5. I couldn't find that information of the PDF. Is it on the german wikipedia? --Abu badali ^(talk) 20:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your patience, now I understand. I will try to find it on the German wikipedia, if that fails I will contact the author and add the link to the media file page. However it could take a day or two, depending on when he responds. Thanks again. --Al Ameer son

I guess it's here: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:ARAFAT.jpg . I will remove the ifd right now! Thanks for working this out! --Abu badali ^(talk) 21:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I translated what was on the cc-by-sa license tag from the german wikipedia and I got this:

I'm not exactly an expert in this sector in wikipedia but I wonder if you can extract any information from that. If not please notify me again. Al Ameer son 15:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's just saying the image was released under ("became under") the Creative Commons Attributtion Share-alike (denomination passing"). This information is already on the images description page. I believe everything is ok now. --Abu badali ^(talk) 00:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh OK Thats Great! Thanks for all your help, it has enhanced the Yasser Arafat article which lacks illustrations.

p.s. I've been wanting to ask you if Wikipedia would allow me or any other user to upload an image off a news website such as the BBC? --Al Ameer son 18:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although we don't always see eye to eye, I wonder if you'd agree with me here. I'd also appreciate your thoughs on whether images at List of Chobits characters‎, Trinity Blood‎, Chobits‎, Bleach (manga)‎, and List of Bleach characters‎ and similar articles are indeed ok under our fair use policies?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A request for arbitration involving you has been filed here. Please view the request, and add any statements you feel are necessary for the ArbCom to consider in deciding whether to hear the dispute. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I used that image you created to represent injured footballers in some articles like this one FC_Barcelona_2007-08_season#Squad_stats. By the way, well done image. I think it's not the right image for injured people, since you intend to be use to disable people. So, I'd like to know if you could make a similar one to injured people. I think just adding a bottom part of the leg in a light color (maybe grey), like the person has a cast leg. Thanks in advance. --ClaudioMB 22:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Butting in here) I don't think Abu badali made that icon from scratch. If I remember correctly, he cropped it from a public domain road sign or something. You could make a request at Wikipedia:Requested pictures/Graphics, although it might get ignored -- or you could try asking at User:Zscout370/svg. Good luck! – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about this one: Image:Injuredicon.svg. --Abu badali ^(talk) 18:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed your answer. I didn't watched this page and I was out for few months. Seems you are not editing anymore, but I'd like to register my thanks. It's a good icon, but I need a tiny icon, and this one won't be clear in a tiny version. Also, I found this one () that has been already used in other sport articles. Regards. --ClaudioMB (talk) 06:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized that you've been gone for a while, seeing as your last contribution was on 19:39, August 30, 2007! I appreciate your contributions, and hope you haven't left for good (though a break is probably a good idea :D). --Iamunknown 01:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had already noticed that. :-( ElinorD (talk) 02:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it has been long enough. Get back to work! It's getting boring at IFD. :-) -Nv8200p talk 02:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you all for the messages (Elionor, I've replied your mail). I'll be avoiding editing Wikipedia for some time. I'm quite disappointed with how things are going with non-free content usage (my main area of interests). It seems that the acceptability of non-free content is a function of the number of editors committed to build the best internet webpage about the image's subject. But I'm interested in a freely distributable encyclopedia, not a internet accessible webportal.

I won't refer to any specific case because it wasn't just one or two cases. Even the cases where we get the bad images deleted contributed for my decision to step out, due to the amount of attacks editors committed with the mission are exposed to. If the Foundation is really committed to producing a free content encyclopedia, it shouldn't leave all the efforts to less-than-a-dozen thick skin voluntaries. I wonder how much difference did all the work on deleting non-free content in the last 2 years made. How much difference did all policy discussions made (we don't seem capable to enforce the "significance" criterion...)?

I'll try to be out for some months, and then to come back to see how things have evolved. My guess is that I won't see anything new.

Maybe Wikipedia in in need of some kind of copyright media scandal, to make to non-free material what the Seigenthaler controversy made to biography articles.

Good luck to you all, and thanks again for everything. --Abu badali ^(talk) 18:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take care, brother - we'll be looking forward to your return. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For all your hard work keeping Wikipedia a free encyclopedia. I anxiously await your return after our (inevitable, in my opinion) Siegenthaler-esque copyright scandal. Calliopejen1 23:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you participate in WP:FUR debates. I would like to call your attention to an expedited evaluation request at Wikipedia:Fair_use_review#October_5.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added to Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 17:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abu, how are you doing? I received a request to have an image deleted. I believe that you are more familiar in this sort of thing then I am since in the past I have interacted with you. I will post the request here and would like you to look into the matter for me.

• Message which I received:

Hiya Tony! Can I bug you for a favor? About two weeks ago a pair of fair use images were tagged as being considered for deletion. I didn't make a move to save them becuase the sourcing requirements for these two images were to hard to come up with, and I was not entirely sure that they had been published off Wikipedia, so I decided the best thing to do would be to allow both to be deleted. The first one was, but for some reason the second one (Image:Tom II (Toonami).JPG) is still here, and its been almost two weeks since it was up for deleteion. I don't think anyone will object to deleting it at this point (its been tagged since september), so could you delete it for me? I would apreciate it. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for any help that you can provide. Tony the Marine 21:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abu, how are you can you look at the copy right issue of this pic. It is being used in number of places in violation of WP:NPOV and creating other problems, especially in Sri Lankan civil war, this pic is used exlusively. ThanksTaprobanus 14:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:The Sartorialist screenshot.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Abu badali, I'm visiting you now because I'm wondering if I would be able to keep an image of the long-awaited Fatah flag I will try to upload. I finally found the entire flag in an appropriate layout here, [4] and particularly this one [5] from Flags of the World. It is stated at the bottom of the page in the first source I gave you that "Flags of the World is produced and maintained by an Editorial Staff of unpaid volunteers and the contents of these pages are offered freely to the Internet community." I also have the name of the producer of the photo, Eugene Ipavec and the date it was uploaded or taken which was September 28, 2005. Your advice/permission. --Al Ameer son 06:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've ben trying to convince some editors that screenshots are preferred over promotional images, but in researching the subject have found no such admonitions on any fair use image guideline pages. Even the {{Non-free promotional}} template warns against using fair use images to show what living people look like, but nothing about a preference for screenshots. I believe I got the initial sense of this from your comments at the "soap images" ifd below, and similar arguments in the other areas I've linked below. I'm wondering if you've come across any changes in the policy either way since then; certainly the additioning of the "has rationale" parameter to the promo template suggests some consensus in this arena.

• Soap promo shots
• this ifd
• this other ifd
• deletion review

Thanks in advance. — TAnthony^Talk 21:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a leading editor at Heidi Klum and Fernanda Tavares you may have an interest in the debate at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_June_27 regarding swimsuit issue templates.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:OldManWillow1.jpg. 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 within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. De728631 (talk) 14:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of hostage crises 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/List of hostage crises 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.

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:11, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]