User talk:B/Archive 7

Toby Mott image
Hi, my image got deleted... I made the suggested edits to the image. I emailed permissions-en@wikimedia.org with the proof of copyright, similar to that of all images that I have uploaded ...I don't see why the image should therefor be deleted... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Celeb-Toby_Pimlico.jpg&action=history Thanks! Chaosandvoid (talk) 10:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have restored the image pending verification. --B (talk) 11:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see commons:Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard for a discussion about verifying the OTRS permission. --B (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Overture Networks images
Hello! I see by the note that you left on my talk page that three of the images being used for the Overture Networks page have been scheduled for deletion due to the licensing of the images. I spoke with Overture Networks, and they're willing to change the license so that the images can be used freely. Can you please advise whether changing the license on these images would prevent their deletion? If so, we'd be happy to make that change.

Thank you very much,

Mdrozdowski (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a sample declaration of consent that the copyright holder could use. If they follow the instructions there and send a message to permissions-en@wikimedia.org releasing the images under the  "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" license, then that would be considered sufficient. --B (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for the swift reply; it's much appreciated. We'll get the correct form filled out and submitted for all images in question. Mdrozdowski (talk) 19:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello again - Mark Durrett of Overture Networks has submitted the required email to the permissions team at Wikimedia; will they let us know if there's any problems with his form? I believe we included all of the correct information but you never know.

Again, thanks for your help. Mdrozdowski (talk) 20:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. There is a significant backlog so it may be some time (weeks) before anything happens.  Do you know how to add a page to your "watchlist"?  You can hit the little star up at the top of the page on each of the three images and then they will show up in your watchlist if anything happens to them.  If there were a specific problem, unfortunately they can't tell us exactly what it is because emails are confidential.  I have left a message at commons:Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard asking for someone with OTRS access to check and see if the permission has been received, but it may be that nobody will know anything until the email is processed in the natural order of things - I don't know if they can search for something or not.I have tagged the three images with OTRS-pending and left a note on the image deletion page, so nobody will delete the images before someone has time to review the email.  Great work on getting the permissions, by the way. --B (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Maria Tallchief
Thanks for uploading a picture of Maria Tallchief. I am working on getting some nice pics from vintage copies of Dance Magazine, but this picture is a nice stop gap. I may revert to the full add and use it like that after I have betters pics of her, as it is a very nice ad. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's maddening the way we accept fair use photos with no effort at finding a free replacement. If someone was an omnipresent public figure in the 50s, it's darned near certain that there are publications that either had no copyright notice or the copyright wasn't renewed.  (I'm guessing that's the case with Dance Magazine?  Or are you getting permission from the magazine itself?)  It took less than 30 minutes for me to find a public domain photo of her ... less time than was spent arguing over the deletion of the fair use one. ;) --B (talk) 01:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed on all points. Dance Magazine failed to renew their copyright, just like 90% of all publications from the time period. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * To reinforce your point, on the very first page I scanned from Dance Magazine for a Tallchief picture there was also a picture of Merce Cunningham. His article had a Merce Cunningham by Annie Leibovitz.jpg on it (now deleted) despite the fact there were 4 free images on him already uploaded to commons! --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, with Google News Archive, it is often very easy to find images, since Google allows you to search for text in newspapers. Just go to http://news.google.com/archivesearch and limit the search to newspapers published before 1964. Skip the links to newspapers where a price is indicated (those newspapers were normally renewed) and then check whether the newspaper was renewed.
 * A question about renewals, though: Lester Lewis currently has no image. This newspaper has a photo of him (go to what Google calls "page 3"), and the newspaper wasn't renewed. The photo is claimed to come from the Associated Press. What happens if it was also published in other newspapers which were renewed? Did all newspapers have to be renewed, or was it enough that one newspaper didn't renew the copyright? --Stefan2 (talk) 16:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I should have checked this more carefully: that was a different Lester Lewis. This means that the image is useless. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The AP can (must?) renew their copyright directly, so appearing in one non-renewed paper is not enough AFAIK. What I am unsure about is appearing in a renewed paper is enough or if the copyright holder (AP) must renew the image directly --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Newspapers (sometimes? usually?) credit who the photographer is, so we (sometimes?  usually?  nearly always?) know if it was an AP photo. --B (talk) 21:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Al Rosen (actor).jpg
Got an opinion here? This is a screenshot from Cheers, but the guy has also appeared in lots of other TV series. Don't you think that some of them might satisfy PD-US-not renewed, and wouldn't there be other images, for example in newspapers, which satisfy PD-US-not renewed? It's getting very tiring to nominate photos for deletion today... --Stefan2 (talk) 13:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * For someone who was a public figure pre-1963, I think a pretty good search needs to be made before we use a fair use image. List of films in the public domain in the United States lists a bunch of films by RKO Radio Pictures, the company that made Footlight Fever, where they failed to renew the copyright.  Is there a definitive copyright renewal search for films?  I would think that we have a reasonable expectation here until proven otherwise.   --B (talk) 14:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There is http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/ but you have to search by year and not by title, although titles are listed alphabetically. The problem is that you have to check both the 27th and the 28th year after publication and that there sometimes are separate lists for January-June and July-December, so it takes some time to check. Very tiring. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * So if Footlight Fever was a 1941 film, if we check, say, from 1966 until 1971, we should have it covered right? (In case they originally copyrighted it on December 31, 1940 or something like that ... covering a few years on either side) --B (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ I found it ... it was renewed in 1968, unfortunately. --B (talk) 14:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the way to do. As you have to check multiple places, it quickly gets tiring.
 * Also, you can try searching for the person's name on Google and limit the results to news.google.com. That should bring up lots of newspaper articles about the person (but sadly Google only has newspapers from certain English-language countries so it is often useless for people from other countries). That is how I found those PD-US-not renewed photos in the FFD discussion today. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Or this one? There's Commons:Template:PD-AR-Photo, but Not-PD-US-URAA requires that it additionally entered the public domain in Argentina before 1996. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I saw that one and just skipped over it ... but I had no idea that the Argentina copyright term for photos was so short. So basically any photo of him published in his lifetime is public domain?  Of course we shouldn't be using something under a claim of fair use! --B (talk) 14:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, basically anything published during his lifetime was in the public domain on the URAA date. The only issues, as I see, would be with unpublished photos, photos first published in a different country and subsisting copyrights (published with US copyright formalities). --Stefan2 (talk) 14:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

RAMI Pictures
Thanks for your comments on the RAMI pictures. RAMI by J.M.K. cars were made from 1958 until about 1969. They were definitely sold in the United States before 1978, but how much before is a question. David Sinclair's (diecast and model importer) 1979 Automobile Quarterly article has them. He was selling them in the U.S. several years before that. Though the model selection of RAMIs is amazing, Rio Models and Brumm are usually considered even better.--Cstevencampbell (talk) 21:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Can you look at your car and box and see if there is a copyright notice? --B (talk) 21:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Advice needed
Hi B. Since you are an image upload expert I would like to ask you regarding the NFCC status of this recently uploaded cartoon File:GreekcartoonmistrustingAlbanians.gif as well as the comments in the fair use rationale made by the uploader about xenophobia etc. Thank you for your time. Best regards, Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  01:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think this is appropriate on several levels. For one thing, surely if anti-Albanian sentiment is as prevalent as the article is claiming, some example of it could be found that does not require the use of a "fair use" image.  For example, you could use an old cartoon for which the copyright has expired.  Or you could use a photo showing vandalism on an Albanian-owned building or some such thing.  But also, I don't think that seeing this cartoon substantially enhances my understanding of the topic any more than it would to just tell me that there's anti-Albanian sentiment.  If the central focus of the article were bigotry in Greece, then maybe I could see it ... but the central focus of the article is immigration and alleged anti-Albanian bigotry is a minor piece to that puzzle.  So it definitely fails NFCC#8.  Also, as a side note, from reading this passage, it seems EXTREMELY preachy.  From reading this, I get the idea that Greece is run by the KKK.  Maybe it really is that bad - I have no idea and don't about anything outside of my corner of the world - but I definitely pick up on a point of view here. --B (talk) 02:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much B. I appreciate your advice. I will put it up for deletion under NFCC8. Take care. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  02:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

2 Cents
Can I get you to take a look at WP:AN ? Thanks, Werieth (talk) 13:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Wavell p.134.jpeg
You deleted this file on 18 April. But the typo in the PD which caused the alert had been fixed. So there was no need to delete it. Please undo your delete. --Rskp (talk) 01:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * was deleted pursuant to this discussion: Possibly_unfree_files/2013_April_10. PD-UK says that images are public domain in the UK 70 years after the death of the author.  But in order for the image to be used on Wikipedia, it needs to be public domain in the United States (where Wikimedia's servers are located) - it doesn't matter if it is public domain in the country of origin.  If it was published in 1933 in the UK, it's still copyrighted here.  Now, all that said, please see commons:Commons:Derivative_works.  The underlying facts of the map are not copyrightable.  So you could ask at the Graphics Lab and someone could probably make a nice map that shows the information embodied in this map, but is an original creative work. --B (talk) 01:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * However given the ubiquitous publication history of this particular source which was first published in 1928, that's 85 years ago, and has been continuously in the public domain since, being published 25 times including in the United States, surely so prominent a source should be included. --Rskp (talk) 03:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:FAIR #4. A fair use map is only permitted if the purpose of it is to offer critical commentary on the map itself.  If you're just using it to depict the underlying facts of the situation, then it's not permissible. --B (talk) 11:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The reason this file was put up for deletion was because of a typo in the Public Domain tag. This was fixed. Yet you still deleted it even tho the problem had been fixed.

Your completely new assertion made after the file was deleted, that the Wikipedia servers being in the US has a bearing on this is interesting. Can you provide a link to support this?

The Fair Use link you provide talks about maps in atlases. I have not attempted to use the fair use rationale. This is a Public Domain copyright issue which is ok in the UK where Wavell has been published and republished.

Your suggestions for having a map drawn by the Graphics Lab or providing critical commentary on the map would both be original research, wouldn't they? --Rskp (talk) 01:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * First off, I didn't make up anything new after the discussion. Stefan2 correctly pointed out in the discussion that the image is copyrighted.  As for where the servers are located and whose laws we are subject to, you can find this any number of places, for example, our own article on Wikipedia.  COPYRIGHT says it.  For Wikipedia to accept an image as public domain, it has to be public domain in the United States.  For Commons to accept it, it has to be public domain both in the United States and in its country of origin.  As for fair use, the link I cited is giving specific examples, not saying that atlases are the only example of inappropriate maps to use.  If you're using a map of the real world (as opposed to a map of a fictional location like Middle-earth) under a claim of fair use and you're not discussing the map itself, then it does not qualify for fair use under WP:NFCC.  As for a map drawn by the graphics lab, no, No original research specifically says this is NOT the case.  As long as the user-authored image is not publishing new original ideas, it is not considered original research.  For example, if you had your own theory about the route that a particular general took, it would not be appropriate to create a map advocating that view.  But if you're using established facts, there is no problem there and if you look at Commons:Category:Maps of wars (particularly at the more recent wars), you will find plenty of user-authored maps. --B (talk) 01:50, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that I'm starting to see what's going on. So, is the problem now that the map has not been discussed in the article? Because the articles in which the map appears are still being developed in my User space. I've just got all the info together and am now going through the articles editing them up before publishing them and Wavell's map will definitely be discussed in the body of the article. --Rskp (talk) 02:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What is the article in question and where would it go? --B (talk) 02:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There are two articles. Here are the links. ‪User:RoslynSKP/Battle of Hareira‬ and ‪User:RoslynSKP/Battle of Sheria‬. I hasten to add there is still quite a bit of editing to do before they get out there. --Rskp (talk) 05:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I took a look. Unless your purpose is to analyze the map itself (which I don't think is your purpose), it's not appropriate for fair use on Wikipedia. --B (talk) 11:33, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Can't you wait until I've had a chance to fully develop the articles before making that decision? If you reinstate the map, I will contact you when I'm about ready to publish the articles, so you can make an informed decision about the uses I've made of the map. --Rskp (talk) 01:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair use maps aren't supposed to be used in user pages anyway. If I restore the map, a bot will just remove it at some point.  Can you use a placeholder until you're ready to go live? --B (talk) 02:45, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've got one in place. I'm sorry I've been such a pest but I'd really like to use the map if possible. Thanks a lot for your time and advice. Regards, --Rskp (talk) 07:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I remember that at one point awhile back an exception for fair use images in article drafts was mentioned, but I just looked at Non-free content and no such exemption is mentioned. (The only exemption is for categories of fair use images that are pending deletion.) --B (talk)
 * Would be possible to use the "This file is NOT necessarily in the public domain in the United States because ..." disclaimer which appears on a number of files? --Rskp (talk) 04:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

animated gifs

 * ''Non-free_content_review/Archive_21

I'd like to invite you to re-read the discussion for the Animated game GIFs at Captain Tsubasa 5: Hasha no Shōgō Campione. There was general agreement to keep at least one of the images, not to delete both.Diego (talk) 06:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Were we to engage in an exercise of counting heads, it's 4-1 for deletion of one image and 3-2 in favor of deleting the other. I realize that Masem's comment is obviously not an explicit !vote, but I read "And importantly, the computer animation itself needs to be discussed" and his counterexample of an appropriate animated GIF as a statement that he feels these are not appropriate.  I did read and strongly consider both arguments for keeping Captaintsubasa5.gif.  Toshio Yamaguchi said, "File:Captaintsubasa5.gif shows some of the gameplay and a short cutscene, which seems good enough to illustrate the overall elements of the game."  This is not especially a policy-based reason for keeping it or evidence that it complies with NFCC#8 (which was the only valid reason I saw for deletion - Dianna's point that they failed NFCC#1 as well is only relevant if you first agree that they failed NFCC#8 and nobody took issue with NFCC#3b compliance).  Just because it illustrates something doesn't mean that illustration is necessary to a reader's understanding.  I also considered your comments.  I even looked back at the history of the article to see if it was different in December (it was basically the same as it is now).  You said, "I definitely wouldn't have understood what the 'Cinematic Soccer' scenes are without the comparison of the two cutscenes".  I discounted that argument for compliance with NFCC#8 because both images depict the Cinematic Soccer genre and the topic of this article is not Cinematic Soccer itself.  Perhaps if we had an article on that topic, a cutscene would be appropriate.  "The article makes a big deal about Captain Tsubasa 5 having a different style than the predecessors."  This is the best argument for NFCC#8 compliance I saw.  And I did look for a while at the article and the two animations.  I could not see anything necessary to my understanding that could not be conveyed with words.  You don't need to see the new characters to understand that they have new characters.  You don't need to have graphics to understand that there are new graphics.  I couldn't see any reason that this statement would override the concerns expressed by the other participants in the discussion.  So I closed it as delete. --B (talk) 11:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * While the topic is not Cinematic Soccer itself, Cinematic Soccer is important to the game; one can't understand the game without understanding the genre to which it belongs. Given that we don't have an article about the genre, the game can't be understood without the image. If we had that article, then yes a wikilink to it and some still images could be enough to understand the game, provided that other article included images about video games in the genre, but that's not the case. Removal of these images have definitely hurt undesrtanding the topic for me. Maybe Masem and the others already know how the genre works, and commented without realizing they have a good deal of prior knowledge? Diego (talk) 14:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * (BTW I also disagree with Dianna's assessment, but didn't have time to comment on it - the discussion was closed before I saw it). If cinematic soccer is not described in the article, that's a reason to expand the article and explain it, not to consider that "Cinematic soccer" is not relevant to the topic. Diego (talk) 14:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I've opened a deletion review at Deletion review/Log/2013 April 21. Diego (talk) 07:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review
You couldn't be more correct; this was a case of me being very lazy in dealing with edit conflicts. Thank you very much indeed.-- Laun  chba  ller  13:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

RE: Your other photo uploads
B, to answer your first question, yes I was the actual photographer of those Styx pictures. In July of that year, there was a concert at a park in my city where Kansas, Styx and Foreigner all headlined and I was lucky enough to be in VIP seats. Needless to say, those were my easiest uploads haha. But thank you for the examples. Please give me about a month's grace period to read through it and fix the photos. Thank you for your guidance, I appreciate it.

-Nirvanafanatic619 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirvanafanatic619 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding deleted file. I personally removed the watermark recently. Confused?
Regarding:

"contribs) deleted page File:800,Experimental pots awaiting deployment.JPG ‎(G4. The image was deleted because we're not interested in watermarked images, not because of licensing. If you contest the deletion, please see WP:DRV.)'"

I personally removed the watermark from the image, File:800,Experimental pots awaiting deployment.JPG, recently and overwrote the file. I thought I had removed the watermark template entry from the page as well. Although that may have been the night wiki servers were acting up. Perhaps it didn't 'stick' somehow.

Anyway, I still have the edited file (watermark removed) in my personal archive and can easily re-upload it if need be when the page is restored. The image was included in an article (might have been an article in development in user space, I was working with multiple images at the time). Yep, here's the article (which now has broken image links): User:Gurnard/QBEX.

I found this very similar file File:QBRX Module 2, Experimental pots awaiting deployment.JPG still in the archive. And the user page linked above appears to have been idle awhile. So likely no harm done.

Regardless, I'd still like to understand how the image came to be deleted. Was it one of the ones where the thumbnail in the change list was displaying different from the primary preview at the top of the page? Was this a simple mistake (like an overzealous bot) or... ? If there was a valid reason for deletion it would help me as an image editor to have a clear understanding of it so as to avoid spending time on doomed images in the future. I'd found the image via either Files for cleanup or Images for cleanup.

Thanks for your time and attention, --Kevjonesin (talk) 03:06, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Kevinjonesin. There is a bug/feature/server problem with the cache not getting refreshed properly.  When I looked at the image, it showed a watermark (because the server was still showing the old cached version).  I have restored File:800,Experimental pots awaiting deployment.JPG. --B (talk) 03:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Kevjonesin (talk) 06:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank You
Thank you for the welcome note and information relating to image uploading. I intended to reply sooner but was recovering from recent illness. I will definitely stay in touch and thank you again for your help. Jen Campbell (talk) 05:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Glad to help. --B (talk) 12:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

T-80UD
Hello,

Recently, you added di-no permission tag to this image File:T-80UD Pakistan Army.jpg ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:T-80UD_Pakistan_Army.jpg ) .. The file is scheduled for deletion after 1 June 2013. The license has been sent and is available at ticket 2013052510000661 .. then, is this tag appropriate? .. and regarding the EXIF data, I view it as the author's name and the publisher is Pakistan Military Review and it has licensed it under cc-by ... Is anything else required??

Thanks ..--Maxx786 (talk) 17:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The ticket did not contain sufficient information to confirm the copyright status of the image and the person who submitted the ticket has not responded to a request for followup information. The EXIF data credits "MK CHAUDHRY", thich is the name of a Corbis photographer.  If you look around on that site, plenty of his images are clearly from elsewhere, for example  is watermarked with "gettyimages".  So unless we get something really, really convincing, I have no confidence that the license is legitimate. --B (talk) 17:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * And actually, upon further review, all three images on the source website come from Corbis.   I have deleted File:T-80UD Pakistan Army.jpg in accordance with WP:CSD as a flagrant copyright violation. --B (talk) 17:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Nickaang sockpuppetry fallout: Luis D Ortiz
You deleted Luis D Ortiz as a creation by blocked User:Nickaang or his sockpuppets. But the user who AFC notified about the page's creation, User talk:Senencito, isn't blocked and wasn't named in the SPI. Could you please take another look? This should be resolved one way or anoter. Huon (talk) 23:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * When I deleted the page, it was a redirect to Luis D. Ortiz, which had been created by, a Nickaang sock. Luis D. Ortiz appears to have started out as a copy/paste move of Luis D Ortiz and then TankThank expanded on it.  I will add Senencito to the Nickaang checkuser - there is sufficient reason to believe that both incarnations of this article were created by Nickaang. --B (talk) 23:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

This is user Senencito. I am new to wikipedia so I need some help understanding this. I created the Luis D Ortiz article and no one else. I don't know who tankthank is or who nickaang is and to my knowledge I am not writing for any of them. If you need some evidence on who I am by all means google my username, it will lead to my website www.senencito.com and you can contact me there to confirm my identity. I really don't understand why am I being linked to this person and it's becoming pretty frustrating.

I apologize if writing here is not the right media but I do need to understand this. -- User talk:Senencito —Preceding undated comment added 01:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Senencito, based on your statement here, I have restored the revisions of the article prior to the banned individual's edits and moved it to Luis D. Ortiz. I apologize for the inconvenience. --B (talk) 02:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I appreciate it. - Senencito —Preceding undated comment added 23:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding a file I uploaded
This with regard to the file A scaled down model of Brahmos-II at Aero India 2013.jpg which I had uploaded. I had sent the permission to use the file to permissions@wikimedia.org to which you (most probably) responded on May 4 saying that - "we cannot use content on the basis of statements such as "I allow Wikipedia to use my photos". Because Wikipedia content is designed to for reuse, the media needs to be released under a free license in order for it to be included in Wikimedia projects." Then I again sent a mail to Shiv Aroor, the author asking if he agreed to release the file under public domain, to which he replied "Yes". I had forwarded the mail to permissions@wikimedia.org on May 5, to which I have got no response. The file will be deleted on June 3 i.e. day after tomorrow. This the reason I am requesting for your help by taking a look at that mail. Thank You. - Jayadevp  13  16:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * FYI, when you reply to a permissions message, please include the ticket number in the subject line (something like [Ticket:12345678901234567890]). When you do that, the software automatically links it with the previous message and sends an email to whoever previously answered (me in this case).  Regarding the message itself, we still need (1) a clear statement of authorship and (2) a clear statement of license.  There are lots of "free content" licenses - the GFDL, the GPL, the LGPL, a handful of Creative Commons ones, the Free Art License, beerware, the WTFPL, etc.  We need a specific license to be specified or for the copyright holder to unambiguously state that he is releasing the content into the public domain.  --B (talk) 17:42, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank You for extending the deletion date. I will take care of your instructions next time. Were you able to find the mail I sent you? It shows that I asked if he agreed to release the file in public domain, to which he replied positively. What should I do now? - Jayadevp  13  17:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I replied to the email you sent. You didn't say "public domain", you said "free license".  There are lots of free licenses - that's like asking someone, "do you want a beverage" - it doesn't tell you which one.  What we really need is for him to fill out and submit the WP:CONSENT form. --B (talk) 23:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Should he need to fill the form and send it to me (the uploader) which I will forward to you or he has to send it to permissions@wikimedia.org? I think the earlier one might be easier. Please reply immediately. I have to mail it to him accordingly. -  Jayadevp  13  04:07, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * He can send it to us directly ... or he can send it to you and you can forward it ... either way is fine. --B (talk) 11:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * He has sent me a reply and I have forwarded it to you. Please take a look. - Jayadevp  13  17:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅, I have marked the permission as accepted, all is well. --B (talk) 19:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Image File Aif-logo.jpg deleted on June 14, 2013
I uploaded a file titled Aif-logo.jpg, (see > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Aif-logo.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1) and you deleted it on June 14, 2013 because the article on which I intended it to be used was still being reviewed. That article, Aspen Ideas Festival, has since been created, and I am wondering if you would be able to reinstate the Aif-logo.jpg page for the purposes of using it on the Aspen Ideas Festival page. Thank you. Jesch.001 User talk:Jesch.001 08:56, 18 June 2013 (MST)

File:DavidRosen.jpg
And the related discussion at PUF. There's an OTRS ticket from Rosen covering the point about the sculpture and I've asked him to confirm who took the image. Question is how do we mark this up on the file description that there is a release for the 3d work of art? Oh and to complicate it, the uploader has also uploaded it to commons (same file name) which makes me think they are also the person who took the image. NtheP (talk) 20:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there any dispute that Iluvendan took the image? We normally take someone at their word unless it's a fanciful claim.  The only dispute was whether it was an unauthorized derivative work, which, as Niteshift36 pointed out, when you pose for the picture, you're obviously authorizing the derivative work.  His consent for the terms of the license is not necessary - if he consented to the creation of the derivative work, then the copyright holder of that work is free to do with it as she pleases.  As for how to describe the image, I would just say, "photo by ________ depicting David Rosen and his sculpture __________" --B (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Destroying the work of others
What we're trying to do here is to build a great, free, online encyclopedia. When a wikipedia editor enters a new paragraph of text, they can't steal the copyright work of others. That's something that most of us would agree on. However, a second editor can't delete the work of the first editor because the original editor didn't prove there is no copyright violation. If an editor is going to do something destructive, like delete a paragraph of another editor, then the burden of proof must be with the editor who is destroying the work of the constructive editor. People who want to remove the work of other editors need to have a very good reason to do so.

The more hoops we ask editors to jump through, the fewer edits we're going to get Over the past few years the number of editors of the English language version of has dropped significantly. If we want to reverse this, we should refrain from deleting the work of editors unless we have a very good reason. If someone has made up a silly rule that suggests the burden of proof is with constructive editors rather than with people who enjoy destroying the work of others, then thinking people should work towards getting the rule changed and not blindly following it.

In my own case a while ago I uploaded to wikipedia a photo taken by an amature photographer of Dermot Kinlen. The photographer gave permission to a webmaster to use the photo for free on his site. That webmaster in turn said I could upload it to wikipedia. I then tried to contact the original photographer for confirmation. I did not get a reply from the email and I put in some effort to find him. I believe he may have died. I found a death notice of someone with his name in his town who has recently passed away. Of course I cannot be certain this was the same person. In this case I think if anyone wants to delete the photo they should need to prove that there is an objection for the use of this photo. If a family member of the deceased comes forward and objects to the use of the photo, then fine, let's take the photo off wikipedia. But that has not happened and I think we all know that that is not going to happen. I have already spent far too much time trying to sort out this issue. The photo has been deleted and it is far too much hassel to try to get it reinstated. In the case of Zhang Yi Tang's photo, it was released by his university in a press release. The person who deleted it should have confirmed there was an objection to it's use before making the deletion. Unfortunately, once again the destructive editors have won. I think they need some better guidelines. Aberdeen01 (talk) 07:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Amen. --Kevjonesin (talk) 13:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Centpacrr (talk) 14:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

If you have something you want me to do or look at, please include a link to the article or photo in question. If you just want to complain about our image use policy or fair use policy, there are other fora for that. --B (talk) 17:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way, if you're talking about, you uploaded it claiming that it is public domain because it is "freely distributed by the University of New Hampshire". That's not what "public domain" means.  That just means it's publicly available (not confidential).  It is still subject to copyright.  Wikipedia does not accept such things and so they are deleted.  If you would like to request permission from someone that Wikipedia would accept, please see WP:COPYREQ for instructions.  WP:CONSENT has a form that can be used by the copyright holder to give consent. --B (talk) 18:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why you've closed the discussion just as it was starting. You have now effectively hidden the paragraph that I wrote. Please undo. Aberdeen01 (talk) 05:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Uh, Aberdeen01, dude, this is B's personal user space talk page. The host is entitled to a bit of latitude.


 * If you really wish to continue and you're looking for comments to persist you may have chosen the wrong venue. One might consider dropping a link and forking to their own user space as B is perfectly free to delete or archive this thread at will. --Kevjonesin (talk) 08:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

If you have a question, an image you would like for me to review, or a specific action you would like me to take, then please feel free to make that request. If you just want to object to the image use policy because you believe that Wikipedia's copyright and licensing needs should not apply in your case, then that is not something I have the authority to grant and so there is no need to discuss it. You uploaded a photo that was very clearly not public domain and tagged it as public domain. I deleted it. Unfortunately, in 1976, the US Congress saw fit to abandon the American tradition of "free content" where if you did not actively pursue copyright, your work was considered to be public domain. Because of this decision, every creative work is copyrighted from the moment of creation. If you publish a cell phone photo of your friends on Facebook, that photo is copyrighted. Even if you don't know or care that it's copyrighted, it is. The vast majority of websites on the planet don't really care - they will just use whatever they want without understanding or caring about copyright. Wikipedia doesn't work that way. We don't use someone else's photo without an explicit grant of a license compatible with our Creative Commons attribution/share-alike publication. I realize that this is annoying at times and it can make things very difficult if the copyright holder is not easily ascertainable or contactable, but it is what it is. This isn't me destroying someone's work - if it hadn't been me, it would have been someone else a few hours later. --B (talk) 19:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding deletion of WebDonuts
Hello,

I just wanted to ask if you could possibly restore this article? It seems to be a very popular web comic and I'm interested recreating it so that more information can be added.

Thanks a bunch!

Challe11 (talk) 18:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This article is deleted because it was the creation of a banned user. It will not be restored.  This is not, however, a ban on creation.  If you are not working on behalf of the banned user, you are more than welcome to create a new article under this title.  You may also, if you would like, use the articles for creation process if you would like to get help creating an article.  --B (talk) 19:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

inre Articles for deletion/Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (film)
Yes, the topic of the planned film is getting and will likely continue to get lots of coverage, but when considering planned films we look to the applicable guideline and consider whether of not that coverage gives us anything solid about the film itself... casting, production, plot, ect. To be fair to our readers, I think a temporary redirect to either J.K. Rowling or the article on the 2001 book "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them" by that author (and where this adaptation is already written about), is a valid consideration. The arguments about how the film topic might become supremely notable have a bit of merit, but I think it logical that we send readers for now to where it makes sense under policy, guideline and essay to keep readers informed. What'cha think?  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 02:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with a pedantic enforcement of notability guidelines in this case. It's something with a major fan following, which means lots of people googling it, and Wikipedia is most useful when it has an article about something that lots of people are googling for. --B (talk) 00:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Griffith College Ireland logo.jpg
Any updates to this ?  LGA talk  edits   07:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No. I just looked at it and no reply was ever received from a followup request that we sent.  The permission received is not sufficient.  It's been long enough that this really needs to either be retagged as fair use (if appropriate) or removed. --B (talk) 19:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Taken to PUF to have this settled once and for all. That said, I think that this image can be kept as fair use per WP:NFCI §2. There are lots of very old files with OTRS received which should probably be checked and often deleted. Old files with OTRS pending since last year were only deleted last month. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

OTRS tickers
Two things about OTRS ticket 2013043010005577 - Regards, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC) (Please leave a talkback or ping when replying)
 * You probably meant to add OTRS_permission not OTRSreceived. Please see the two templates for why that common error could have been made.
 * The copyright for the image was not with the subject. See the note I left on the ticket for more information.

Please block IP
Hi B. You blocked this guy in 2007!!! He is back, and doing nothing but vandalism! Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 22:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks like this is a school, not one guy, and almost certainly not the same person who was there seven years ago. Please notify WP:AIV while the vandalism is happening as you are more likely to get a timely response. --B (talk) 00:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Expanding cita_web for Spanish parameters
Hi, User:Wikid77 here. I am expanding the Template:Cita_web to handle Spanish parameters, acting as an "exact copy" of es:Plantilla:Cita_web, plus allow any English-language parameters in the mix to run cite web. I think this design, feasible now using Lua, is following the idea you had suggested in the RfD of July 2010    • wp:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2010_July_18 As you had predicted, the prior redirect had become "not useful" as rejecting the unrecognized Spanish parameters, while the newly expanded template can show actual formatted cites and links from Spanish parameters, as typically written by various users. Likewise, other templates provide dual support for German parameter names, such as "Einwohner=" or "population=" with Austrian towns. Hence, I implemented your suggestion, tested as the /sandbox version Template:Cita_web/sandbox, and installed. However, now there is a debate to prevent the expanded template. See discussion:    • Template_talk:Cita_web Your opinions would be appreciated in that discussion, when you have time. Thanks. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Raycom/LF Sports


A tag has been placed on Raycom/LF Sports requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 12:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I wish people would look at this stuff before just deleting something that has been around for 8 years. Raycom Sports is very much a notable company and a fixture in sports broadcasting.  Raycom/LF Sports was the name of this entity for a few years when Raycom and LF Sports events were co-branded, before Raycom purchased Lincoln Financial Sports.  While I have no opinion whatsoever on whether this rates a separate article, if you don't believe it does, you should have turned it back into a redirect rather than having it deleted.  I created it as a redirect 8 years ago.  Someone else made an article out of it.  Whether the article should exist or not, I don't care, but if it shouldn't then certainly the redirect should. --B (talk) 22:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

You, letter B, deleted my redirect page!!!
It was only just a redirect page to my user page, but you definitely deleted it, letter B. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Pina (talk • contribs) 04:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirects from article space into user space are not permitted. --B (talk) 11:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

ARE YOU INSANE?!?!?!?!?!?!
How could articles redirect to user pages but they are not permitted? That's no fare, letter B!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Pina (talk • contribs) 19:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Just because the technical means to do something exist does not mean it is a permissible action. Redirects into user space are not permissible. --B (talk) 19:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

About something you wrote above
Your last addition to the section above, "Destroying the work of others", was exceptionally well put. I hope you don't mind if I copy-and-adapt it in future similar circumstances. Jeh (talk) 20:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

ANI notification
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Conduct of William Pina. Thank you. Jeh (talk) 02:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Shadow Mountain Community Church for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shadow Mountain Community Church 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 Articles for deletion/Shadow Mountain Community Church & until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Gamaliel ( talk ) 01:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

A Question
Can you leave the codes for your conservative and christian ribbons on my talk page? Erik L&#39;Ensle :) (talk) 17:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for the templates. Erik L&#39;Ensle :) (talk) 17:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:IHS logo.png
 Thanks for uploading File:IHS logo.png. 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Portal:Example
Hello: It looks as if – with good reason – you've prevented the recreation of Portal:Example, but, for the sake of examples/demonstrations such as, would you consider recreating/reprotecting it and its talk page with the following content..?:

[Portal:Example]:

[Portal talk:Example]:

In other words, as with the pages Category:Example and Category talk:Example.

Yours hopefully, Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Though I don't necessarily endorse creation (or non-creation) of the page, the purpose of protection was to prevent accidental creation, not to be a ban on intentionally creating something there. I have therefore removed the protection. --B (talk) 15:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I've now created the pages as described. Sardanaphalus (talk) 00:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Too quick to revert
My apologies on my 'knee-jerk' reaction to your recent edits. For some reason I did not see the edit summary, maybe it didn't load correctly. I am sorry if this caused any offence or trouble in your editing. Please keep up the good work.
 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 13:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Local image file question
Thanks for answering my question on that Franz Ziereis discussion. I still have a further question. I had actually mistakenly thought that you had created a local Wikipedia page for the Commons file because of the Wikipedia logo in the top left and the URL being wikipedia.org, then clicking the Commons link from there showed a different page: the Commons logo in the top left and the URL being commons.wikimedia.org. But then I saw there wasn't actually a local Wikipedia page (if I click Add Local Description I could create one). So what are we looking at with that first page, then? Should I use that type of link when I show a commons file in my Wikipedia articles? Thanks. Prhartcom (talk) 17:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You can link to the image directly as though it were on Wikipedia. For example, File:VT Hokies Marching Virginians.jpg is an image I uploaded to Commons a long time ago.
 * If I want to use this image in an article (like I did to the right, you can link to it just as though it were on Wikipedia, e.g.  VT Hokies Marching Virginians.jpg 
 * If you want to discuss an image on a talk page, you put a : in front of the link, so I give you a link to File:VT Hokies Marching Virginians.jpg inline, it will take you to the (non-existent) description page on Wikipedia where, because no Wikipedia page exists, it shows you the Commons description.
 * If you add ":commons" to the link in text (not when you are using the image in an article - Commons:File:VT Hokies Marching Virginians.jpg - then the link will take you straight to Commons. Normally, the only time you would want to do this is if you are discussing an image where someone has uploaded one file to Wikipedia and then someone uploaded another file to Commons with the same name.  (If we need to make the Commons file available, then we would either delete or rename our file.)  There is no way to display the blocked Commons image, so you would never do this in an article. --B (talk) 18:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This will work with all Wikimedia wikis (WikiNews, Wikipedia in other languages, etc) - if an image is on Commons, you can include it in an article as though it were uploaded to the local wiki. I hope this helps. --B (talk) 18:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You're a Hokie? Just kidding. So one would think I would be satisfied with such a complete and helpful answer, but here I am still droning on, asking you to clarify. But this is kind of interesting, check this out, and you will see what I meant in my question above: Go back to the file delete discussion page: Files for deletion/2015 February 25 and there are two links I'd like you to click on. The first is when you say, "I have uploaded it to File:Portrait of SS Standartenfuehrer Franz Ziereis.jpg." The second is when you provide the file image to the right of that statement. Click on both. Notice how, for the first link, the Wikipedia logo is in the top left and the URL is wikipedia.org, and for the second, it isn't? Cool, huh?  I had only clicked on the first, saw the Wikipedia logo and the URL, and assumed you had created a local file instead of linking to Commons, so I had asked my original question. I wonder what is happening with that first link, showing us the Wikipedia logo and URL as if it is a local page? Prhartcom (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * When you click on the image, the behavior there is based on a (relatively) new add-in. I think that most people see the popup of the image and then a button at the bottom that says "More details" and takes you to Commons.  I guess whoever wrote the add-in just decided to do it that way instead of taking you to the local page.  If, instead of left-clicking on the picture, you right-click on it and choose "Open link in new window", then it will actually take you to the same https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Portrait_of_SS_Standartenfuehrer_Franz_Ziereis.jpg page on Wikipedia.  --B (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Email problems with yahoo
My reply to you was erased. There is a known problem with emails: for almost a year now, emails have been bouncing if the sender's email address is @yahoo.com, see T66795, Village pump (technical)/Archive 129 and the threads linked back from there. This often comes up at VPT, and some people are under the misapprehension that the recipient's email address is the problem - it's not, it's that of the sender. -- Red rose64 (talk) 13:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Apparently, the lesson here to be gleaned from deleting the VPT thread is that the correct solution to the problem is to stick fingers in our ears and hum really loud. --B (talk) 13:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have sent Wikipedia mail to B, User:Redrose64 and User:EoRdE6. If you don't receive the mail then you can ask for a copy at the address on my website linked on my user page. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Received. --B (talk) 14:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Re: replaceability
Re: "it's been established numerous times"—would you mind pointing me to where this is documented? czar ⨹   18:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * For one thing, WP:FREER explicitly says it. Here's one example of a previous discussion .  Here's another  where it was completely agreed that if we did not have a "free" license for the photo, we would delete it.  --B (talk) 18:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Intercollegiate Studies Institute Student's Guide Multi-volume set.jpg
The article Intercollegiate Studies Institute was undeleted, so now there is a template with no reference. Can you revert the deletion of the image, thus making it reappear automatically in the article? --Jonund (talk) 09:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. --B (talk) 10:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Anybody-can-dance.jpg
Can you roll back the latest edit to this file? This will restore the source and the fair use rationale. The source is on the spam blacklist, so I can't do this myself. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Do you not have rollbacker?  Do you want it? --B (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have rollback rights on Commons, but not here. Twinkle's rollback function allows me to enter a rationale, and there is less risk that I accidentally click on a link which results in a reversion. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Please delete this images or mark for speedy deletion whatever as they are copyrighted, Non-Free.
Please delete this images or mark for speedy deletion whatever as they are copyrighted, Non-Free.

File:Nokia Beta Labs screenshot.png

File:Nokia Beta Labs logo.png

49.200.95.101 15:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.200.95.105 (talk)
 * Both are tagged for deletion and will be deleted (either by me or by another admin) when the waiting period is up, provided that the images continue to be orphans. No further action is required. --B (talk) 21:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Dorothy Pittman Hughes/Steinem
Please cite the policy or rule that inclusion and mention of the Dorothy Pittman Hughes/Steinem photograph is violating. I'm not clear on your rationale for deletion or how it pertains to Wikipedia policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VeronicaRoss (talk • contribs)
 * Please see WP:NFCC. Non-free content is only permitted "if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." --B (talk) 20:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Some info, please
Could you please explain to me how I can post a photo of Acadian author France Daigle (recipient of the 2012 Canadian Governor General award for best novel of the year in French language literature) that would be appropriate on Wikipedia? I'm still a novice at this, and I don't have much Web development knowledge. The Copyright issues seem quite complicated to me, yet there are photos everywhere on Wikipedia on a myriad topics, and especially normally on a page of the person in question. I posted a photo of her, which was deleted after seven days. Could you or someone find me a photo of her to post which is not problematic on Wikipedia? I thought the photo was fine, but I guess not. Nitpicker74 (talk)
 * , Most likely, there is NOT an existing image that you can use as is. The vast majority of images on the internet are NOT acceptable to use on Wikipedia and there is no tag that you can put on the image that will make them so.  The reason for this policy is that Wikipedia believes in promoting free content, that is, content that is not encumbered by the need to obtain copyright clearances.  So in the case of living people, we do not use images under a claim of fair use because we would rather encourage donation of a public domain or Creative Commons one.   Please see foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy, which explicitly forbids Wikimedia-owned wikis from using portraits of living individuals under a claim of fair use.  Please see also this statement from Jimbo Wales, which explains his reasoning for what was not yet policy in 2006 but is now.  (If you are in personal contact with a photographer and would like to ask him or her to publish an image under acceptable terms, please see WP:COPYREQ for details and WP:CONSENT for the consent form we would need from the copyright holder.) --B (talk) 12:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks for the information, and for replying so quickly.--Nitpicker74 (talk)

Country Attire deletion
I am currently working on my first page which I would like to set up for Country Attire but I can see that this was previously deleted by you due to notability. I was wondering what the concerns were in relation to this before I proceed? --Fashionista888 (talk) 16:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have moved it as a draft to User:Fashionista888/Country Attire. It was deleted as an expired prod, meaning that it can be restored on request.  You can work on the article in your user space and, when you are ready, follow the draft instructions to ask for another user to review it.  Please see WP:CORP for the guideline on inclusion of articles about company and WP:COI, if relevant, for information about writing about your employer. --B (talk) 17:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Your user page
B, your user page has no content other than a redirect to this talk page. Please explain why you'd do this. Editless941 ( Talk  · contribs ) 22:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Because I do not want a user page. Wikipedia is here to build an encyclopedia, not to build Facebook pages. --B (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Message from User:Gpop87
Hello B and Sander,

I have full permission from my friend to use this photo, and he does not hold a copyright. He took photos of me, developed them, and gave them to me to keep and use. He is not a professional photographer and is not looking for any credit and/or compensation for the photo. I find your website incredibly difficult to use, and I very highly doubt he would know how to get in touch with you as he is quite old (PS, maybe make wikipedia more user friendly). I don't understand why you are being such photo nazis, he is not going to sue you or me, he is an average person taking a photo for a friend as a memory.

Gorgi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gpop87 (talk • contribs)
 * Every photograph (or any other creative work) made is copyrighted - even if you do not actually register the copyright with the copyright office. Because one of Wikipedia's goals is to create what we call free content, that is, content that is not encumbered by copyright restrictions, we require copyright releases.  There is a form at Declaration of consent for all enquiries that your friend could fill out and submit.  If he does not use a computer, you could print it out for him so that he could sign it.  The completed form needs to be submitted to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. --B (talk) 02:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

let me know when to begin replying
Please let me know when you have run out your exercise with the images I have uploaded. Obviously you are devoting a great deal of time in this effort even though presumption seems to be driving most of your judgments and your personal comments. When you have finished, I will begin to respond to each as time allows. Not having the luxury of free time that you seem to have, it will take time, but I will go through my records for each and reply. Please note the correct classifications for those classified incorrectly so that changes may be made. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 01:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The correct place to reply is at the relevant deletion discussion, mostly Files for deletion/2015 March 30. You have uploaded a good number of images that are very clearly copied from the internet.  Merely the act of retouching an image does not make it your own.  You should not call it your "own work" unless you, personally, held the camera in your hand, aimed it at the subject matter, and clicked the button. --B (talk) 02:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Advised by other editors to ask if you could restore an article as a draft
We found out recently that an editor who created an article about our company was someone who should not have been editing Wikipedia in the first place because they were "Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban". We were unaware of this and was advised by several editors to ask if you could restore our article as a draft as this was not our fault but rather the banned editor. The article was for AirportShuttles.com - please let me know if you have any questions at all. Thanks for your time in advanced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Airportshuttlescom (talk • contribs)
 * No, the article will not be restored. Banned means banned.  This individual is banned from Wikipedia and anything he creates will be deleted on sight.  I would suggest that you refrain from engaging the services of people who claim that they can publish articles on Wikipedia for you.  This sort of behavior is all-but-prohibited and is, at the very least, highly highly disliked.  Please see Conflict of interest for Wikipedia's guideline on editing articles about yourself, your employer, etc. --B (talk) 19:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the (un)professionalism in your response as we were unaware of how to get basic information about our company on Wikipedia. Again it is just basic information about our company, nothing more exciting or earth shattering than that. You could have been more professional and just mentioned to me in your response that the editor was banned and instructed me on ways we are supposed to get our basic company information on Wikipedia. I will contact Wikipedia directly as I disagree with your decision especially the response you supplied me about my concerns. By the way the other editors who I brought this issue to in your Wikipedia chat were much more professional and understanding of how getting listed in Wikipedia could be misunderstood.
 * I am sorry that you feel that way. Wikipedia takes a very dim view of both paid editing and banned users violating their ban.  You asked for the restoration of an article that hits both of those and I replied to your request.  Were we to grant such requests, then bans would be meaningless, as banned paid editor could simply have his customer request restoration of the article after it was deleted.  If you choose to pursue an article, you are welcome to do so.  I would invite you to consider three things if you do.  (1) Wikipedia is not free advertising.  Any article about your company must be well-sourced and neutral.  (2) Please consider the guideline linked above which concerns writing about your own employer.  (3) Please be aware that not every business-related topic is appropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia.  Please see WP:CORP for our guideline of which topics are appropriate for inclusion.  (I have no opinion on whether or not an article about your company would be appropriate - I am simply sharing the relevant guideline with you.)  If you would like help with creating an article, it is help available through the articles for creation process. --B (talk) 20:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Great. That is all we were asking as 2 editors said to ask you if you would restore it. If not then simple tell us how we are supposed to do it as we are unaware of how to do this is all. I appreciate you correcting this with me and I will look at the link you sent to see how to do this. Thanks :)

Gypsy Philharmonic
That's fine. You have made enough improvements. I didn't want to delete it, but at the time it was simply not compliant. Deb (talk) 07:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

La Question (album)
Bonjour, J’avais cru bien faire en remplaçant l’image du compact disque de 1995 par l’image de la couverture originelle de 1972 (que j’avais mise en « Fair Use »). C’est certain, j’aurais du en aviser AndrewOne. Veuillez m’en excuser. Je voulais coller au plus près de l’origine de l’album puisque j’en avais modifié l’infobox et l’article. Ce n’était qu’une tentative d’incursion dans wikipedia en anglais de ma part alors que d’habitude je travaille plutôt dans Wiki en français. Apparemment cela n’est pas couronné de succès. Tant pis pour moi. Cordialement, Lézard (talk) 12:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I apologize, but I do not speak French. I have read your message using Google Translate and will include my reply, also using Google Translate.  I do not have an opinion as to which image is better.  When a "fair use" (fr:fair use) image is not currently used in any article, it will be tagged for deletion.  If the image is still not used after seven days, it will be deleted.  If there is a reason that one image or the other is better, you can discuss that with  or on the article talk page. --B (talk) 12:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * French translation: Je me excuse, mais je ne parle pas français. Je ai lu votre message en utilisant Google Translate et comprendra ma réponse, en utilisant également Google Translate. Je ne ai pas une opinion à laquelle l'image est meilleure. Quand un "usage loyal" (fr:fair use) image ne est pas actuellement utilisée dans un article, il sera marqué pour la suppression. Si l'image ne est toujours pas utilisé au bout de sept jours, il sera supprimé. Se il ya une raison pour laquelle une image ou l'autre est mieux, vous pouvez discuter avec AndrewOne ou sur la page de l'article de conversation. --B (talk) 12:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

B-bot
Just to let you know, your bot has quite a high badness score on Huggle and is popping up every three revisions or so, and will probably continue to do so until you get a bot flag, so keep that in mind when testing good luck with the bot! EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 03:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What is it that the bot is doing that Huggle doesn't like? It is editing its own userspace.  Is there something that it can do to exclude itself? --B (talk) 03:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I was hoping you would know how to get white-listed actually (maybe the huggle instructions/talkpage knows... What it's doing wrong is anyone's guess but Huggle doesn't like it... EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 03:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks like they store their whitelist off site at - Firefox crashes when I try to load this.  I don't see a way on Wikipedia to add it. --B (talk) 03:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Blalock Image
Hey B, thanks for your advice. I was just having a bit of trouble understanding how images work on Wikipedia, given that I am using wikipedia for a school project. So the Balock image can remain on the page? Thanks again for your advice. Rschwa99 (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, the photo of him can remain there under a claim of fair use. If you are at Johns Hopkins and have access to old yearbooks, it may be worth seeing if that photo was published either in (a) a 1922 yearbook or (b) in any yearbook prior to 1978 that did not contain a copyright notice.  If it was, then photo is no longer copyrighted at all.  On of Wikipedia's missions is to promote free content, that is, content that is not restricted by copyright issues and so certainly the preference would be to have a photo that we know to be in the public domain.  Many other Wikipedias (most notably the German Wikipedia and Spanish Wikipedia) do not permit fair use images at all.  If the copyright has expired on the image, then it could be reused in a German or Spanish version of the article.  But if it is copyrighted, then they would be unable to have a photo. --B (talk) 12:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton - Move Discussion
Hi,

This is a notification to let you know that there is a requested move discussion ongoing at Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/April_2015_move_request. You are receiving this notification because you have previously participated in some capacity in naming discussions related to the article in question.

Thanks. And have a nice day. NickCT (talk) 18:30, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Note on Doors22 matter
Nice to hear from an admin! About your comment, it is not a content dispute. it is a behavior issue - long-term POV pushing. I know the evidence is long, but if you read the first bit, that should be clear. I know it is long but i wanted to be fair and show that the evidence was not cherry-picked (way too easy to do that, for a claim of long-term POV-pushing) Jytdog (talk) 01:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

David F. Hickey
This may or may not be a dupe of what I tried to send otherwise. As I tried to explain, I may have left out necessary specs or appealed to the wrong release, but the photo you deleted is clearly stated as for free use on the following page http://catholic.bz/v1/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=99&Itemid=86 Please enable so that I can reinsert this image and tell me what I must do to respond to the issue you find here. I'm certain this photo is meant to be in the public domain and can get further permissions if you tell me what more you require. Gratefully jzsj 05:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzsj (talk • contribs)
 * I deleted the photo because it is also on Commons and there is no need to have the same debate two different places. The concern I have - and please see my question for you at Commons:User_talk:Jzsj - is whether or not we can accept this statement of license at face value.  Since all of the images are on Commons, can we hold this discussion there?    --B (talk) 10:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you check the permission given on the web page http://catholic.bz/v1/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=99&Itemid=86 ?  I hate to keep bothering the Bishop on this unless absolutely necessary and they thought that the note and symbol placed on the web page would be quite sufficient. But if you can't accept that as sufficient then please get back to me and I'll send him the form to fill out. Thanks. jzsj 11:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzsj (talk • contribs)
 * Again, I left you a detailed note at Commons:User_talk:Jzsj. The point that needs to be clarified is that this is NOT a statement of permission.  A statement of permission needs to have three components:
 * Identifying what image we're talking about
 * A clear statement of copyright ownership
 * A clear statement of license
 * We're good on point #1, but points #2 and #3 are not there. When I read "This work ... by unknown ... is free of known copyright restrictions", what does that mean?  Does that mean (a) the diocese owns the copyright to all of these photos and we release them into the public domain, (b) we did a thorough copyright search and have determined that the copyright has expired on all of these photos, or (c) we found these pictures somewhere and have no idea if they are copyrighted, but we don't know about any copyright restrictions?
 * For each of these images (or maybe for all of them collectively), we need some information about the provenance. Where is the image from?  Did an official photographer who is an employee of the diocese take the photo?  We just need some explanation. --B (talk) 12:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok I'll send this to the Bishop's representative who maintains the Diocesan website where the pictures appear. Please allow a week or so for a response. Thanks, jzsj 12:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzsj (talk • contribs)

Here are the lines that appears to defame
Thanks dear, but check this lines in the article... They are defamatory! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shunaid_Qureshi

Allegation in Al-Abbas Sugar Mills Limited

A suit has been filed in Sindh High Court against chief executive officer, Shunaid Qureshi, for his alleged involvement in the activities including diversion of money belonging to his company. Sindh High Court issued notices to Al-Abbas Sugar Mills Limited, its Chief Executive Officer and others on lawsuit regarding misappropriation of company bonus and alleged illegal transfers of funds.[4][5] Brawling in JSCL Meeting

In January 2014, charges were filed against Qureshi regarding an alleged violent assault at a shareholder meeting of Al-Abbas Sugar Mills.[6][7][8] Naya Nazimabad Controversy Main article: Naya Nazimabad

Shunaid Qureshi, developer of Naya Nazimabad, CEO Al Abbas Sugar Mills and former Chairman Pakistan Sugar Mills Association (PASMA) was arrested in January 2014.[9][10]

Thanks Rose Rosemaryujoh (talk) 18:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

The man "Shunaid Quresh" is being defamed. Someone create the page to bring shame to him.. I guess, the article is not neutral in this case. Do we use wikipedia to defame someone else? --B (talk) 18:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Do not refer to me as "dear".  It is insulting and inappropriate.
 * 2) My talk page is not the proper place to discuss this.  If this article fails our biographies of living persons policy in some way, there is the biographies of living persons noticeboard.
 * 3) Negative, but well-sourced, information is not forbidden on Wikipedia.  If he actually was arrested, and that claim is covered in reliable sources, then Wikipedia does not forbid covering that content.
 * 4) If you would like to nominate this article for deletion, we have a process for that at articles for deletion.
 * The source seems to be a reliable news site, at this point I'd say the claim stays.  Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 18:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok. I got it. Thanks all Rosemaryujoh (talk) 19:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

BMNH
Hi B~

Thanks for your help with appropriate tagging for the pics in this article and for having the insight to argue against article deletion, etc.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 06:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The permission submitted for the images is not sufficient. If you have not already done so, please contact the copyright holder and ask him to use the form at WP:CONSENT. --B (talk) 11:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I have and he will.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 23:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

B-bot flags
B-bot currently has the "autochecked" flag, which, per Autochecked users, should probably be removed, as the group does not grant any right not given to the "autoconfirmed" group. Thanks, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 03:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have removed it. I guess I don't see the reason the flag even exists then. --B (talk) 03:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

A request
I was wondering if you can revive the page "Kevin Tolibao" I understand that you deleted the page because the article dont have references. i have a reference to add now. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yemyemyem (talk • contribs) 10:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I have restored Kevin Tolibao and reset the timer. Please add your reference to the article. --B (talk) 10:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

About an article written to defame
Hello User B, I'm writing in respect to this article "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shunaid_Qureshi" It was purely written to defame the subject. Court cases and issues of arrest were discussed in the article.The reference sources quoted are not real. The subject or person written about is in deep sorrow. An enemy is using wikipedia to defame and get back at him. When has wikipedia become a ground for defaming others? I though the rule is focused on neutrality. I've tried to nominate the article for speedy deletion but another user removed the tag. I want you to read through the article and judge whether it's right to allow it be on wikipedia. Thanks a lot Rose Rosemaryujoh (talk) 15:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not quite sure which references you are saying are not real. There is one dead link claimed as a reference, but the rest look legitimate.  The article does not appear to be subject to speedy deletion criterion G10 as an attach piece.  If you would like to nominate it for deletion, please see WP:AFD for instructions on how to do so. --B (talk) 16:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, she succeeded in getting the article blanked and redirected by going to BLPN. Persistence by those with a COI will do Wikipedia in eventually. Liz  Read! Talk! 21:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

File:F89-D Scorpion Air Force interceptor 1958.jpg
As you requested:

Ticket#: 2015050410022413

Samf4u (talk) 21:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have changed the "fair use rationale" to the regular information template so that bots won't consider the image to be non-free any more. I have added a tag that references the documentation of the PD status so that in case there is ever a question, OTRS volunteers can review it.  Lastly, I have restored the full-sized version.  Since it's public domain, we don't need a smaller version. --B (talk) 22:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Great thanks. Now if I have any questions about photo use I know who to ask! Samf4u (talk) 21:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Glad to help. I fully understand that our image rules/procedures are extremely confusing. --B (talk) 22:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

New question raised regarding Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request
Some opposers of this move have now contended that there is a "Critical fault in proposal evidence", which brings the opinions expressed into question. Please indicate if this assertion in any way affects your position with respect to the proposed move. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:His or her
Template:His or her has been nominated for merging with Template:Pronoun. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 08:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Re:Orphaned non-free image File:Let Every Child Have Both Parents.png
Thankyou. The image was replaced with another image (which is used on its original page). Could an administrator please delete it? --Green WU (talk) 10:03, 9 May 2015
 * ✅  FYI, for future reference, no reply is necessary - with these images, an administrator will automatically delete them after seven days if they are still orphaned at that time.  Also, when leaving a new message on a talk page, please leave it at the bottom of the page.  There is a button at the top of the page (up with the tabs) that says "New section". --B (talk) 13:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

re: Orphaned files
I remember when we had to tag the pictures manually, none of these fancy robots or twinkly scripts, and if you tell that to the young people today, they won't believe you. Thanks for the heads up. :) James086 Talk  00:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox college football single game mini header
Template:Infobox college football single game mini header has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Alakzi (talk) 15:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

New Horizons countdown template
The countdown template, which was among things you deleted at New Horizons, is under discussion: Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_11. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. And?  It has no business being used in an article.  None whatsoever.  The existence of a discussion is not a license to use obviously unencyclopedic content for an extra week. --B (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I thought you might want to give your opinion there. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see. Yes, I already did give my opinion there.  I thought you were objecting to the removal of the template while the discussion was ongoing.  My mistake. --B (talk) 20:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * A few days ago on the New Horizon talk page, I objected to exactly the material you removed today. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 20:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Ivide.jpg issue
Your bot B-bot informed me about deletion of the non-free file Ivide.jpg. The problem is that one anonymous user removes the particular image from the article Ivide. The image is taken from official facebook page of the film. So consider the protection of article or blocking the user. --Alfasst (talk) 06:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Have you attempted to discuss it with the person? He seems to believe that this is a fan-made poster, not an official one. Are you sure that  isn't the official poster?  That Facebook thread has a lot of things in it made by other people (e.g. ) but  was posted several times, once with the caption "Poster is here" and once with "Official Teaser". --B (talk) 11:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's an IP user. So it is not a good idea to contact the user. The image is taken from Official FB page as I stated earlier. There are a lot of posters in that page. So we can't say that any of them is fan-made. --Alfasst (talk) 04:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Engineers Country Club .jpg
Hi, would you mind me redeleting this one right away? I've had to delete various reincarnations of this pic about half a dozen times; it was clear from the outset that the permission mail didn't contain a proper license and that none was forthcoming; I've explained to the uploader three or four times what a proper license would be and his reaction on the file page now shows he still doesn't get it (I've actually had to use block warnings before to stop him from re-uploading the pic yet more times). I really don't feel like having to monitor this for yet another week for yet another round of {di-no-permission}. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Deleted. --B (talk) 10:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

About my User:Sun Kids G page
You have blanked my user page that I am working on draft article. The user named Davey2010 annoying me by reverting my edits of article Chutti TV on which I am working since five years and adding true content to page, to the version he wanted and also blocked my previous account indefinitely.so please don't blank the page.I will not use categories as per your wish.Please help me from Davey2010 who unnecessarily reverting my edits again and again on the article Chutti TV.So that I can work once again on that article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spike Russell (talk • contribs) 05:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Userspace drafts are not permitted as "alternate versions" of an article - they are only permitted when you are actually working on the article - and even then, they are not permitted to contain non-free images or categories. If there is a content dispute over this article, please see Wikipedia's dispute resolution page for some help with resolving it.  If the dispute is only between you and one other person, a great option is to seek a third opinion, wherein a neutral editor will evaluate and consider your respective positions. --B (talk) 03:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I will seek a third opinion on the dispute of article Chutti TV.I will also work on User:Sun Kids G page without using non-free images and categories.I hope you will not blank User:Sun Kids G page again.Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spike Russell (talk • contribs) 10:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

B-bot's speedy-delete notice on File:Dark Horde symbol.png
Reference:. I created both (1) the PNG and later (2) the preferred SVG version of this pic, having forty years earlier designed the logo for the organization. Now that the article points to the SVG, I have no strong objection to the PNG going away, as most browsers can render the SVG. I only left the PNG, rather than request its deletion myself, for the sake of whoever may still not be able to see SVGs, however few those may be. Should this not be a consideration? Does Wiki-software now convert SVGs to PNGs automatically for such readers? If so, I had just missed the update, and now I'll stop worrying about it. But if not.... – •Raven .talk 05:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi When an SVG is used in an article, the Mediawiki software will automatically render it as a png in the correct size.  If you find an SVG used in an article and right-click on it and hit view image info (or the equivalent in your browser of choice), it will tell you that it is a png. --B (talk) 03:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Cool! With that info, I utterly agree with a speedy-delete of the original PNG. Thanks! – •Raven .talk 06:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Re: Orphaned non-free image File:VancouverAngels.png
Feel free to delete it. I only used it on an article I worked my ass out on but got deleted. — CÉDRIC : PROUDLY REGISTERED! 20:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Category:Items with unconfirmed permission received by OTRS for over 30 days
We also have Category:Items pending OTRS confirmation of permission for over 30 days (and 60 and 90 days) and a bunch of similar OTRS categories which currently aren't seperated into files vs. pages. We're you planning on splitting all of them up? VernoWhitney (talk) 18:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't have a strong preference on the subject. The reason I was fixing the OTRS received categories was more a matter of cleaning up my own mess than it was trying to change anything.  The categories that existed for OTRS received before I started touching anything a few months ago were all named "Wikipedia files ..." or "Wikipedia pages ..." whereas the OTRS pending categories had always been named "Items ...".  When I started creating the newer categories, I failed to be consistent in the naming conventions and so as a result, it was somewhat confusing.  I can certainly see a usefulness in splitting them up since we're going to start a more regular process for deleting the files where no permission comes in, whereas the pages will always need manual review (since it might just be one section of the page that needs to be removed if we don't get permission confirmed).  So I'm certainly not opposed to changing the OTRS pending categories to be consistent with the OTRS received ones, but I probably shouldn't do it unilaterally - it should be proposed at WP:OTRSN first. --B (talk) 18:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

K. C. Das Pvt Ltd. logo.jpg.
Thanks! I am currently working on the sand box for the particular article which had the logo. I will complete my full sources and citations in the next 48 hours and add the image back to its original article.AnimikhRoy967 (talk) AnimikhRoy967(talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Un-delete a file?
Hello. Could you please un-delete File:Vincent Hubbard.jpg for me, please? I forgot to add it to an article, so it was orphaned. Much appreciated! — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 20:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ - please add it to an article and make sure that there is a rationale for the desired article. It is worth noting that List of EastEnders characters (2015) (the article for which there is currently a rationale) is a list article and fair use images in lists of this type are viewed with a great deal of skepticism (why is it critical to the user's understanding - WP:NFCC - that we have a photo of this character, but not some other character?) and there needs to be a really, really good reason if you are using it in a list article. --B (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Is it okay to have a logo on a Sandbox draft?
Hi B - I'm learning to create an infobox for a company, with a new article in my sandbox: HERE.

For the Logo ( LOGO PAGE) I was missing Licensing info, and my link to article was broken. I think (?) I've fixed that.

But it seems like the logo might still be deleted, because it's in my sandbox. Is that the case?

Thanks, Justapersona(Come talk!) 03:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Images used under a claim of fair use can only be used in article space - not in drafts. The solution is to just leave it out (or use a placeholder) until you are ready to publish.  If you want something there just to test out the layout, you could use just a plain red square.  Then, when you are ready to copy the article to article space, you upload any fair use images you need and add them at that point. --B (talk) 10:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Can I leave all the metadata / page content? Just update the image file to a placeholder? Or, will that be confusing to people / admins? Thanks. Justapersona  talk 18:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No, copy/paste the metadata somewhere (and comment it out or put it inside of ... tags) - the file and the file description page will be deleted (unless you submit your draft before the timer expires). For the placeholder, I mean that in your article draft, whereever you are using (or want to use) a copyrighted image, use a plain red box instead.  Or you can use the placeholder image like the one to the right.  Once you are ready to submit your article, five minutes before you move it from your user space into article space, you can re-upload the file, paste the metadata back in from wherever you saved it, and switch the reference in your draft from the placeholder to the real thing. --B (talk) 18:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Great. Thank you for spelling it out. I really appreciate it. THIS ought to be on one of those myriad of "copyright" & "template" pages. Thank you. I won't be such a nuisance from now on. :-) Justapersona  talk 03:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Deleted a book cover image
Hi, you seem to have deleted this image: "File:Norman Dewis of Jaguar, book by Skilleter.jpg". Unfortunately I found no explanation for its removal on the talk page of Norman Dewis, the only article in which it appeared. Please explain. Thanks. Hotlorp (talk)
 * - I nominated it for deletion at Files_for_deletion/2015_March_25 and the reasoning is there. (I did not actually delete it - another admin did.)  Photos used under a claim of fair use are never permitted for living people per WP:NFCC.  And even if he were deceased or infirmed, he was a very public figure in the United States for a long time and we have a reasonable expectation that a photo could be donated with an acceptable license or could be found to have been published without a copyright notice prior to 1978. --B (talk) 12:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Re: Orphaned fair use files ExoKOverdose.jpg/ExoMOverdose.jpg
Hello B! I am fairly new to the Wiki scene & I have recently uploaded images of fair use resulting in your bot B-bot sending me 2 notices. I created the page Overdose (Exo album) since there was no page for Exo's extended play. From there, I uploaded those 2 images. Unfortunately, Random86 deleted my edits and changed the article to a redirect page. For now, I'll just make a draft for the EP, those images currently have no use to me. I am aware of Wiki's deletion policy and since you have admin privileges, you can go ahead and delete 'em! Idealtype 02:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idealtype (talk • contribs)
 * If it continues to be unused when the timer expires, it will be deleted by an admin automatically. No further action is necessary. --B (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Edward Rayne.jpg
Thank you for the bot note and yes please do delete this image – it was used in accordance with fair use on the article Edward Rayne for a short period, but we decided it was safer and more in line with fair use guidelines to replace with an image minus Vivien Leigh. Thank you. Libby norman (talk) 17:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If it continues to be unused when the timer expires, it will be deleted by an admin automatically. No further action is necessary. --B (talk) 17:43, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Picture of Johnny Helms
Greetings B,

Thanks for your interest in making the photo of Johnny legal. Unfortunately the picture was taken by Johnny's friend Terry Rosen who died in 1999.

I guess we'll just have to wait for another photo of Johnny to become available.

Thank you very kindly, JaneOlds (talk) 13:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you in contact with Terry Rosen's heirs? Someone inherited the copyright and that person could provide a suitable statement of permission, if they were so inclined.  Also, as an alternative, I see that Johnny Helms was active beginning in the 1950s.  If a photo of him was published in the United States without a copyright notice prior to January 1, 1978, then it is in the public domain.  Frequently, for performers who were active in that time, there are concert programs or promotional materials and the like that are public domain due to failing to comply with the formalities. --B (talk) 13:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Important info on the pic of Johnny Helms
Greetings,

I just realized that the picture of Johnny was taken at the 1977 Spoleto Festival in Charleston. Johnny was on the program with Louis Bellson, who also appeared in the original photo, but was cropped from the pic for Johnny's article.

This picture is apparently in the public domain but the task of making it legal in the eyes of Wikipedia is beyond my skill level. Please help me with the "paperwork" if at all possible.

Thanks JaneOlds (talk) 14:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have the original program in your possession? If so, can you scan it in and send it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org?  You will get an automatic reply with a ticket number - if you post that ticket number here, I can take a look at it and process it. --B (talk) 14:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The only documentation I have is the original picture showing both Louis and Johnny. At this point I've already spent too much time on this issue and will just let the matter drop. JaneOlds (talk) 15:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Throughhell.jpg
Any idea why B-bot falsely flagged File:Throughhell.jpg as orphaned fair use? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It didn't "falsely" flag it - the image was an orphan when it was tagged. Please look at the history of If You're Going Through Hell - it was vandalized on June 14 and the vandalism stayed in place just long enough for 24 hours to pass and it to get tagged as an orphan.  (B-bot will only tag images that stay orphaned for three complete runs - it runs twice per day and so that means that a minimum of 24 hours have passed.)  Please note that right before the seven-day timer expires, B-bot re-checks the category and so even if you had not removed the orfud tag, B-bot would have removed it six days from now.  So as long as the vandalism is reverted within seven days, B-bot will clean up its own mess and when an admin goes to process the category, the image will no longer be tagged.  (Admins should still check before deleting to make sure that the image is really an orphan because there is an off chance that someone might have added it back to an article in the few hours between when the bot checked and when someone processes the category.)  --B (talk) 01:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

OTRS Pending Tags
You recently inquired as to whether I actually have permission from the copyright holders to use 4 x files that I have uploaded to Wikipedia. The answer in each case is yes I do. However:

1) File: "John Lousteau, Reed Mullin and Mick Murphy at Studio 606.jpg" was used in an article that was declined and I no longer wish to pursue for publication. Hence sending permission for use is moot and the file can be deleted. I looked to try and delete it myself, but can find no link/option to do so.

2) The copyright holders for files "Mick Murphy - Photo by Gary Bandfield TourBusLive.jpg", "Mick Murphy - Chevy Metal - Photo by Gary Bandfield Tour Bus Live.jpg" and "Mick Murphy TripleM GJ2 - Photo by Gary Bandfield Tour Bus Live.jpg" have asked that I amend the file names themselves to remove 'Gary Bandfield' from the file name. As far as I can see, I don't think it is possible for me to edit the file names once the files are uploaded, so would be grateful if they can be deleted. I will then re-upload with the amended filenames. Once the changes have been made, the copyright holders are then happy to e-mail the appropriate waiver to the permissions e-mail address.

Hopefully that clarifies the situation. Burlington Bert (talk) 08:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have deleted File:John Lousteau, Reed Mullin and Mick Murphy at Studio 606.jpg. I have moved the other photos to File:Mick Murphy.jpg, File:Mick Murphy - Chevy Metal.jpg, and File:Mick Murphy TripleM GJ2.jpg.  I have checked our ticketing system and there is nothing mentioning Mick Murphy.  Please ask the copyright holder to email permissions-en@wikimedia.org using the template at WP:CONSENT.  Please note that the email needs to come from an address that we can verify as his (e.g. one listed at tourbuslive.com).  Alternatively, he could post a copy of the statement of permission somewhere at tourbuslive.com or on his Facebook page and let us know in his email that he has done so.  (The purpose of this exercise is to make sure that we respect the rights of copyright holders by preventing someone from falsely claiming to "license" their works.)  When he submits the email, he will receive a reply with a ticket number.  If he gives you that ticket number and you post it here, I can process the email immediately.  (There is currently a -day backlog in the queue.) --B (talk) 11:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case opening
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Technical 13. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Technical 13/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 30, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Technical 13/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz  Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 01:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Logos for teams out of business
Hi,

B-bot notified me that I have a couple of orphaned files ( File:Colorado Altitude NPF logo.png and File:San Antonio Armadillos NPF logo.png ) They're orphans because someone else commented them out from the article I had them in: 2004 National Pro Fastpitch season. The Colorado Altitude and San Antonio Armadillos were teams that were announced as members of the NPF for the league's first season in 2004. They participated in the league's first drafts, but dropped out of the league before play began and had their draftees reallocated.

There's a section describing this in the 2004 article, and I put their logos in that section. It seems to me that the 2004 article is the only place those teams would be mentioned since they never played and never rejoined the league although they hoped to. Since the teams folded (and I can't find them in trademarkia.com), I wonder if their logos are even non-free any more.

I guess my question is if it's okay to put those logos back into the 2004 article?

Jjwyatt (talk) 22:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi one note for clarification, when B-bot tags an image as orphaned fair use, it is doing so without any sort of judgment on whether or not removing the image was the right thing.  If the image is re-added to an article, B-bot will automatically remove the tag the night before it is due to be deleted (or you can remove the tag yourself if desired).  To answer your question, in my experience, as a general rule, former team logos are frowned on unless they are the subject of sourced commentary.  For example, Logo of NBC shows lots of former logos of NBC and each one is the subject of sourced commentary in the article.  Non-free_content has a list of unacceptable logos and one of them is "The logo of a entity used for identification of one of its child entities, when the child entity lacks their own branding. Specific child entity logos remain acceptable."  In other words, if there is a separate article on the child entity or, in this case, the former team, then you can use the logo there, but should not do so if the content about that former team is a part of the main article about the current team.  --B (talk) 23:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

File:JohnnyHelmsJazzTrumpeter.png
B:

Please delete this photo as soon as possible so I can get it off my mind. I've tried my best to make it "legal" but have had no success in finding and verifying the needed information. Thanks for your help. JaneOlds (talk) 16:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

✅ --B (talk) 16:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

OTRS Pending for E. R. Moon and Pacific Christian Hospital
The OTRS Pending for these two articles were for the pictures (.jpg) not the text. Both of these were approved in February 2015. Moon was Ticket#2015010710020373 while the Hospital was Ticket#2015010710020408. I thought the OTRS Pending has already been removed, if not it should be ASAP. Tbergquist (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. I have removed both tags.  FYI, the tag for an image permission only needs to go on the File: page, not the an article page. --B (talk) 21:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Paul White, photo by Owen Richards.jpg
A ticket you were working on regarding the file, has a new ticket with the permission for the file usage. It could be seen at 2015062310009543, you can feel free to merge them. Thanks, ///Euro Car  GT  18:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Merged, thanks. --B (talk) 19:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

OTRS
Please, take a look on this. The same files was handled by. <b style="font:11.2pt 'Old English Text MT';"> Wil ly  Wea zley </b> 03:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * . Look more closely at .  This ticket is for a totally unrelated image.  The ticket is for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Peter_Neptune.png even though when you click on it, it incorrectly takes you to File:Randy Barth.png.  It looks like  uploaded both photos and he probably just accidentally made the URL link to the wrong thing when he copied/pasted the email for them to send.  But the ticket you are working is for a completely different image depicting a completely different person who runs a completely different organization. --B (talk) 13:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You are correct - my bad - I'm cutting and pasting the text to help the copyright holders send permissions for the images I'm uploading.Timtempleton (talk) 14:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration enforcement
You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * It doesn't hugely matter since I go months at a time without hitting the block button, but could you please spell out who the "named parties" are? --B (talk) 01:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * They are the parties as listed at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration_enforcement. Thanks, L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 01:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Nice
... to meet you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You as well. --B (talk) 19:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Just as a formality...
What you proposed here is more of a temporary injunction. I have moved it to the temporary injunction section as a clerk action, in case you can't find it later. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 15:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no objection and did not originally put it there because I was under the (apparently mistaken) impression that that section was only for named parties. --B (talk) 19:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Kww and The Rambling Man Arbitration Case Opening
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 13, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 18:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Noted. --B (talk) 19:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you
Hello B. I very much appreciate your posts at arbitration enforcement talk page. Especially this one. The whole thing was odd to me when I posted last night but I have had zero involvement at AE. As I read through everything that has been added since I went to sleep it seems to have reached the point of "we took the action" "We didn't do anything wrong" "don't expect an apology or a fix to the wording" which is sad. Last week was crazy and it doesn't seem to be slowing down. Thanks again. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 15:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have seen absurd actions from arbcom before, but never anything this ridiculous. I have long believed that the elected arbitration committee needs to be done away with and it needs to be more like a jury model where disputes are adjudicated by 12 randomly selected Wikipedians.  We have created a separate super-class of users who behave with dictatorial powers.  Consider this ridiculous pronouncement from  : "This is necessary to stop any more drama, and by definition therefore a good idea."  It's neither necessary, nor does it stop drama, nor is it a good idea.  (The Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire.)  Certainly, ArbCom has the power to do what they have done, but they do not have the power to proclaim their decision to be "right".  If I make an edit, I am doing what I think is right, but my belief that it is right does not make it so.  That privilege of your word not only being law, but also being "right" is one that belongs only to God ... or possibly to kings ... but definitely not to Wikipedia arbiters. --B (talk) 19:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. When anyone (even me) gets to the point that they are "right" no matter what - well maybe the most generous thing I can say is that they've gone down the rabbit hole. As to the link you provided they most certainly did not "stop the drama". Your comment about the HRE takes me back - a looong way now - as I had a professor in college say the same thing. It made me smile then and it does now. Thanks for the grin. Best regards. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 20:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Precious
<div style="margin: auto; max-width: 60em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba( 192, 192, 192, 0.75 ); border-radius: 1em; border: 1px solid #a7d7f9; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0.5em 1em 1em; color: black;" class="ui-helper-clearfix"> <div style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; background-color: #ddd; border: 5px solid #ddd; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0.75); border-radius: 0.5em;"> "grant each other the presumption that we are acting in good faith"

Thank you for handling images, including your helpful bot dealing with non-free images, for Virginia Tech Hokies bowl game navbox and imagining rising, for addressing users in welcome and warning, for brevity in username, and, for  and "grant each other the presumption that we are acting in good faith", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Change from announced time table for the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case
You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement'' arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement'' arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Motion passed in AE arbitration case granting amnesty and rescinding previous temporary injunction
This message is sent at 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.

On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:


 * Congratulations. It only took a week to undo what never should have been done in the first place.  This committee created far more disruption with its response than the original dispute created. --B (talk) 13:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I went further, saying that the "dispute" should not even have reached AE, - look for my name in evidence and workshop, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:19, 5 July 2015 (UTC)