User talk:Coat of Many Colours/Archive 1

Cicada 3301 article
Your stub seems an interesting way to describe the Cicada 3301 phenomenon; as a game. Is your intent to leave the article as a stub and let others contribute, or to expand it yourself? Cliff (talk) 19:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Cliff. There was an article as you probably know, but it was deleted as it wasn't considered notable at the time. Plainly it is now, and I just thought to restart it. I have no special plans to contribute. Might do, but the idea is definitely just to throw it out as a stub for others to contribute and fill. Feel free to modify the definition. Cheers. Coat of Many Colours (talk)

Facing the Modern: The Portrait in Vienna 1900
Hi Coat of Many Colours, That is shaping up to be a nice article you have created. My main suggestion is that in the review part, don't just list the reviews and directly link to them. Instead, write a couple of paragraphs with inline citations to them summarizing the positive and negative, so that it comes across neutral. I added several references in the lead to indicate how notable this exhibition is. You might want to change them, but I think several would be a good idea. Cheers and keep up the good work. I am One of Many (talk) 18:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi One of Many. Yes, you're absolutely right. I didn't think that editors might want to refer to these reviews in other parts of the text. I shall edit accordingly tomorrow, taking them in-line as you suggest. Thanks for noticing the article. I haven't been to the exhibition myself yet. I shall in the New Year, looking forward to it. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 18:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. The WSJ review was a good read. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Welcome!

 * Thanks Pharaoh. This looks useful indeed. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Josef Maria Auchentaller - Bunte Bände (Portrait of Maria).jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Josef Maria Auchentaller - Bunte Bände (Portrait of Maria).jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The publication date is pre-1923 and thus PD in the USA (and tagged as such). I do know about revived URAA copyright, but that's not applicable (am I right?) Because Josef Maria Auchentaller died in 1949, his work doesn't enter the public domain in the EU until 2020, so his images can't be uploaded onto Commons. But there should be no objection to a local upload on American servers, which is where the English Wikipedia is hosted. So why have you brought this here? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This page makes it unambiguously clear that it is PD in US (in a section about URAA revived copyright incidentally, the very thing you are querying.)
 * I am new to Wikipedia, while I see you are a very experienced user.I expect to be making a long series of museum exhibition article starts where the question of copyright will often arise. I thought I understood the pre-1923 rule and I am genuinely puzzled by your tags. I should be grateful for clarification. In particular are you saying that images published before 1923 are not necessarily PD in the US? If so can you point me to the sources so I may educate myself. Thank you. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Further to this I've now had expert confirmation of my position here. I'm deleting most of these posts of yours to my Talk page (you made a whole clutch of them regarding these images). Thank you for your concern, which I'm sure was in good faith. Presumably the situation hadn't arisen before in your experience. Perhaps in the future when a situation like this arises you're not sure of, you can discuss it first with me? Thank you. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding these files, what was originally queried here was their potential for copyright revival. I queried that at both the Teahouse and at a forum devoted to copyright issues and I was able to establish definitively that no there was no question of copyright revival for pre-1923 works in the US. I therefore considered the issue resolved as above.

But an editor at the Teahouse, not an expert in copyright issues, felt it incumbent on him to query the publication issue. Under the Berne Convention a work of art is not considered published until it is illustrated. One can reasonably infer that for a famous work of art, their publication is more or less synonymous with their creation. In the case of the Kokoschka I was able to provide the editor with a detailed list of its publication and exhibition history starting 1910 from an Immunity from Seizure filing by the National Gallery, London, in connection with its ongoing exhibition, but the editor rejects that as proof of publication.

I don't have the resources, nor the access to the expensive databases required (they are maintained in great detail by auction houses), to provide the evidence this editor requires. I will make a special effort in the case of the Kokoschka, but I doubt I will be successful. This of course was Kokoschka's first major work. It was immediately controversial and it's scarcely conceivable it was not illustrated in the critical reviews of the time.

That's the best I can do. As far as I can ascertain no work of art created before 1923 has ever had its PD status in the US challenged over the publication issue. It is case law that above all determines copyright law. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 13:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally Commons has allowed the Kokoschka image. You can find it here. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 13:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Added: In fact it's the process of deleting it. It certainly shouldn't be there since it's in artist's copyright. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 17:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Looks like it's all been resolved. User:Quadell has provided a link to book on copyright which lists the various ways in which a work of art can be published, including being offered for sale to the general public, which is much wider than the Teahouse's limited interpretation. See . So that's all sorted. Plus I found a nice Van Gogh exhibition to write up at the Phillips Collection chasing up Lotte! Of course I'm doing NG next January, well of course, but this will be nice preparation. No cloud without a silver lining then. I was up all through the night last night networking following Nelson Mandela's passing (we're planning some events) so I'm a bit bleary this evening, but will make a start tomorrow.


 * Thanks so very much Quadell. This whole thing really did look like collapsing all around me for a while. Of course I know shoot about copyright. I did make a very determined effort to educate myself, not to much effect it seems. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 20:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Commons PD-Art policy
I have come here because this may not be so relevant to WP:MCQ. Back in 2008, there were discussions like this and this which resulted in NPG images not being taken down. Then this happened which set the cat among the pigeons. So far as I know NPG let matters lapse. Thincat (talk) 21:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Cheers, Thincat. I did know of the NPG issue but hadn't seen any of the sources. I shall look through them at my leisure, thanks. I do do a bit of discreet  dezoomifying myself from time to time, uploading this  Chilkat blanket today from a Christie's Paris sale (also taking place today as it happens). Christie's still uses Zoomify, and Commons has a useful lotfinder template as well (example:  ). Their catalogues are brilliant and can be browsed in several ways. Of course they're meticulous about maintaining artist's copyright (i.e. they don't publish images in artist's copyright - or rather, to clarify, dead artists who can't give them permision).


 * I don't have opinions about the validity of the NPG complaint. I do think in practice it's just not very realistic. Thanks for your input. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 17:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Charles Prendergast
Hello, Coat of Many Colors. I've noticed (and very much appreciated) that you recently updated many of the images on the Mary Cassatt page. I just uploaded a page on Charles Prendergast - it was hard to believe that a page didn't already exist for him - but I was unable to find any free-use images of his beautiful paintings or his frames. So, I'm bringing the Prendergast page to your attention, hoping perhaps you could kindly use your expertise and resources to locate a few decent images. Or suggest a path to me. Xenxax (talk) 22:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Xenxax. Nice article. Prendergasts new to me. I like Charle's paintings very much. I managed to find a couple of images I've put in a gallery for you, but there may be an issue with the screen (the frame) and it may have to re-uploaded as a crop.
 * I'm very far from being an expert on copyright (as you can see from the above). With the Cassatt images I updated, their copyright status had already been determined.
 * With Charles, there are at least three issues:
 * Artist's copyright. He died in 1948 so he's still in copyright in the EU, for example, until beginning 2019.  So there's no question of an upload to the Commons. Added:but his country of origin is America, so that's OK. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 22:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * His nationality. Should he be regarded as American or Canadian? Copyright status will be affected.
 * His frames. These are 3-D and the photographer has rights. For example the photograph of the screen is probably relatively recent, so the photographer (Christie's?) has rights. I think it's quite likely that will be picked up by folk who look after these things and we'll have to crop the frames. Cross that bridge if need be.
 * Your best bet for images would be images of pre-1923 paintings, which are in the public domain in the US and can therefore be uploaded locally on Wikipedia, as I did those two images (properly three because the screen has a front and back).
 * As for frames you need to find an image (say on Flickr) which has been put in the public domain. I couldn't find any. You can always try writing the gallery or museum involved! Williams College Museum of Art, for example, has a media resource centre that links to huge museum databases (the entire National Gallery UK collection for example), so it would be curious if they were unwilling to release representative works from their collection into the public domain.
 * I couldn't find any more images on a quick search. If I do find any nice ones I will upload them. I'll look for a portrait too and let you know. I shan't do an infobox or anything myself, as editors have differing views on those. Personally I'm not bothered either way, but it's usual to have a photo or portrait upper right in the lead. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 12:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There's a very nice photo here (you'll have to enter a search for "Charles Prendergast" and select "people" in the result - emuseum links are unfortunately ephemeral), but there are no details at all which can determine copyright status and I don't think it's worth the hassle of uploading it as it will be immediately pounced upon. Your only recourse is to ask the museum for reproduction rights. I don't see why they shouldn't allow it. Or possibly another editor more clued up than I am might be able to assist.Coat of Many Colours (talk) 13:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Funnily enough the two "screen" uploads have just been flagged by an expert for transfer to Commons ... I swear I can't get my head around all the issues here. It will involve creating a Charles Prendergast category on Commons. I'll do that tomorrow if someone hasn't meantime. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 14:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well I'll create the category but I'll include myself out of transferring the file, which I think is a distinctly dubious move and I don't want to get a reputation for being a nuisance. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 14:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kind words about the article, for your very detailed response above, and especially for adding the three excellent images to the page and for all your subsequent work on this. An article about a visual artist without any images of the artwork seems rather bleak, so I really appreciate that you took the time and effort to add them and to follow up with more help. Sorry to be long-winded here. I do very much appreciate your great help and advice. The Charles Prendergast page looks a lot better! Thank you! Xenxax (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * His nationality. I always thought he and his brother, Maurice, were born in Boston, so in the course of putting together the article, I was quite surprised to learn that they were both born in Newfoundland - and I had good company in my ignorance: in the book I cited most often, Perry Rathbone (then Director of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston) and Richard J. Wattenmaker (then Director of the Rutgers University Art Gallery) both made the mistake of stating that Charles was born in Boston. I'd assume place of birth makes him a Canadian, but altogether it is confusing since he was out of Canada by the age of 5 and did all of his work in the U.S. (I see no one has added either of the Prendergasts to the Wikipedia lists of Canadian artists and painters.)
 * Images of pre-1923 paintings. The 'Art History Archives' subscribes to a "Fair Use Policy" and they have a photo of "Rising Sun", Charles's first painting in 1912. I wonder if that could be uploaded to Wikimedia under their "Faithful reproduction of a painting that is in the public domain" rule. It would be a great one for the info box, very simple and colorful. Will try to upload it later today.
 * Transferring the file. It looks like (User:Sfan00 IMG) has approved the your image files for transfer, so that's good. I'll check later to see if the category has been created; if so will try to figure how to move the images there.


 * A pleasure. I did it especially because I like his work. I suspect that image will be deleted forthwith from Commons if you did transfer it, but I don't know all the complexities of copyright law at all. It's an entire cosmos all of its own. I've kept copies of the images, so if it is deleted and the local upload gets caught up as well I can upload it again.
 * I noticed the Rising Sun. That would be great for an infobox and yes, it's before 1923 so on my understanding it's in the public domain in the US. Let me know if you run into difficulties. You will have to negotiate a box about "publication". That was the subject of the debate above. In practice Wikipedia takes publication as synonymous with creation. An examples is Picasso's  La Vie where publication is just entered as "Painted in 1903" and I suggest you enter "Painted in 1912" for Rising Sun. I see the same user tagged it for transfer to Commons and it was re-tagged subsequently as "not safe". Good luck. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 19:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I just put "Rising Sun" into Wikimedia and then into the 'infobox' space. I think it looks good, especially as I was able to reference it in the text as his first painting (according to experts). I feel pretty confident that the pre-1923 label should keep it in the system. The page looks excellent now and hopefully other editors will soon come in to expand the text. Thanks again very much! You were a great help! Xenxax (talk) 20:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. It's splendid. Of course I forgot about the artist being American himself, so the image is after all probably OK for Commons. As I say I'm challenged by anything involving copyright. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 20:45, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I created the Charles Prendergast category on Commons and transferred the local uploads I made. I've also emailed the curator of collections at Williams College Art Museum enquiring into the copyright status of the photo I mentioned of him. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 13:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again for all your great help! Has been very much appreciated! I hope you enjoy a very happy and wonderful Holiday season! best regards, Xenxax (talk) 13:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * And you too, Xenxax. It was a pleasure to help. I'll let you know if we get permission to use that photo. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

January 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=589932604 your edit] to Little Girl in a Blue Armchair may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * mary-cassatt-was-a-fellow-griffoniac-american|publisher=NYC Brussels Griffon (self-published) |archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/6LaoJdGZb|archivedate=3December 2013|deadurl= no}}
 * Cheers, BB. Fixed. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Maria Helena Vieira da Silva - La gare inondée (The Flooded Station) - detail.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Maria Helena Vieira da Silva - La gare inondée (The Flooded Station) - detail.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Originally you placed a template on the page and I reverted that with the request you take your concerns to the Talk page or an appropiate forum. Why have you now listed the file for deletion? Why didn't you take it the Non-free content review you post on so frequently? That would have been the appropiate response. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have replied as above at Files for deletion and added this remark:
 * Regarding your remarks about critical discussion, the rationale explains the features illustrated and I have included a commented remark in the article markup for the attention of editors. The article is a stub and while I am perfectly capable of providing the necessary critical discussion (for example my start at Gardner (Cassatt) Held by His Mother), I prefer in these cases where I am not necessarily very knowledgeable or indeed may have conflicts of interest to let other established editors more able than I in the relevant field to contribute. My start uploads makes that clear with the edit remark "Article start just a stub for others to expand and fill. Feel free to revise any start material.". In this case User:Modernist is one of several editors I know that come to mind.
 * I ask you to undo this vexatious delete request and seek consensus for your actions in future. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
ww2censor (talk) 10:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Cheers Ww2censor. I'll be offline for now today (big day), but I'll make a quick response as to where I myself was coming from with the comment. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 12:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Portrait of George Dyer Talking
Just saying hello. I noticed, and always great to see other Bacon enthuasists around. Its a very striking portrait. Ceoil (talk) 10:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Ceoil. I see you're a great Bacon contributor and I was hoping you would fill my stub.Thanks. Should be interesting to see how much that goes for. I'll update accordingly. Don't know Bacon at all well, certainly admire his work very much. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 12:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * One of the great things about wiki is that you learn as you go and it forces you to read. Keep on going. Ceoil (talk) 12:42, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Re the sale price estimate; I think it will go for a lot higher; you a betting person ;) Ceoil (talk) 12:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think so too. Lot of new money out there. As for betting, that's thankfully one of the few addictions I've managed to steer clear of in life ... Coat of Many Colours (talk) 12:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * But just for the sport. Ten of my euros says it will go for a lot higher. Ceoil (talk) 12:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I wouldn't bet against that. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 13:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Great, 1200 euros it so ;) Only joking man, take care. Ceoil (talk) 13:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Now you might have had a result on the the Six Nations last night :). Great match. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 12:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

£42M. Not so shabby. Ceoil (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, good price. Kelly Crow of WSJ tweeted it was like watching tennis with million dollar balls. I'll make a few additions to my article starts from the salerooms, and then don't expect to be very active here for a while. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 11:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Eva Hesse - Repetition Nineteen III (0.1 MP reduction).jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Eva Hesse - Repetition Nineteen III (0.1 MP reduction).jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Nothing on the file page that says there should be two copyright tags. This is a Fair Use file and it's not in dispute either that the work is in the artist's copyright nor that the photographer has rights. In this case the photographer is credited as the museum staff at the Museum of Modern Art, New York.
 * Can you give me an example please of where there are two copyright "tags" (indeed what do you mean by that?). I've seen quite a few of these Fair Use rationales for contemporary art works and none of them have anything of the sort. For example Francis Bacon's File:Study for a Self Portrait -Triptych, 1985-86.jpg which has been on Wikipedia since 2009 and which was tagged as as recently as June 2013 by User:Sfan00 IMG (another of your multiple accounts by any chance?)
 * Will you please make it explicitly clear why you don't challenge that file but do challenge this file of mine.
 * Of course you and I have recently crossed swords over my Da Silva detail. This is yet another woman artist an image of whose work you are now challenging. My project on Wikipedia is to improve its coverage of women artists and of contemporary art in general. But my enthusiasm for this project is being eroded by your interventions. I frankly thinks you're badgering me because I'm a newbie and because of my project. No one likes being bossed about like this, and in your case I feel stalked. I find your intrusions creepy and I am considering retiring from editing at Wikipedia because if it.
 * I ask you at least to ensure that any further intervention is based on a solid issue and not some passing invention of yours. There is indeed work to be done policing Commons and Fair Use. I've marked a few files for deletion at Commons myself (for example Lucien Smith's Murmur of the Heart, a serious infringement of copyright) but there's nothing to see here from me. Really. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Eva Hesse - Repetition Nineteen III (0.1 MP reduction).jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Eva Hesse - Repetition Nineteen III (0.1 MP reduction).jpg. 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) 16:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I am interested to see that you concede the image may only be used under a claim of fair use. That was precisely how I uploaded it and you marked it for deletion. I therefore uploaded a new (and better) version and linked that instead and that is why it is orpahed. However in the event you you marked that for deletion as well.


 * I have retired from editing for the time being because of your harassment which has been continuous (either from you or from your cronies) since I began my account. I will await the outcome of your nomination for deletion of the Chilkat blanket. Depending on the outcome I will either retire completely or resume only on condition of an assurance from you that you will stop stalking and harassing me.


 * Any further posts from you to my Talk page will be deleted without comment. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 01:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!
Pleasure. The editor concerned is entirely non-constructive, unprepared to provide the simplest fix. He's also plain wrong about many of his calls. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 14:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello, Coat of Many Colors. I was passing time this morning having coffee, fixing 'deprecated parameters', when I came to an error on the Eva Hesse page and noticed the exchange between you and another editor. You wrote at the top of this page that the experience has discouraged you from further editing, so - since I have a cup of coffee next to me - thought I'd join in with 'Ash' to say thank you as well, and to add that I hope you come back to editing soon. You've done great work on Mary Cassatt and were certainly a welcome help to me last December. All very much appreciated! Xenxax (talk) 14:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Xenxax. Thanks for the support. I do mean to get back to Mary Cassatt in a while, but I'm a little frustrated at the moment with my editing and I think it's best I take a break. Eva Hesse so much loved of course. It's a pity it's so difficult to get just a little illustration of her work into her article. "Deprecated parameters" sounds like something hard from Mathematica, which I'm obliged to struggle with from time to time as now and truth to tell probably why I'm in such a filthy mood presently ... Should be able to edit more some time round Easter. Regards Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree ... it's too often too difficult to get copyright-free images for Wikipedia, especially in the case of contemporary artists. One would think they and/or their galleries would be glad for the exposure, and a resolution adequate for the web would hardly be good enough for anyone to steal and commercially print a poster or calender or whatever the fear is. Oh, well; not the first thing in this life I don't understand. I'm glad you'll be back in the spring. Xenxax (talk) 17:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Adding images owned by photo agencies
Hello,

you recently added a portrait of Reeva Steenkamp to the article. Unfortunately, per Guardian this image is owned by Gallo Images. Regardless of other criteria, use of photo agency images is expressly prohibited on Wikipedia fair use guidelines. --hydrox (talk) 13:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * --hydrox (talk) 15:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Reeva Steenkamp.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:Reeva Steenkamp.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria. If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the Non-free fair use tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the file. If the file has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.

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. Stefan2 (talk) 14:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Defended as follows
 * This file should not be speedy deleted as having an invalid fair-use claim, because...
 * First of all the image was first published by The Times of South Africa on 16 February 2013 just two days after Reeva's death  in a story about her memorial service. It is clearly marked "File Photo" as a glance at the original page shows and as I made clear in the Fair Use rationale it was provided by her model agency (and subsequently widely reproduced the world over) as a mark of respect as existing photos of Reeva were for the most part glamour shots or otherwise unsuitable. As far as I know it was subsequently bought by Getty Images but that really isn't relevant regarding first publication rights that is the issue here.
 * However the speedy deletion criteria here seem to be out of date. WP:NFCI 10 states that  "Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely" meets the criteria for fair use. The only issue thus is the question of replaceability which I deal with in the Fair Use criteria.
 * Incidentally WP:F7 is also out of date since WP:NFCI 8b has been around since at least 27 August 2011 when User:Future Perfect at Sunrise conceded that community consensus was that "object of commentary" is not sine qua non and laid down three principles for a more general application: " they must meet all aspects of WP:NFCC, particularly no free alternatives, respect for commercial opportunity, and contextual significance".
 * By all means tag this image for discussion, but a speedy delete is quite wrong.
 * Incidentally administrators might care to check that I have already complained rather vigorously on my Talk page about the nominating editor here User:Stefan2, who I believe is stalking and harassing me.
 * Incidentally WP:F7 is also out of date since WP:NFCI 8b has been around since at least 27 August 2011 when User:Future Perfect at Sunrise conceded that community consensus was that "object of commentary" is not sine qua non and laid down three principles for a more general application: " they must meet all aspects of WP:NFCC, particularly no free alternatives, respect for commercial opportunity, and contextual significance".
 * By all means tag this image for discussion, but a speedy delete is quite wrong.
 * Incidentally administrators might care to check that I have already complained rather vigorously on my Talk page about the nominating editor here User:Stefan2, who I believe is stalking and harassing me.
 * Incidentally administrators might care to check that I have already complained rather vigorously on my Talk page about the nominating editor here User:Stefan2, who I believe is stalking and harassing me.
 * Incidentally administrators might care to check that I have already complained rather vigorously on my Talk page about the nominating editor here User:Stefan2, who I believe is stalking and harassing me.

Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The drama continued: day 2!
The debate at NFCR has been archived already here, rather quickly following this exchange between me and User:Stefan2 (aka User:Stefan4 etc.):


 * It's Gallo Images, not Getty Images (a different photo agency). The image violates WP:NFC §7 as there is no sourced critical discussion about the photograph, but only about the person depicted on the photograph. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it's a crop from gty.im/161658209. Gallo are just their agents in SA. Gallo hold the copyright but the image is owned by Getty. I'll correct your other mistakes tomorrow. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

A similar image (but different) ru:Файл:Reeva-Steenkamp.jpg was uploaded to the Russian Wikipedia by ru:Участник:Odessey on 15 February 2013 from David Smith's 14 February Guardian piece and the Russian Wikipedia continues to link the image in its article on Reeva, while acknowledging the image as non-free use.

It's a pity we aren't able to do the same but for the punctilious observances of User:Stefan2 (aka User:Stefan4 etc.) We are left with an article on the unfortunate Reeva whose infobox reduces her to mere statistics, her eye color, hair color, height to the nearest half inch, even the coordinates to the nearest second of arc where she met her death in Oscar Pistorius' toilet, and yet no image, something that ordinary people with normal sensibility must surely deplore.

I remarked above to User:Ronhjones:


 * "Of his late girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp there are no free images at all. After she died her model agency released to the press an attractive image of her that wasn't a 'glamour' shot. I wrote the agency asking them for permission to reproduce it on Wikipedia, but never heard back. I mention that to illustrate just how upriver this irreplaceability criteria bandied about by you WP:NFCI cargo cultists in fact is. If you people prevail in these objections you raise so obsessively, then the chance of Wikipedia readers seeing an image of Reeva Steenkamp any time in the next fifty years or so are remote indeed. I'll upload one as an experiment. My guess is that your community will be on it like a pack of rutting llamas (whatever in Sweden, some sort of camel anyway). .... "

and so they were.

I shall edit at Trial of Oscar Pistorius for the duration. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 13:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Oscar Pistorius arrives at court first day of his trial.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Oscar Pistorius arrives at court first day of his trial.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and add the text   below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing   with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

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

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  Ron h jones  (Talk) 01:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I have responded thus


 * Oscar Pistorius arriving at the start of his trial is a non-repeatable historic event. Several days later there were no free images to be found on Google or Flickr, as explicitly mentioned in the Fair Use rationale, nor were there ever likely to be given the scrummage around him as he arrived. It is thus totally specious to claim that a free image might reasonably be found. As for the question of text, the aim is to provide for the historical record an image of Pistorius' demeanour as he arrived, which no text can adequately convey and indeed enters NPOV territory (should the text, for example, record he appears to be biting his lip nervously, and so on?)

Coat of Many Colours (talk) 11:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * For the record I responded on  Ron h jones  's Talk page thus:

Hi Ron.

First of all it's absolutely fantastic that such a conscientious editor as yourself should be paying any attention to a mere dabbler like myself. Not quite a newbie perhaps, then again you're not quite an administrator and it was only a template anyway, but still very flattering! Thank you.
 * Whoops, you are an admin! Sorry missed that first time round on your user page modestly buried like that amongst all your other life time achievements. Multiply flattered thus and more, but it does now mean you must respond, Ron. To repeat: why do you, in your capacity and experience as an administrator of Wikipedia, an elected representative of our encyclopaedia that we edit together, think that this non-repeatable historic image can reasonably be expected to be available as a free image? Let's start from there Ron, because I am going to retire from editing Wikipedia if my voice simply isn't heard even by its admins. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 13:22, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

What makes you think the image I uploaded in good faith can reasonably be expected to available as a free image? Nothing of the sort surely as my defense of the image makes clear


 * "Oscar Pistorius arriving at the start of his trial is a non-repeatable historic event. Several days later there were no free images to be found on Google or Flickr, as explicitly mentioned in the Fair Use rationale, nor were there ever likely to be given the scrummage around him as he arrived. It is thus totally specious to claim that a free image might reasonably be found. As for the question of text, the aim is to provide for the historical record an image of Pistorius' demeanour as he arrived, which no text can adequately convey and indeed enters NPOV territory (should the text, for example, record he appears to be biting his lip nervously, and so on?)"

Did you doubt my good faith in my rationale when I said I had searched and found none? And did you check for free images yourself? Indeed there aren't any. So what really makes you think one might reasonably appear now?

In the edit description of my upload to the article Trial of Oscar Pistorius I asked that any issue be brought to my Talk page. You didn't really do that with your template did you? That is to say you did not first debate with me the issue of replaceability, rather you made a unilateral judgement of your own about that and then templated me.

If you had gone to my Talk page you would have seen that I have taken the trouble to address at some length my frustration at being templated like this. You will have seen that I, a retiree (more or less) free to indulge a little hobby in a modest sort of way if never on the exalted scale you exercise it, am considering retiring from editing. Becasue I don't have the time for this Ron (I'm not editing Wikipedia full time, imagine). And indeed, if you really can't do what you want to do because one's self-appointed wisers and betters administrators like you won't let you, won't even discuss it, what can be the point? Where's the fun in that? Being patronised all the time? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 11:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Copied over from File_talk:Oscar_Pistorius_arrives_at_court_first_day_of_his_trial.jpg


 * This does not depict the event - it's just a side view of the person, with nothing else in view. As it is taken outside - then it's obviously replaceable. Just because it's difficult to get a good view, does not make it un-replaceable. There are images taken in court - could an image also not be taken from the public galley?   Ron h jones  (Talk) 21:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Straw man: the image does not claim to depict the event and WP:NFCI 8b does not insist that it should, rather:" significantly aid in illustrating historical events ...". As your protégé the Swedish wonder barn User:Stefan2 (aka User:Stefan4 etc.) would have remarked (possibly some satirical intent there regarding the poor grammar) what part of "unique, unrepeatable ... arriving on the first day" challenges you, Ron? Actually Stefan probably couldn't manage "challenge" there, I just threw it in as a variation to illustrate the nuances one can achieve in English, much as I expect you can in Sanskrit or whatever it is they speak in Sweden wherever that actually is, a bit across from us one gathers plus you have to be a banker to afford a decent drink over there, no wonder he resorts to editing Wikipedia his every waking hour.
 * You've screwed up here Ron. Admit it. The intent was not to provide an image of Pistorius, at his trial or otherwise, but of Pistorius arriving at his trial as a matter of historical record. Even if one merely wished to provide a free image of Pistorius, off track at his trial or otherwise, one would actually be hard pressed to provide one. Flickr and Google find just two which might be serviceable outside the context of track events in athletics, both copied to Commons as it happens. There are none of his trial. Of his late girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp there are no free images at all. After she died her model agency released to the press an attractive image of her that wasn't a 'glamour' shot. I wrote the agency asking them for permission to reproduce it on Wikipedia, but never heard back. I mention that to illustrate just how upriver this irreplaceability criteria bandied about by you WP:NFCI cargo cultists in fact is. If you people prevail in these objections you raise so obsessively, then the chance of Wikipedia readers seeing an image of Reeva Steenkamp any time in the next fifty years or so are remote indeed.  I'll upload one as an experiment. My guess is that your community will be on it like a pack of rutting llamas (whatever in Sweden, some sort of camel anyway).
 * The fact is that WP:NFCI 8b has been around since at least 27 August 2011 when User:Future Perfect at Sunrise conceded that community consensus was that "object of commentary" is not sine qua non and laid down three principles for a more general application: " they must meet all aspects of WP:NFCC, particularly no free alternatives, respect for commercial opportunity, and contextual significance"
 * I paid fastidious attention to all of those things and you just mwaed (that thing Swedish camels do) your contempt straight back, Ron. But I'm an entirely good faith editor with constructive projects in mind. I'm pretty sure I know as much by now about copyright issues and their implications for Wikipedia as you and your mates. Once again I ask you to treat me in good faith and bring these issues to my Talk page in the first place.
 * Or see me go. I do mean it. Not putting up with this. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 11:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The image was deleted by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise on an entirely different basis clarified usefully here. Not impressed, Ron. Mwa it up somewhere else next time round. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 14:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Photo Preservation Discussion

 * Thanks for weighing in on one of the deletion discussions concerning San Francisco Library photos of which I was trying to include in an article (see link below).
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review&oldid=595309322#File:Pacific_Street_Docks_Ferry_Boat_1860s_San_Francisco_LibraryCode_AAC-2278.jpg
 * I am once again involved in a deletion discussion while attempting to preserve 2 other photos from the San Francisco Public Library which they had give written permission to Wikipedia to use (link below).
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2014_March_1&oldid=597969556#Terrific_Street
 * Would you also care to contribute to that discussion as well?James Carroll (talk) 13:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi James. Yes, I certainly shall. Most of these objections strike me as pretty insubstantial and inconsequential. I can't this afternoon nor probably this evening, but may be able to later on in the night if I'm up, and in any case certainly tomorrow. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 13:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Stefan2 continues to target photos for deletion which appear in articles where I have made significant contributions.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2014_March_1#File:Jelly_Roll_Morton_and_friends_.281918.29.gif
 * This time he want to delete a photo from before 1923 which has been used in multiple articles of Wikipedia for 9 years without generating a copyright complaint (link is above). His rational is that there is "no evidence that it was published before 1923."James Carroll (talk) 17:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi James. First of all, speaking in general terms, I haven't been editing Wikipedia very long. The impression I've already received is that one has to deal perforce with some essentially not necessarily very constructive types, including especially lonely adoloscents with asperger type syndromes characterised by an overweaning regard for rules and the letter of the law not to mention distinctly bossy tendencies you probably wouldn't pay much attention to in real life. Ditto lonely old man syndrome other end of spectrum substitute alzheimer.

Me, I've already had enough. I'm editing at Trial of Oscar Pistorius as a favour for a friend and then I'm off.

I put down users like User:Stefan2 (aka User:Stefan4 etc.) essentially as trolls (I say that with respect of course and not with the intention of indulging a personal attack lor no). The universal advice about trolls is not to feed them and this is what I advise in User:Stefan2 (aka User:Stefan4)'s case. User:Stefan2 (aka User:Stefan4 etc.) can't actually delete your files. That's up to an administrator and if you feel you've been unjustly treated presumably there are mechanisms for appeal, starting with the administrator's Talk page.

I'll look in at that file. Good luck. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hah, it's been kept. Well done that man! I might even stay a while more (no promises mind). Coat of Many Colours (talk) 19:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

File:St. Helens Central.jpg (& St. Helens Central [GCR] Station page)
Hello Coat of Many Colours and thank you so much for your support on the subject of my adding text and particularly images/photos to the St. Helens Central (GCR) station page. The crazy thing about it all is that if you read all my talk pages postings, you'll see that I did so as a response to an original request for more info - particularly images - in a Wikipedia mail from another editor ! You'll see that having lived literally around the corner from the old station as a child, I was in a good position to contribute, plus provide images of what presently remains. I guess you can understand my frustration then when I was first of all targetted for an old 1950's picture of a loco at the platform, which I "hadn't got permission" for, despite that fact that nobody local knew the originator, it, plus other of the old photos on page were already in use on local websites, pictures in local pubs and even in a large local supermarket ! I don't think anybody sees any problem as first of all they're pretty old and secondly they're used for non-profit public interest; as they would be on Wikipedia. I addition I went and spoke to the hard-worked staff in the Local Archive section of our Public Library (whose days have been cut down to 3 per week!) and they didn't see any problem, but - oh no; wouldn't wait - had to go ! Then the 1908 UK OS map was questioned - even though Ordnance Survey specifically state it's out of copyright. Then the booking office photo starts getting targetted... So I decide to upload some of my OWN photos and given the grief I'd had so far, decided not to publish them to Commons (though did the Engine Shed inadvertently by mistake) - though the Upload Wizard wording was very unclear about this so-called "local" business, nor did it make clear I lost control over my OWN photos. At this stage I challenge anyone not to get angry and withdraw their content ! Especially when, like me, they are getting in excess of 8 to 10 Wikipedia mails per day on the subject. Plus I now find I seem to be the subject of discussion by some kind of Wiki tribunal - so I would be most grateful for your words of support to that please (its title escapes me just at this minute, but can let you know later) - I have been accused of acting in a "suspicious manner" ! Paul Gaskell (talk) 00:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi again Coat of Many Colours - Re the last sentence, here's the 'Courtesy Notice' posting on my Uesr Talk page - There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents -- Diannaa (talk) 13:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC) - Thanks Paul Gaskell (talk) 01:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Paul. I'm really sorry to see you in this situation. I've chipped in support at your ANI. I suggest you just ride it, take a break for a while. It's what I plan to do. It's intolerably frustrating all this hassle. Good luck. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 04:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Coat of Many Colours, Very Many Thanks for your supporting submission, which I've just read. Sorry to hear you may be considering giving up Editing. It would appear that I seem to have given a mistaken impression that I was going to stop editing. That isn't actually the case - the "withdrawn information" refers merely to the images and text I myself had submitted to the St H Central GCR page and nothing else (I also sent a mail to 'Liz' pointing this out as she made the comment). What I will seriously consider is whether or not to submit ANY future image material, given the fact it seems to be like a red rag to a bull at the moment. BTW, loved the way you dealt with the Matcham Theatre Royal image! Classic! Many thanks again, cheers and take care Paul Gaskell (talk) 16:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Pleasure ;) . Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Re: File:New VCU Rams Logo.png
Coat of Many Colours, I appreciate the heads up about the file. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albino Geronimo (talk • contribs) 04:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)