User talk:IngerAlHaosului/Archive/2010

 Archive 2010  =2010=

There is a image its copyright was uncertain so i contacted the author and confirmed it,the author has no problem having the image on wikipedia i corrected the license an made it and added a rational to be to make the hole thing legal.I was intending to contact the author again and ask that the file be released under a free license cc-by-sa but i now realize that i don't know how to properly ask nor do i know the actual procedure so i was hoping that a admin with experience will do this request.The author email can be found on author's contact page--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 15:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * See WP:BRP. --The 16:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Re:Speedy Deletion
70.245.127.52 (talk) 09:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Roses growing in front of graves, Menin Road South Military cemetery 977687052.jpg
Did you miss this nocommons tag when you placed this deletion request? Perhaps you'd like to remove the template? ⇦REDVERS⇨ 13:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * sorry about that i have been using Nowcommons all the dupes tool and i taged very many pages by the time i realized, it was to late, i even forgot to change the name to the commons one on some files.I will be more careful in the future.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 13:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you'd like to remove the template? ⇦REDVERS⇨ 13:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You're editing at the moment, but you've left that incorrect speedy deletion template on File:Roses growing in front of graves, Menin Road South Military cemetery 977687052.jpg and it'd be best if you removed speedily. Thanks. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 13:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * removed it, and again sorry--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 13:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

License for images
When I uploaded the File:Acid3detailSafari4.png and File:Acid3detailMidori0.1.9.png the form asked me if I got that shot from a GPL program, and so the screenshot file is GPL too. I choosed that option uploading the file. I do not understand what I had to write more and in which field of images file, to prevent deleting. Can you help me? Thanks --Efa (talk) 14:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC) I never chosed the templete, I followed the guided steps, and the template was chosed automatically. I describe the procedure I used for upload, so you can explain where is the error:
 * The files have a free license and a non-free rational.You can't be free and non-free at the same time.Why did you use the non-free rational template, was your intention to uses something like this or did you believe that all files need a rational?Btw possible unfree file is not a deletion discution.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 14:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

- clicked to left menu, Upload file, point to https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Upload

- Chosed the link "A screenshot taken of a movie, TV program, computer game, web site, computer program, music video, or other such source" because the file is a screenshot of a computer program. Point to: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&uselang=en-screenshot&wpUploadDescription=

- filled the fields, leaving empty the fields not needed, as say here "If you are uploading a screenshot which is not copyrighted (such as freely-licensed software), you do not need to include a fair use rationale."--Efa (talk) 10:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm got to talk to someone about that form, ok so here is how things stand only use non-free rational if you are uploading a unfree image ex:screenshot of copyrighted program etc. or image with unfree elements like screenshot of internet explorer (fairuse rational for iexplorer) viewing wikipedia (free wikipedia web page screenshot).The reason it ads a Non-free use rationale by default its because 99% of screenshots uploaded are unfree. So if you want to upload a 100% free image to wikipedia and the standard options give you ex: produse a rational by default try the Entirely my own work option. Or better yet if the image is 100% free, upload direct to commons. We are currently in the process of moving all free images to commons and your files will get moved ther eventually anyway.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 11:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I hope that more than 1% of the software is uncopyrighted ;-) In any case I'm not using Wiki Commons, because my account has different username there, and my user is busy, so I cannot unify them I also hope that, but we systematically moved and are moving to commons free screen shots and other free stuff so it will get there .Eventually there will bee 1% free stuff on en wikipedia the rest of the 99% free will be on commons.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 05:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC) --Efa (talk) 23:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The template mentioned more precisely the permission is being contested on commons, in case they decide its not valid is that going to ripple and effect en wikipedia as well?If the answer is yes i was thinking of adding a line to the template stating The validate of this license is being contested please add a fair use rational(just in case) and don't move to commons. And then uploading back to wikipedia the files in commons that are used in articles and adding a rational.Is that OK--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 12:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The Commons template is under significant discussion at this time. Do not take any action until the deletion request has been closed. But yes, the outcome made at Wikimedia Commons would likely be replicated here. –blurpeace (talk) 16:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Can a experienced template editor modify this template so the little thumb point to the commons version of the image and not the en wiki version. It will make it more useful by giving a visual way to identify if its pointing to the right commons file and/or the file actually exists without having to visit commons to check.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 17:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Working on it. Unfortunately db-meta also needs a change and is fully-protected, so we'll have to wait for an admin to take care of it. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 17:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of unused images containing Wikipedia logo
You recently tagged a lot of images that contain the Wikipedia logo for criteria for speedy deletion F5 because they're not used in articles. While the logo is copyrighted, the community has often allowed images with it to remain because it's part of the project, although this is not documented anywhere I can find. I've raised this issue at Media copyright questions. I'd appreciate your comments there. Thank you. --Mysdaao talk 18:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It was explained to you that these images need not be used in articles when you nominated many of them for deletion at FFD (where they were kept). Your attempt to now have them speedily deleted on the same basis (with the false statement that fair-use claims are being made) is highly disruptive and borders on bad faith. I've reverted your edits, and I will manually reinsert the unrelated tweaks that you made. —David Levy 18:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have only tagged images with the wikipedia logo that ware not used in a article, files that according to contain non-free elements witch according to Criteria_for_speedy_deletion is a valid reason to nominate.I didn't target the same files i tagged all file in the order they apare in this category.My intention was not to be disruptive, i am sorry it turn out that way and i offer my sincere apology I will not tag for deletion the images in the category category:Screenshots of Wikipedia for deletion regardless of copyright status especially those used in any page.If it is permitted i will remove the logo and upload to commons and mark as csd F5 F8 but only those not used anywhere at all, if you permit. And again my apology.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 18:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The Wikimedia Foundation allows its logo to be used throughout its websites. This is not fair use.  This is why the Non-free Wikimedia logo template and "logo=yes" parameter (which conveys the same information) exist.  In many instances, you were simultaneously adding the "logo=yes" parameter or replacing the Non-free Wikimedia logo template with it (both cited as solutions in some of the IFD discussions) when listing these images for speedy deletion for exactly the same reason that was rejected at IFD.  (And yes, some of these were the same images that you nominated there.)
 * Please do not remove the logos or take any further action to address this nonexistent problem. —David Levy 19:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * As you request i will not touch images tagged with Template:Wikipedia-screenshot at all.Something must be done with Non-free Wikimedia logo to state clearly that the files tagged are not fair use because of it so nobody will make the same mistake I did regarding there fair use status. Maybe add the exact phrase you just added "The Wikimedia Foundation allows its logo to be used throughout its websites. This is not fair use."And again my apology but please understand that the template is systematically portrayed as non free image tag, its name its categorization the template text itself everything about it screens non-free.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 19:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Your misunderstanding was explained to you when you nominated some of these same images for deletion last month. (In fact, you even just hit the exact images to which the "logo=yes" parameter was added and cited as a solution during the deletion discussions, which already had been tagged as kept at IFD!)  —David Levy 19:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Back then i understand that free images can be used in other namespaces other then article.But today i came to realize that logo=yes or Non-free Wikimedia logo are actually non-free image tags and that files using the are fair use dus completely different then the topic IFD I now know the error of my way and i always strive not to make the same mistake twice.

But please add "The Wikimedia Foundation allows its logo to be used throughout its websites.  This is not fair use." to the template or something in that nature so nobody will make the mistake of believing that a tag like Non-free Wikimedia logo makes the file non-free.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Deluge-bt-SVN.png
In the course of moving free images to commons i cam across this image marked for deletion Thursday, 30 July 2009 that somehow escaped review until now--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 11:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Map files
I noticed that you tagged lots of map images with WP:CSD. If I'm not mistaken, they appear to be files that were all copied to Commons, so did you mean WP:CSD? Best, Jamie  S93  00:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * G8. Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page,such as talk pages with no corresponding subject page; subpages with no parent page; image pages without a corresponding image; redirects to invalid targets, such as nonexistent targets, redirect loops, and bad titles; and categories populated by deleted or retargeted templates. This excludes any page that is useful to the project, and in particular: deletion discussions that are not logged elsewhere, user talk pages, talk page archives, plausible redirects that can be changed to valid targets, and image pages or talk pages for images that exist on Wikimedia Commons. Exceptions may be sign-posted with the template.
 * F8 is for local images identical in commons there was no images just local description pages for images on commons.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 09:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply, btw. Jamie  S93  01:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

yahoo widgets
adminhelp Several images yahoo widgets are marked as BSD however after installing yahoo states they are under Konfabulator Consumer License Agreement, furthermore after moving some of them to commons a while back they got deleted as copyvio there they stated that only the backend is bsd but the .--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 12:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * O and can you also look over this image too, similar situation.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 12:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. I've deleted one; I'll do the rest later if I get time. But as you've now listed them at PUI, somebody should get to it eventually. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 12:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

GIMP
I undid your changes to the article GIMP, the image changed was context sensitive and the new image was not a GIMP variant. Please feel free to edit the article in future. --60.241.85.126 (talk) 11:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

File:MP-open-book.png
adminhelp Protected unused file nowcommons requesting CSD F8.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 12:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * O and on a unrelated note why does Category:Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.1 images claim to have 1F when view from Category:Free images but is really empty, its been like this since 2009--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 12:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you certain that this image is unused? It was created for use via MediaWiki page code, without any standard wiki transclusions.  I have no idea whether any such uses (on user pages, etc.) remain.  Have you?  —David Levy 13:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no idea you can even do that having image used but without wiki transclusions.Better keep it then, jic--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 13:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, it was deleted locally as I was typing the above. But I checked, and it appears that the code enabling its use via MediaWiki:Common.css was removed, so there shouldn't be a problem...I think.  —David Levy 13:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Koman90, A+ (talk) 14:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Your PUI noms
Thanks for taking the time to query images to check on their status.

If you are interested in helping clear some backlogs there's a list of possibly 'conflicted' images here User:Sfan00_IMG/Conflicted-_Jan_1st_2010.

Perhaps you's like to help get them resolved up by talking with the relevant up-loaders?

Some of the images on list may have already been resolved (ie confirmed as free or non-free) in which case they should be removed the list, and tagged accordingly, meets WP:NFCC.
 * free images should have full information and if can be moved to Commons
 * non-free images need a FULL and detailed fair use rationale which explains how use of the image

(Betacommand also has a report on the toolserver which is updated regularly: - http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/reports/miss_tagged_files.txt)

If you need further advice, feel free to ask or speak to someone like User:J Milburn

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification
Thanks for the clarification. I’m glad to see this picture I took many years ago on the Wikipedia commons now, so Wikipedias in any language can use it. Samboy (talk) 15:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

CSD-F8
Please tag such images with Template:NowCommons since that avoids flooding the CSD category which is meant to be for more critical matters.©Geni 22:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe that CSD-F8 is just as important/critical matter as any other criteria for speedy deletion. However if you believe that my actions of moving to commons and tagging for speedy deletion is disruptive then i will stop.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 07:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thing is we can delete images that have been moved to commons at any time (normaly in bulk by an admin after a bot has checked that the two are in fact the same). Other stuff at CSD tends to be better delt with ASAP.©Geni 19:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Fft-t1.jpg and File:Czn-sg1.jpg
Your message isn't helping. I uploaded this image and several others years ago. I copied the permission by the author out of the email and his email-adress is added. Naturally you can ask him about verifying his statement and that's what your formula suggests. So do it. Or you have invented a new tool that is not properly implemented into the image uploading process and now ask me to ask the owner of the images to send me a reconfirmation that you can't verify. So what exactly is your point? And could you use a more efficient way of communication that doesn't clutter userpages. Wandalstouring (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Files marked "Do not move to Wikimedia Commons"
Hello, IngerAlHaosului, Trainweb.com images you transferred to Commons, such as File:Acela First.jpg, etc., have been deleted there, per Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Trainweb Commons:Deletion requests. Please note, when a file is marked "Do not move this file to Wikimedia Commons", please discuss first before copying it to Commons in the future. Thanks,  JGHowes   talk  20:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: F8 backlog
I believe it can be cleaned up within minutes using automated tools (like TW). As I don't use them and am overloaded with other tasks, I leave it to other admins, at least for now. Materialscientist (talk) 11:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Free use image template
You have tagged 3 images that I uploaded on Subtext as conflicting license. But that was the default generated wikitext since I used the image upload wizard/script. And the free use template does not exist/has been deleted. I've not intentionally tagged my images as free + nonfree but Wikipedia is designed that way.

So what do you want me to do? -- Tom Jenkins (reply) 14:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If the images are free replace the rational with the template and remove the  tag.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * see License for images section in the 2010 partial collapsible section above--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 15:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Images updated. That wizard script needs to change. See if you can get it done. -- Tom Jenkins (reply) 15:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Upload form
someone please update the upload form so it doesn't add nonfree rational to free screenshots a radio button free non-free that add information and rational respectively or whatever you think is apropriet.See above discussion and License for images section in the 2010 partial collapsible section for reference on the problem.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 15:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We already have a notice on the upload form for that (see here ). Though I doubt the English Wikipedia will do much else in that regard, you can propose the change at the village pump. Blurpeace  01:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

MIDIjam screenshot page edit
Hi there! I noticed that you made an edit to the File:Rocky theme.PNG page, a file which I originally had uploaded for the MIDIjam article. MIDIjam is free software, available on the Internet free of charge and for distribution. Since this is free software, wouldn't a screenshot from that software necessitate the tag? I don't think a non-free media use rationale is needed in this case.

I noticed you used some sort of JavaScript program called FurMe to make this change, but when I went to its page, it said "This script is tested only on Mozilla Firefox (and unofficially Opera). It will not work on Microsoft Internet Explorer." Maybe that's irrelevant. Anyway, I would appreciate some more information about this, and if we can agree on a state to leave that file's page on, then that would be great. Thanks! dogman15 (talk) 09:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The program is freeware see Gratis versus Libre as in no monetary cost but its not Free and open source software libre, a screenshot of a peace of software is under the same license as the software itself.Only makes senses to have the if the softwear is GPL witch is not. Furthermore the softwear is proprietary although gratis the template  is only used on software that are libre.As for FurMe it simply adds a form list so i dont have to remember all the license templates names or consult the list every time.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 10:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What about this image (from Freeciv)? It's a "free and open source" game, and/but it doesn't need the non-free rationale that you believe the MIDIjam picture needs. dogman15 (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Free civ is licensed under GPL a open source license making it free as in Gratis AND Libre meaning it doesn't cost money AND is open source. MIDIjam is Gratis and Proprietary meaning it doesn't cost money and it is closed source.The term for such a combination is Freeware. Another example is Mozilla Firefox vs Microsoft Internet Explorer. Firefox is Gratis AND Libre, Microsoft Internet Explorer is Gratis and Proprietary, or if you don't like the analogy replace Microsoft Internet Explorer with Opera also Gratis and Proprietary
 * Thank you. That answers my question. dogman15 (talk) 08:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Image problem
Hi, I see you uploaded File:Remains of manacles in the wall of the Marshalsea prison 12-27-2007 3-31-04 PM 2272x1704.jpg to the Commons. Would you mind deleting it? It was though that these were manacles, but further research suggests they probably aren't. I meant to delete it a few months ago, but forgot. My apologies! SlimVirgin TALK  contribs 14:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Reply to your message
Thanks, I will keep it in mind next time. I just assumed I can use the form, because it also had free licenses below. Me6620 (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Wiki break
I went on a short vacation. I marked my talk page that I was on a wikibreak. On my return I find that two images were deleted. It was unreasonable to expect an immediate response.

However, I don't like seeing our (MII) material without attribution, so its not your actions that I object to, but your unreasonable time frame. Therefore rather than complaining elsewhere I will ask you to do a job (which I'm too old and tired to do myself)

It is this image, there are other variations of it. My attention was first drawn to it by an author of a book requesting permission and a better image. I was concerned when I couldn't find it. I asked the uploader, who was certain it was from our museum but could not help with other details. After an exhaustive search I can now say that the image did not come from our museum nor do we have a "Dartmouth Map no. 25". The source listed is not true.

So, will you fix that? ClemMcGann (talk) 09:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Really don't understand what am i supposed to fix should i request the 2 images undeleted and what am I supposed to do about File:O'Neill Inauguration.JPG? Please explain. As for the timeframe wikibrake thing I am in the process of moving entire categories of free images to common using semi-automatic tools and scripts occasionally when preparing a 100 image batch I find images that are blatant copivio witch I mark accordingly,  images with conflicting licenses witch i mark accordingly and images with insufficient source details or broken source links or images that just look suspicions as possible copyvio but for witch I cant find evidence aider way witch i mark as No evidence of permission all this marking is dome using a 2 click tool known as Twinkle witch automatically adds a warning on the uploader user page as a background action so i really dint get to see you user page at all.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 11:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Your "semi-automatic tools and scripts" should either search for the wikibreak template and make allowance or just give longer notice than seven days.


 * I gather that you see your task as identifying "images with insufficient source details or broken source links or images ... ...". What about images with wrong source information.  File:O'Neill Inauguration.JPG gives, as its source the National Maritime Museum of Ireland.  This is false - it did not.  So it should say "source unknown" - and if so, perhaps it should be deleted?  I am on the council of the Maritime Institute of Ireland - who own the museum and its artifacts.  I (subject to agreement of the rest of the council) grant reproduction permission.  So, are you interested in cleaning this up?  ClemMcGann (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Just because you can drive a car doesn't mean that you can make a car, i don't know how to do that "search for the wikibreak template" as for 7 days that is policy made by admins. But i can post a copyvio deletion request on commons.As for me I see your task as moving free images to wikimedia commons the identifying part is just separating the grain from the chaff(?).--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 18:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * My task is confined to Irish maritime history, and if you are ever in this part of the world, do drop into the museum and say hello, meanwhile, here is another File:O'Neill in focus.JPG ClemMcGann (talk) 18:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Cumarathunga munidasa.jpg
Hi ,Thanks for your alert.I edit the permission for the image. This image is very popular image and more than 100 years old. Author must be deceased. But i copied the website i upload this image. Please advise me. (Eeriyaka (talk) 12:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC))
 * Although the original image is public domain the cropped version used in the newpaper is under the same copyright as the newpaper itself. You can incorporate PD images in Copyrighted works but you not the other way around.The only way that image is free if you can get the original PD photo or a scan of the original PD photo that is also released under a free license by the person doing the scanning, and the result is only PD if the license for the scanned image is also PD.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 12:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Well I understand your concern. But what could I do if the image is more than 100 years old and common image for ionised this person. Author of the newspaper definitely will understand this image will dedicate to this well known famous person. I will guarantee this will not an issue forever. I repeat I could upload this image any public private media without anyone permission. If you want I will remove copyright from the newspaper. Eeriyaka (talk) 22:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The image is properly attributed and tagged now so until a better image is found this one will have no problems probably for years to come.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 05:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks heaps. I will try to upload better image if i get. Eeriyaka (talk) 11:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah... I see the problem
I think you meant to use db-f8, not db-g8. #F8 is for commons migration. #G8 is for something totally different. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 16:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * G8. Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page,such as talk pages with no corresponding subject page; subpages with no parent page; image pages without a corresponding image; redirects to invalid targets, such as nonexistent targets, redirect loops, and bad titles; and categories populated by deleted or retargeted templates. This excludes any page that is useful to the project, and in particular: deletion discussions that are not logged elsewhere, user talk pages, talk page archives, plausible redirects that can be changed to valid targets, and image pages or talk pages for images that exist on Wikimedia Commons. The migration was done image and pages ware deleted but someone recreated just the local description page.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 17:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ups i forgot to add the : in front of File the 1st time around guess you got a glimpse before i fixed it.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 17:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but it would be more clear if you tagged with db-f8. I'm making a guess that was the issue here, because you only left a link to the image... it would be helpful if you could give a clearer message on my talk page next time. Thanks :-) - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 22:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Why all my own taken pictures are tagged? what should i do
please guide me on this copyright problems, im the one and only original owner of all the pictures that i uplaoded, now what should i do to have it on wikipedia please guide me, i dont understand a thing. what kind of source should i give? when im the owner, and what kind of copyright description should i write i dont understand a thing all of my files are tagged please guide me —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waleedpak (talk • contribs) 07:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I've tagged my pictures with source is self.
I've tagged all my pictures wth source is self please tell me if there's still some problem --Waleed Dar 08:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waleedpak (talk • contribs)

File:Musaeus College logo.jpg
gd day ! .Thanks for the alert. about File:Musaeus College logo.jpg the logo of the Musaeus College it is very highely needed the logo for identify the article. i copied this image from http://mcppa.tripod.com/ oldboys assosiciation of the Musaeus College. i modify the source file location and permission atributes. Eeriyaka (talk) 12:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Kickman-thumb11317145.jpg
Hey. It was a totally free stock image licensed under free images. --Scieberking (talk) 12:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There are 2 concepts of the word free Free as in Gratis( no money) Or Libre (giving others the right to do what the want with it modified, it sell it, etc. That image was none of the above. It was [royaltyfree] in there one words: What Royalty-Free means is that you pay for the image only once and then you can use it as many times as you like, with just a few restrictions.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 12:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, I understand that. Didn't notice the "buy it" thing. But now this one is totally in public domain I guess. Scieberking (talk) 12:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * By putting a image in the public domain you give up all rights to the image meaning that anyone can do whatever the want with it including change the license so File:Kickass.png is ok.Public domain is the ultimate Libre --IngerAlHaosului (talk) 13:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. Thanks for your help. Scieberking (talk) 13:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Freedom of Panorama nominations
Please do not nominate images as FOP violations without trying to figure out what country a photo was taken in. It is a waste of time for everyone. E.g. File:Clover Park High School entrance.jpg says very clearly on the image page that it is used in Clover Park High School. Going to this article, I see this is a school in the US. Therefore there is no FOP problem. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that the vast majority of your nominations are going nowhere and most of them contain obviously lazy reasoning. Things like "I don't really know what is going on so I'm nominating it" or "no location" when the location is obviously apparent. If you aren't going to actually consider images before your nominate them, your nominates can and will be seen as disruptive.--Crossmr (talk) 17:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I've asked the School authority to send a permission e-mail to you, and what about these images?
I've asked my school's general assistant to send an e-mail to wikipedia regarding permissions for these images File:Lencanasabs3.jpg,File:Lencanasabs1.jpg ,File:Lencanasabs2.jpg,File:Sabs kuantan logo.jpg,File:Sabskuantan8.jpg,File:Sabskuantan7.jpg,File:Sabskuantan5.jpg and File:Sabskuantan4.jpg so, they should be fine now.

But however, how about these images? File:Jalalpur jattan masjid minar view.jpg File:Jalalpur jattan factory minar.jpg File:Jalalpur jattan factory.jpg what can i do about them? They are taken in Pakistan. But you are insisting that you cant find any law regarding the Freedom of Panorama in that country. So what should i do? Contact the government and ask them to create that law>?? That's certainly impossible.

In my opinion, if the freedom of panorama is unknown, u should consider it as 'allowed'. This is an image taken in Pakistan too, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Clk_Towe_Slk.jpg in the Sialkot page, why is this image allowed then????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waleedpak (talk • contribs) 02:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC) Please reply A.S.A.P. --Waleed Dar 02:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waleedpak (talk • contribs)
 * Done--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 11:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

OTRS help
During a inquiry on the status of a OTRS ticket of a image i wanted to upload to commons the admin ther gave me a ambiguous  answer(Unfortunately I would say no. For OTRS volunteers, I have added a  note on the ticket about why I deem it not ok) a search later and i  discovered  70 images using it.As i dont have a OTRS account i  have no idea whats going on so if admin with OTRS account please see  what is going on and take appropriate action if need be.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 20:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not an admin, but I can tell you exactly why that image cannot be moved to the  Commons, it's not a "free" image.  If you look at the image, you'll  notice that it's originally from Flickr  and that not only is it copyrighted there (not a free public image) but  the Wikipedia image has been modified to remove all of the copyright  information in the bottom right corner of the original image.  If you  read the Commons  Licensing page, you'll  see that only free content can be moved to the Commons.
 * I hope that helps, let me know on my talk page if you'd like any additional help. Banaticus (talk) 21:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I am confused if the image is non-free then why is it tagged as free isn't this copyvio?  If the original is All rights reserved then its derivative work  shouldn't be cc-by-sa am i missing  something?--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 15:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I am confused if the image is non-free then why is it tagged as free isn't this copyvio?  If the original is All rights reserved then its derivative work  shouldn't be cc-by-sa am i missing  something?--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 15:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

File:GajamanNona.jpg
hi, could you please update the status of this image. i made some level of modifications. source file informations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GajamanNona.jpg thanks. (Eeriyaka (talk) 10:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)).
 * because the image is taken in Sri Lanka and that country doesn't have freedom of  panorama exception to copyright law the image is actually all rights  reserved to the original author of the statue.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 11:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

original image is in Flikr  .Please check the copy right status. and please clear the image once you done. image is highely needed for introduce the article. thanks regards. (Eeriyaka (talk) 03:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC))

Info Regarding Permissions
The images of badges and logos that i uploaded in this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sultan_Abu_Bakar_School_%28SABS%29,_Kuantan are still tagged with "no source of permission" when in fact ive already  asked my school authority to send an e-mail to permissions-en@wikimedia.org is it because the e-mail  hasn't be reviewed yet? or is it something else

--Waleed Dar 04:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Image nominations
If you can't be bothered to spend 15 seconds checking a files source  before nominating it, don't nominate files for deletion.--Crossmr (talk) 05:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don, i nominate as possible unfree  so people come review it and determin is it  free or not if its not, if not does the NFCC thing apply etc. Then i  want a image deleted i am more direct File:Coconutoiljar.jpg, when i place a image on the PUF  forum i am asking for the opinion and help of the community if solving a  problem too big for me to unilaterally decide.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 06:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If 15 seconds of your time is too big for you to figure out on your own, you  shouldn't be involved in the process. File:Danube bratislava.jpg it took all of 15 seconds to click  on the user page on flickr for this image, type in the keyword "danube"  and find the exact same image from the same user. It was probably less  than 15 seconds.--Crossmr (talk) 09:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Dr. Busker image copyright / permission
Relating to File:Dr-busker-amoswolfe.jpg

Thank you for your concern regarding the copyright status of this image. I can confirm that I am the webmaster of the site at http://www.doctorbusker.com. I have added a copyright notice to the website to confirm that all content of the site is licenced under  Creative Commons CC-BY-SA.

I have also sent you an e-mail message using the webmaster's e-mail account. Hopefully this clears up the copyright issue. -=# Amos E Wolfe talk #=- 09:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Etihad HQ
Thank you for your notification. On the Commons I have been trying to determine whether the image would be considered to be unfree according to UAE law. If so, I can update the licensing with a fair use rationale. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Re:Ubisoft images
- F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 22:02, 18 February 2010  (UTC)

Speedy delete nomination of File:Ejaculation Educational Demonstration.OGG
Please read the criteria: "This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy  deletion as a dependent page of a page which does not exist, has been  deleted, or is itself currently tagged for speedy deletion. This does  not include pages which are useful to the project such as user talk  pages, talk page archives, information for a future article, etc. See  CSD G8.". The video you nominated completely fails to meets these conditions. -- Neil N    talk to me   11:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes it does
 * G8. Pages dependent on a non-existent  or deleted page,such as talk  pages with no  corresponding subject page; subpages with no  parent  page; image pages without a  corresponding image; redirects to invalid  targets, such as  nonexistent targets, redirect loops, and bad titles;  and categories  populated by deleted or retargeted templates. This  excludes any page  that is useful to the project, and in particular:  deletion discussions  that are not logged elsewhere, user talk pages,   talk page archives, plausible redirects that can be changed to valid   targets, and image  pages or talk pages for images that exist on Wikimedia Commons.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 17:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The file you're tagging is  on Wikipedia Commons.  It's not  on Wikipedia.  Am I mistaken? -- Neil N     talk to me   17:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, the excludes refers to exclusions for G8 (i.e, you cannot G8 a talk page which  exists here for an image on Commons). -- Neil N     talk to me   18:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The fact that the video is in use within a current article on Wikepedia means that the speedy delete  mechanism is not the correct one.  I just nominated the video for  deletion yesterday through the proper process, only to find that it is  located on the commons site.  When I went to the commons site, I saw  that a recent files for deletion discussion had already taken place and  the consensus was to keep the image.  The speedy delete  would be appropriate for an image that was orphaned, or not used  anywhere.  For instance, if the Ejaculation article were deleted, and  there were no other references to the image being used that may be a  case FOR speedy delete.  I can tell you that on the commons site, the  image is referenced in many places, including three or four on the  en.wikipedia and a few on ither language versions.  I suggest that the  chances of it being deleted on commons are very small.  Atom (talk) 18:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I dont want the video deleted just the local description page --IngerAlHaosului (talk) 20:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * See my response on the image discussion page. -- Neil N     talk to me   20:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

edit
Why did you add the empty category  to Category:Animated  maps ? Griffinofwales (talk) 19:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * because it is likely that people may add animated maps to wikipedia instead of  commons, for the same reason i added it to say Category:APL  images or Category:BSD  images--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 09:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And when they do, they can create the category. The template's documentation says,  This is for "maintenance, tracking and clean-up categories." Griffinofwales (talk) 20:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Pasquill Graphic
Thank for your notification of concern over permissions of the graphic at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pasquilltp.gif. I created and uploaded this image, which is from a 1905 book reprinting a 16th century title page. There are no real copyright issues. The original was created four hundred years ago, and even the proximate  source has been out of print for over a century and out of copyright for  nearly that long. What is the best licensing tag to use to describe this situation? thanks.--BenJonson (talk) 16:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I changed the license to what i believe its more appropriate for the image but i still  require a source, name of the book,  author, date,etc, or a link from  where you got the image be as detailed as possible.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 04:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Got it. Will do. Thanks for helping with this.--BenJonson (talk) 19:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Imzadi1979-MI.svg
Please get that map off Commons. It has no encyclopedic value. It is a map showing which counties have Good Articles for a contest on the English  Wikipedia. There is no logical usage outside of the contest, and it was slated to be deleted at the conclusion of the contest. Imzadi1979 (talk) 16:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Tagging files for speedy deletion
When tagging images for speedy deletion in cases where there is an identical  file on Commons, please use db-f8  instead of db-g8 as the former is more precise and  created specifically for this type of deletion. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! ··· 日 本穣 ? · 投稿   · Talk to  Nihonjoe 20:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And i normally do but this case was different there was no local image just a local  description page for a image on commons.See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:IngerAlHaosului&direction=next&oldid=338345468  and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:IngerAlHaosului&oldid=341980024  for similar discussions. --IngerAlHaosului (talk) 04:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, in the case of files, the process is the same regardless of whether there is a  local image, so please use db-f8  so it's sorted correctly. Thanks! ··· 日 本穣 ? ·  投稿   · Talk to  Nihonjoe 08:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

RE: File source problem with File:Hp-150 text mode.png
Thanks for uploading File:Hp-150 text mode.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the  copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of  that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that  copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those  files as well. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for  speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC) per speedy  deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media  copyright questions page. Thank you. IngerAlHaosului (talk) 14:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The original uploader is Toytoy - I just converted the image to PNG. I've  notified him already. --Fibonacci (talk) 03:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Map of USRD rel WW.svg
Maps such as these are used internally by WP:USRD and thus should be hosted here and not on Commons. --Rschen7754 18:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: File permission problem with File:Nlr-tjloco-amoswolfe.jpg
I am wondering what has led you to tag this image. I refer to the following:


 * "This image or media is missing evidence of permission. It is sourced to someone other than the uploader..."

In the image description, I stated:


 * "Original photograph: taken 8th December 2001 by Amos Wolfe Edited; black and white / colour highlight by Amos Wolfe"

Perhaps you found this image also published elsewhere on the Internet? My username here on Wikipedia is not the same as my real name in the outside world so it may not be clear that I gave permission to use the image. I am happy to confirm this if you contact me via whatever site the image may be found under my real name, for example Facebook, flickr, etc.


 * -=# Amos E Wolfe talk #=- 16:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Order of the Rising Sun rosette.png
There was no URL source for the file because I drew it myself. A lot of ribbon drawings on Wikipedia are my own work. Because of that, I am able to give permission for the image to be used under a CC license. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 17:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Romanian Wikipedia
Hi IngerAlHaosului, I saw you at Category:Translators ro-en and I wanted to ask for help in starting an article on the Romanian Wikipedia about Ram Narayan. Perhaps you could translate the introduction? Thank you very much! Regards Hekerui (talk) 18:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

File:N Leser.jpg
Hi, and thanks for your message. Rest assured thar the licence is okay. It is in German, and I kept the original because I did not want to tamper with the text. The image is also used in the German Wikipedia. All the best, &lt;K  F&gt;  23:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Warning
And I'm telling you to STOP tagging valuable freely useable images I uploaded in good faith for deletion. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 12:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC) Isn;t that a little paranoic? What about the thousands of images I've already uploaded and been trusted to find free content in. Occasionally I've made mistakes with fair use images in whether they have expired or not but I do know what flickr images we can use or what we can't. Hell I've gone out of my way to make OTRS agreements for otherwise non free images, You can be the biggest contributor to english wikipedia like me have hundreds of good articles yet not be trusted that the image originally uploaded to flickr was a 2.0. You are basically calling me a liar. Might it actually be more damaging to the encyclopedia that you go ahead and delete this image when it was and is actually perfectly legitimate. Its not my fault the flickr user left and nobody verified this image in the meantime. Is it not more likely, if you take into account the thousands of my free image flickr uploads to here and the commons that actually this may have been legitimate?Guilty until proven otherwise indicates a severe lack of good faith and trust in our editors. Britannica don't have this lack of respect and word amongst their editors, so why it that wikipedia editors have to treat each other like a piece of dogs crap? Dr. Blofeld      White cat 12:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC) Yep I know, that's why I 99% of the time upload images to the commons. It does occasionally irritate me though that there is a distinct lack of trust among editors. I bet if I had uploaded it to the commons it would have been authorised with a day and regardless of whether the flickr user left or changed the license it would be clearly OK. Its just I try very hard to find free images of people in places like small towns in Cambodia and Asia/Africa etc so if content is deleted which is "know" was and is legit it frustrates me. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 13:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC) Delete it then if you wish. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 13:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And I am telling you if it doesn't have EVIDENCE of permission i will have it deleted or have it declared non-free and subject to WP:NFCC--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 12:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, i am not calling you a liar, but i so encounter many images in the same situation i guess i just snaped, sorry about that, its not you  fault flickr is so fucked up. Flickr has no license history and its just  a mater of time until the attribution chain is broken . At least  commons have flickr review we have nothing and it makes me boil with  rage. i min how hard is it to use make a webcite and use it as source.  Sry, but i am sure you can imagine the loop hole this sort of thing can  cause and the amount of damage it can do.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 13:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Trust me its not unwarranted, i moved many images to commons and what did i get in return http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:IngerAlHaosului/Archive/Current and http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:IngerAlHaosului/awd .Trust me when i say nothing makes you stop trusting your fellow editors faster then a administrator roasting you alive for it.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 13:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I will add a FUR that should be enough to keep the image locally at least until it is still used.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 13:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

RE: File:Rail-reedhamswingbridge-amoswolfe.jpg
This image is actually a photograph I took myself. It was also published on the website http://www.wherrylines.org.uk/ which I created in 2001 and was responsible for until 2005. I am no longer in control of that domain so I am unable to access any e-mails sent to the webmaster's address.

If you visit this page you will see that the website was created by "Amos E Wolfe". Furthermore a look at Amos E Wolfe's car in the photograph on that page matches that in this image. I know that this does not confer conclusive proof but it can at least show a reasonable connection between the site creator and myself. -=# Amos E Wolfe talk #=- 17:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Image tagging
I know you mean no harm when you tag images for lack of source or permission, but I strongly suggest you look at the images carefully, especially older ones. Everything we had to upload then was not standardized and might have information like "made it myself" or "created by me" without the use of a template. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I usually tag lack of source when no source is present at all not even a created by me or the source link is broken as for lack of permission i usually tag in conjunction with the former or if there is a 3rd party mentioned "ex:photo by Jon Dow" and the user name or the user page of the uploader doesn't have the name, like this one -> File:Senayan_City_Interior4.jpg.And my intention is not deleting but fixing the issue one way or another.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 01:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I was just pointing my main issue out, as I did with the ribbon drawing I did you tagged for source issues. Anyways, keep up the good work, but just keep an eye out on the things I mentioned. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

More about images
Is it really necessary to put two notices for each images as you did here? The warnings are practically identical, all of which I fixed by simply adding one simple sentence. -- llywrch (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Verfolgter Jude.jpg
 Chzz  ►  00:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Commons transfer
Please see. The main problem with the state you left it in was the broken geograph tag. I think this arises from the move to Commons tool you used. Try using CommonsHelper 2 instead.

(And you could also suggest to that they upload directly to the Commons. that would pre-empt the problem!) &mdash; RHaworth  16:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Pauline Druiff.jpg
"A tag has been placed on File:Pauline Druiff.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia".

Would have been helpful if you had listed the article that this referred to? As the file itself is meaningless to me? Please remember in future to make proper references to what you are deleting as it can be impossible to rectify a teenagers over zealous deletion. The only picture I can think of that you may have deleted did actually have permission to be used + evidence of such was given to the satisfaction of Wiki guidelines. If it does turn out you have deleted such a file in error then you will be required to rectify the situation.--Pandaplodder (talk) 10:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears i nominated the file under F9, I only nominate under this criteria when i find a image without a OTRS ticket taken from a website and that has a different license on the website then on wikipedia ex: wikipedia license creative commons BY-SA-2.0 and the source CC-BY-NC-SA-2.0 or CC-BY-ND-2.0 or All Rights Reserved ,etc. I am not a administrator so i can't see the image page detail or history and i cant tell what was exactly was the issue you can ask a admin for details or appeal the delete, more info at Deletion review--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 11:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Improper image deletion tagging
Please carefully read the information on the image pages as I've found more than one today (in less than 15 images, too) that were improperly tagged for deletion. All of them had the information you tagged them as not having. I really appreciate all your work, but looking at your recent history, it appears that you have been doing a lot of improper tagging lately. This creates unnecessary work for others, and is not a good thing. If you aren't sure about an image, please ask before going on a tagging spree. I'll be glad to help you if I can. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Tagged image file
Hi there. You tagged up File:RLampitt_Pelagra_recovery.jpg as being non-free content. I contacted the file's original creator and got formal (electronic) confirmation that it was a free image; previously I just had verbal confirmation. Anyway, I've forwarded this along to the permissions-en address but I've yet to hear anything in return and the deletion tags are still on the image. Should I remove these? --P LUMBAGO 09:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Source link rot
You have a very good idea. I really don't know how such a system would work, but I'm sure that one could be done, and your comparison to the flickrreview system at Commons is potentially useful. Please propose it at the village pump for proposals. Nyttend (talk) 15:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Image speedy delete?
I am quite puzzled by this sequence of notices. Permission is clearly stated and granted by the image uploader. Thanks in advance.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА  ►talk 13:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It lacks any form of attribution or source not even "my image" or "by me" or "by uploader".--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 13:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Isn't that stated by "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following licenses:"? There's only one individual involved, that is, the person who uploaded the file. Perhaps something less drastic than threatening deletion with a drop dead deadline with no confirmation the user even read the notice is in order, no? These sort of deletion threats in lieu of a conversation is the kind of thing that discourages WP participants.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА  ►talk 15:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You are correct, Peters Vecrumba. When the uploader states that HE/SHE, THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER of this work publish it under the following license, that should erase any doubt that the uploader is claiming copyright on the work and publishing it. I strongly concur, that speedy deletion is completely inappropriate, and stuns the growth of the WikiPedia project. Best Regards, Porfirio Alejandro Diaz Barba aka Intersofia (talk) 15:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

SnakebyWhicky1978
The picture is entirely mine and I want it deleted. whicky1978talk 01:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The various images of mine that you listed for deletion
I have been offline from WP for a while. All of the images related to Tunbridge VT that you listed for deletion (and were subsequently removed) were taken by my wife Erin M. Gooch of Tunbridge VT - she agreed I should use them, hence my posting them with that copyright tag. How that is any more unverifiable/ reliable than relying upon a claim that I took them is beyond me. But anyway - if there is someway that they can be restored this explanation could be appended.

Do with this what you will. Mickmaguire (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry to hear that, the procedure is to go to Requests_for_undeletion and request the file be undeleted.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 16:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, IngerAlHaosului, I believe you must be more careful before you tag images for speedy deletion. Intersofia (talk) 12:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

nominating images for speedy deletion
Please stop nominating the images in the Valley Entertainment Monthly article for deletion. The photo of Stanley was provided by his widow and the shots of the paper itself fall within the fair use clause of Wikipedia. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 18:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

You have also marked several of the images I created and uploaded regarding Australian locations for deletion, which I believe contained sufficient detail on their authorship and copyright free licensing. Please desist. Some of these images I contributed over 6 years ago and are still valid for the articles that linked to them. My ability to watch my wikipedia contributions may have declined, but I still visit and contribute on an occasional basis. --Takver (talk) 05:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * sorry about that but your attributions were confusing, there was no way for me to guess that Tirin = www.takver.com at least not without looking at your user page and back then i went on a tagging spree, tagging anything that even appeared looked suspicions. I got over that and i am paying more attention now. --IngerAlHaosului (talk) 08:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:IT 1971-09-09 B-IT-Volume-1 Iss-112 020-clip.jpg
Hi! I think you may have missed the reply I posted on this topic. The reply was: Email forwarded to  as requested. --wayland (talk) 23:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

--wayland (talk) 06:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've moved this message from higher up in the page where it might've been overlooked.

Re: Possibly unfree File:Tyumen Muravlenko Monument GiproTNG.jpg
I'm Romuald A. Nagaev http://www.panoramio.com/user/1807604

Also I'm Head of PR and Marketing Service Giprotyumennftegaz JCS by V.I. Muravlenko with authority to represent firm as an official information source.

http://www.gtng.ru/main.php?s=contacts

> A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Tyumen Muravlenko Monument GiproTNG.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia: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 the discussion if you > are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --IngerAlHaosului (talk) 06:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Romualdas Arm (talk) 09:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * according to Russian copyright law you cannot take a picture or movie of a peace of art with out the authors consent, so if you own the copyright for the bust or have written permision from the copyright holder that he agrees to release under the license specified by you, no problem.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 12:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

RE
Well... as I'm the author I probably have a written Permission... :) I do not know how to remove unclear status from Picture.

P.S: I do not like to set (c) for my pictures as Romualdas Arm while Nick name has no legal status by Russian law unless it's copyrighted trade mark owned by a firm, in the same time I do not see any way to associate Nickname in WIKI profile with Real Name while there are no space for personal Data for administrative use... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Romualdas Arm (talk • contribs) 03:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I need a admin or experienced editor to help me answering this.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 03:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If you think you have the ability to grant license for the file, then you need to email OTRS with information so that a permanent record can be retained. They will guide you through the process. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 05:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

File:FineArtsJournal.jpg
I've added the url - will that do it? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 19:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Flag of the Pakistani Army 200px-border.png
Howdy! I was about to mark this file for deletion, (i.e. ), but I see you've labelled it. I really don't care one way or the other - the choice is yours. Do you want it deleted or copied to commons? (Please advise.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ???? Are you sure you are thinking of this file? If you check the history i only tagged this file with MTC http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Flag_of_the_Pakistani_Army_200px-border.png&action=history --IngerAlHaosului (talk) 15:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm sure. I am talking about File:Flag of the Pakistani Army 200px-border.png
 * I created the file in order to solve a problem.
 * I subsequently found another (easier/better) way to solve the problem.
 * During this time, you marked the file to be moved to commons.
 * Now that I've found a better solution, the file is no longer needed, so I came back to delete it.
 * But I noticed you have flagged it for move to commons.
 * My question is:
 * Shall I mark it for deletion? Or,
 * Shall I leave it alone and let it be moved to Commons?
 * Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed the MTC tag.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 16:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Cheers ww2censor (talk) 16:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Help with images
Hi

I hope you can help me with the images you've flagged for deletion. It's a while since I've uploaded images to Wikipedia and I think I know what I've done wrong. Although I have put the OTRS permission, I was not able to find the 'GNU Free Documentation License' in the Licensing pull down section so didn't select anything. Is there something else that has taken it's place? If so, how do I add this to the images already created. Thanks for your help. VAwebteam (talk) 19:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Pictures
You recently added a message about some pictures I uploaded for the Albany Parks & Recreation I had retrieved them from the parks departments website. They are take by memebers of the department. I cited they were government public domain with the upload process. I haven't really done the photo thing before so I am still learning the process. You stated I needed addition information to satify you on them so I added an extra line in their summory, it reads:

"This picture was retrived from and belongs to Albany Parks & Recreation by whom it was created and if public domain. http://www.cityofalbany.net/parks/parks.php"

Not sure if that is what your looking for and I am not quite sure what else you would need. if there is more please let me know as I don't want to see them be deleted.MathewDill (talk) 20:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thor's Battle Armor
I noticed the generic template you copied and pasted on my talk page... Assuming you care, what do i have to specify??? NitroMan3941 (talk) 01:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Just so you know, it's a scan from my copy of Thor #378.. But honestly, i don't think you care; You probably just sited it so you can get commemorated with some (meaningless) online wiki award, but that is irrelevant to me whatever your reason is, be it legitimate or not. I don't mean to sound aggressive, i just find it lazy whenever someone sends me a generic template because they hardly ever half make sense... No offense. NitroMan3941 (talk) 02:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and not to mention you nominated my scan for deletion before you contacted me. Not very friendly if you ask me. NitroMan3941 (talk) 02:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

subrosa union file deletion
hey you said that the subrosa union picture i uploaded is missing correct copyright information. I was just wondering what information I need because I got it from their website. Thanks Mjbfhs7 (talk) 20:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)Mjbfhs7

Ok thanks! Mjbfhs7 (talk) 19:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Mjbfhs7

Journal picture uploads
You nominated two journal pictures for speedy deletion. However, i have found the correct copyright information. It is: Licensing:

{ {Non-free magazine cover} }

[ [Category :Academic journal covers] ]

Can you re-upload the pictures so that i can change the copyrights?

User:AlanAbery User talk:AlanAbery 10:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

PS: PLEASE REPLY ON MY TALK PAGE!

file F9
This files are derivative works of the toys with are derivative works of the anime, he needs both the permission of the toys manufacturer and the anime author. File:VF-1S-Strike-Valkyrie-02.jpg, File:VF-1S-Strike-Valkyrie-01.jpg,File:VF-1S-Strike-Valkyrie-03.jpg --IngerAlHaosului (talk) 16:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have notified the uploader of your concerns, based on Template:Non-free 3d art, and I will watch the files in question...so we'll see if he does something to fix the licenses. Ks0stm  If you reply here, please leave me a  message on my talk page. 17:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. —DoRD (talk) 12:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Need some advice
On commons there are currently 3700+ images licensed under cc-sa-1.0 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:CC-SA-1.0 and 14.500 cc-by-sa-1.0 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:CC-BY-SA-1.0. Unlike version 2.0+ this cannot be combined with files under newer versions.I want to propose a license migration similar to the GFDL one how do i do this???--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 18:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, no such migration is possible. If a file is licensed under a specific license and nothing else, only the copyright holder can relicense it under some other license. The GFDL license migration was only possible because the text of Wikipedia was licensed under GFDL 1.2 "or any later version", which allowed the use of the new GFDL 1.3 which allowed th migration. Algebraist 18:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

You review of the move of Katsuyo Sampo image to Commons
You recently "reviewed" the move of File:Seki Kowa Katsuyo Sampo Bernoulli numbers.png to Commons. You approved the deletion of the original page, with its description, but you did not notice that the description and the other metainformation had been seriously garbled by the editor who performed the move. (.) This lack of attention is causing me considerable trouble to correct. If you continue to review moves, please try to be more attentive in the future.

Thank you. —Mark Dominus (talk) 13:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I hope you do since we need users to check the images :-) Anyway I came here to give you a tip. I did some extra edits on one of the images you reviewed . It was not own work but "own crop". Not even sure if we should credit the uploader as author. But now there is a clear link to the uncropped file. I asume that the original uploader is Ryan. --MGA73 (talk) 12:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Reviewed file
Hi! I noticed this image File:Centennialphoto.jpg. The license on en-wiki is "PD" but on Commons it is cc-by-3.0. The license on Commons should be fixed. --MGA73 (talk) 22:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I also fixed this one . There was no message who the author was. That should be added on Commons before file is deleted. --MGA73 (talk) 13:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I noticed that the license here was not quite the same as on the file on en-wiki . It is best to correct the license to the most specific one. --MGA73 (talk) 15:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Atlas larvae.jpg
Hi! The image you reviewed is taken from the Internet. Do you by any chance know where the copyright status of the images can be found? --MGA73 (talk) 15:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * tx. for spotting it.

File:1562-Diego Gutiérrez.jpg
1562-Diego Gutiérrez.jpg is an  Old Map  in our United States of America Library of our Congress possession which is in the public domain and may freely be used and clipped.  Old Maps  copy right have long expired or never had a copy right do to great age. Library of Congress public domain passes to clips from same. I clipped from our Federal Government's House of Representatives and Senate's Library which is free of copy right, public domain, old map. These  Clips  follow USA Congress' public domain declaration by default. Credit Line: Library of Congress, Geography and Map Division, Rights and Reproductions, was added. Thank you kindly for your attention and diligent work on WIKI. Conaughy (talk) 18:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

License and original upload log
Hi! I noticed this image for example: File:N 6th Ring Rd.jpg. The license is not exactly the same which it should be. Also there is no original upload log. If the uploadlog is not there the original upload date might be missing and that is important because of the license migration project. Therefore adding a original upload log is a fast and easy way to make sure that everything is ok.

You can add it by using http://toolserver.org/~magnus/commonshelper.php and do a "simulated transfer". Just pretend to transfer the image and when you get the text you can copy paste it to the image on commons and do the needed adjustments (like checking if the "old" description and categories is better that the ones commonshelper creates etc.) You can see an example of an edit here. It is possible to import a script so you can do it with one (or two) click(s) only (User:MGA73/vector.js). --MGA73 (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)