User talk:Iruka13/Archives/2023

Titan Submersible image
Hey! I noticed that you removed this image of Titan and replaced it with this one from commons. Discussions here and here have showcased that consensus is against including the latter, with it being a 3D model that does not adequately illustrate the submersible. — Knightof  theswords  19:41, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. Removed my template from the image. — Ирука13 22:17, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:MCQ § WP:NFCC#3 concern on File:Honnêamise World Map.jpg
You are invited to join the discussion at WP:MCQ § WP:NFCC#3 concern on File:Honnêamise World Map.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Speedy delete tagging for copyright violations
Hi,

I see you have been tagging files that are copyright violations using G12. File copyright violations actually fall under F9. Please use that going forward. Thanks for your efforts in flagging copyright violations. -- Whpq (talk) 17:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out the inconsistency. — Ирука13 17:23, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

About the single cover of Luiz Ejlli's "Me ty"
Hey! Just noticed that at the filepage of the cover of "Me ty", you marked the file to be in public domain in the US due to consisting of simply text (and the small watermark logo of Acromax Media GmbH). I wanted to ask you if by any chance you know if it is okay for a high-quality version of the cover to replace the current image since it is not protectable by copyright in US (when this Wikipedia is operated at)? :) GrafiXal (talk) 06:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello. If I'm right and the cover art is indeed in the public domain (including the simple logo mark), then you can replace it with a higher quality image. Be bold. — Ирука13 12:58, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh okay. Thanks! GrafiXal (talk) 16:15, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Speedway cigarette cards
Hi Iruka13, Re-Arthur Atkinson motorcycle speedway rider, John Player and Sons 1937 cigarette card.png, I mentioned 50 years because of the copyright for Anonymous works:50 years from the date made available to the public (which was 1937). Does this not make it OK in the USA as well as being OK for Europe. Have I got this wrong? Please advise because I have the whole collection which I am going to upload and wish to use the correct licensing tags. Many thanks for your help. Pyeongchang (talk) 20:08, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi. First of all, I changed the template, as it contradicted the second one, which says about 70 years (where did you get information about 50 years?).
 * Since I started working in this direction not so long ago, you'd better ask for help on WP:IMAGEHELP. — Ирука13 20:53, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you didn't read the last 6 paragraph of the answer on WP:IMAGEHELP: the image is free in UK, but not free in US. It needs to be relicenses as non-free. — Ирука13 22:47, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Information
Hello. Thanks for telling me this information. But I didn't do it with any bad intention. I hope you can understand me. Γιάννης Ευαγγελίου (talk) 10:54, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Signature issue
Per WP:CUSTOMSIG/P, signatures are required to have an "easily identified link" to the user's talk page. Yours links solely to your user page. I'd recommend switching the entirety of the current signature to link to the user page and adding a talk link after that. Either way, it should be tweaked to comply with the rules, thanks. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:30, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * My signature matches to WP:SIG. WP:CUSTOMSIG/P is a recommendation, not a rule, since there is no policy section above it. — Ирука13 05:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but WP:GUIDES still states that "editors should attempt to follow guidelines", with occasional common sense exceptions. Therefore, I must ask what the reason for an exception would be in this case given the emphasis on collaboration in Wikipedia. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:16, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No reason. My signature does not interfere with the vast majority of contributors and has a link to my talk page/user page/my contribution. — Ирука13 07:46, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I recommend being a little more careful tagging image with maybe free media
Hi, I noticed that you've been doing a lot of good work in correct the licenses of logos that are too simple for copyright protection. But I recommend being more careful, as you've tagged some logos with Maybe free media that are very likely complex enough to be eligible for copyright protection. These are examples of edits I think are useful: These are some I wouldn't recommend tagging: You're only tagging things as maybe free media, but also, it's not beneficial to add lots of unlikely candidates to this list.
 * File:Vibrant Arena at The MARK logo.svg
 * File:Logo-imalive.png
 * File:Mélisse logo.png
 * File:Sushi Zo logo.png
 * File:FK Sumperk logo.png
 * File:NCUE seal.svg
 * File:National Pingtung University logo.svg
 * File:Cal Poly Humboldt Lumberjacks logo.png

The Commons page c:Threshold of originality has a good guide for what falls under copyright and what is ineligible. Also, WP:Media copyright questions is a good place to ask questions. I hope that helps. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 20:44, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi. First of all, thanks for the feedback. I think I understood the line you wanted to show. And henceforth I will pay a little more attention to this point.
 * The manual you link to is exactly the manual I used until I felt the difference between "original" and "not very"; at least I thought I felt. In addition, I was guided precisely by your work in this direction, including the content of Category:Possibly free images ... However, now, after your mention and I re-viewed the images in it, I see this pattern.
 * It would also help me if you could provide some links to community solutions (decisions) on other cases in addition to those already in COM:TOO. And yes, I already follow WP:FFD and WP:MCQ.
 * The ball is a problem in the FK Sumperk logo.png? — Ирука13 23:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm really happy to hear that my work inspired you. I'm glad you already have those resources available. Unfortunately, I don't have a great list of debates over originality. Another source is the US Copyright Office list of appeals.
 * Yes, in my opinion, the ball is the problem in File:FK Sumperk logo.png. I could be wrong, but I generally avoid anything with even moderately complex drawings. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 04:12, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I looked through several hundred "football" files on Commons until I came across this discussion; thought you'd be interested. And here is the oldest and relatively frequently used file with the ball .. although it was not taken out for deletion. — Ирука13 02:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That's good. Feel free to change it then, if you agree with that discussion. I'm personally conservative with making license changes but I don't have anything against people going farther if there's a discussion to back it up. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 14:25, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

You can just change the license of images, you don't need to tag them with Maybe free media first
I see you tagging a lot of images with Maybe free media, including very obvious cases like File:Sofa.com Logo.jpg. So I just want to inform you, in case you weren't aware, that when you come across things ineligible for copyright, especially if it's very obvious, that you don't need to add Maybe free media. If you'd like, you can just change the license. Once again, thanks for all your help. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 15:13, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * My train of thought is: if you don't have time to change license now, but you can tag it, then:
 * 1) it will put it in a category that people sometimes work in;
 * 2) give some confidence to those who doubt whether to change the license or not (in simple cases).
 * Should I not do this? Could this be bothering someone? — Ирука13 19:24, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Your train of thought is correct. Don't stop tagging images. If you see an image, you think the license can be changed, and you have time to change it, go ahead. But if you'd rather concentrate on tagging images, just tag it. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 19:42, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

File:AnnaGyurics.png
Hi Iruka13. Just wanted to let you know that small errors on file description pages don't require a trip to FfD. This is a wiki after all, so please don't hesitate to be bold :) Thanks,  F ASTILY   02:48, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Fastily. No changes have been made to the file. The file is still at FfD, without a single comment. You also didn't tell me what these "small errors" were. — Ирука13 03:46, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * In the FfD, you say "The file should be relicensed as PD-old-assumed". You can do that without starting an FfD.  -  F ASTILY   05:02, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Technically yes, I could. But I see that here many, in my opinion, obvious questions are submitted to the FfD and no one has any objections to this. Also, I'm new here (with low knowledge of English), and some cases I want to run through the FfD in order to be able to act more boldly in the future. P.S. Besides, if everything was so simple and obvious, why was it necessary to relisting the nomination? — Ирука13 05:14, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If you have questions about the copyright status of a file, please use MCQ and not FfD.  I also disagree with the re-list, this should not have happened, I will be following up with the individual that did this.  -  F ASTILY   10:52, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, how does "FfD" stand for? What is written on his main page in the blue table under item 9? — Ирука13 11:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * And directly underneath that, there's a link to MCQ. In practice, MCQ gets more traffic than FfD.  If you actually care about getting help, then use MCQ.  Thanks,   F ASTILY   11:26, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Trout
Regards, Thinker78  (talk) 00:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Wolfwood
the picture indicates it's artwork from the Trigun Maximum manga Tintor2 (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I can ask a lot of things to write on a bank card. — Ирука13 15:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Heaney Finders Keepers cover
Hi, you marked the Heaney Finders Keepers cover with the tag and was wondering why you think it is so? Book covers, unless in the public domain, are copyrighted material. See WP:FUC for more info on the criteria on non-free content. 123Writer talk 08:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi. I tagged File:Heaney Finders Keepers cover.jpg because I didn't think it was complex enough to be copyrighted. — Ирука13 12:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Why do you think the file can't be relicensed as PD-ineligible-USonly? What do you think is rather non-trivial in this image? — Ирука13 12:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Even in the US, the creativity of the different typefaces and modifications to individual characters make it, in my opinion, above TOO. If you disagree, maybe take it to WP:FFD. –  I s o chrone (T) 12:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

NHHC images
Hey, just a heads up, but I've reverted your edits to a few dozen images from the NHHC just now. Happy to discuss further, but the template you used isn't valid. The images are all PD in the US, but not because they were taken by employees of the US Navy (at least that can be proved, anyway). Parsecboy (talk) 13:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Why are they PD? — Ирука13 14:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There are several reasons. The Farenholt images were either taken or obtained commercially by Farenholt himself (a US Navy officer) - some of those would fall into the PD-USgov-Military-Navy category, but unfortunately, the NHHC doesn't differentiate between the two. As an example, this photo was taken by someone else and simply obtained by Farenholt. Another, larger bucket of images (probably most of those in the NHHC collection) were collected by ONI for intelligence purposes. Of those, some were taken directly by naval attaches (for example, Robert Neeser, who was a naval attache in France during World War I and who amassed a collection of hundreds of photos of French, allied, and Central Powers warships during that period - those again would fall under the USGov category). Others were obtained commercially (so in other words, they had been published in a relevant period and would fall into PD-US-expired-abroad, like this one). Others, like this one likely were taken by US Navy employees, but the source doesn't explicitly say so so we can't assume. All that is to say, because the situation is messy and the NHHC doesn't do a good job of detailing specific images, the PD-because tag with their general disclaimer is a better solution. Parsecboy (talk) 16:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Some of the naval images you upload to Commons, some to Wikipedia. Why? — Ирука13 09:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't upload anything to Commons; I don't like their interface. The images I've uploaded that are on Commons now have been moved by others (whether rightly or wrongly in some cases). Parsecboy (talk) 11:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I looked at Commons for several dozen images with the "NHHC" template. None of them have this template as the only one that determines the license status of the file. — Ирука13 10:12, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know what point you're making. The vast majority of the images that use that template are of US ships and so PD-USgov-Military-Navy applies. From a quick skim, many of the ones that are of foreign vessels are incorrectly labeled on Commons. For example: File:HMS_Agincourt_in_the_North_Sea_1915.jpg falsely claimed to be the work of the USN, as does File:German battleship Hessen passing under the Levensau Bridge while transiting the Kiel Canal, circa 1925-1934 (NH 88049).jpg, as does File:German torpedo boat cutting through the battle line during the First World War.jpg. Parsecboy (talk) 11:59, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The analogue of your XXX is NHHC on Commons. If you were to upload images to Commons, you would have to use the actual license template. — Ирука13 14:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I see no reason why that is the case. Parsecboy (talk) 21:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Declined speedy deletion: File:Fernando de Córdoba monument.png
I have declined your G12 for File:Fernando de Córdoba monument.png. Given the age of this photo, it is not unambiguously a copyright violation. If you believe it is copyrighted, you will need to nominate it at FFD and make your case there. -- Whpq (talk) 21:14, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * F3. — Ирука13 21:57, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, my mistake, it was tagged F3, but the reason for the decline remains. F3 would apply only if the image was still copyrighted which is not clear. Whpq (talk) 23:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Re: File:VCT Valorant Champions Tour Logo 2023.png
Hey there! I tagged the image PD-ineligible-USonly based on previous years' logos being tagged the same (see File:2022 Valorant Champions logo.svg). Please let me know what you think the correct tag should be. daylon124 (talk) 23:11, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi. I don't know which tag would be the right one; most likely PD-ineligible-USonly. Please do not put both free and non-free licensed templates on file description pages at the same time. — Ирука13 23:47, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Logo image on BabyJake
Hey, thanks for correcting my recent edit on BabyJake. I was wondering if there is any parameter I can use to add a logo to the article's infobox. I am relatively sure I have seen similar logos on other bands' articles. Thanks! SaltieChips (talk) 11:38, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi. I'm not very familiar with human and musical templates, but looking now, I didn't find the line "logo" in them.
 * Yes, in articles about groups of musicians it is permissible to place a logo in the "image" line, but not in articles about people. Moreover, other Wikis have a separate template for bands that has both of these options. — Ирука13 12:40, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussion before deletion of the article
Hi, As you have given the notice of speedy deletion of the file File:Bartaman logo (1).svg, as the editor of this file, I request you to kindly start the discussion in which please involve other administrators and reviewers for this file whether it would be deleted or to be kept. I can't figure out that why continuously this file is been targeted for speedy deletion. I have absolutely uploaded this file on my own and there is no copyright issue with it. This file has been modified from the same file that you have uploaded and I have also given the necessary details like source, author, year of creation etc. So I request you to start the discussion for this article and until and unless please do not add any deletion message to this article. It's my humble request to you. Hope you will understand.

Thanks & Regards. VNC200 (talk) 09:08, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * We have already done all this. — Ирука13 09:21, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Please add a separate discussion page for this file only and until and unless any decision is made from the discussion, please remove the speedy deletion page and add a simple deletion page. VNC200 (talk) 09:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive image nominations
Many of your nominations at WP:FFD do not seem to be based on policies or guidelines. For example, today you a PD-self image on the basis that it had "art" in the filename, thus making it a "derivative work". You also nominated a separate image, a still frame from a movie, on the basis that it was "screenshot from movie, not a photo". Yesterday, you for deletion on the basis that it "only entered the public domain in 2006". The current year is 2023. 2006 was seventeen years ago. The claims you are making do not seem to be based in any policy, or even to be physically possible; I would strongly recommend you familiarize yourself with copyright policies and guidelines before making nominations like these. jp×g 21:51, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Double-checking before nominating for deletion
Hi Iruka, hope you're well. I just noticed, because I watchlist the uploader's talk, that you nominated File:Elgin-WWII.jpg as an F11. However, the uploader wasn't a third party -- Carrite and Tim Davenport are the same person, as he discloses on his userpage. It's important to double-check these cases, because a lot of editors use their real names in image descriptions while uploading under their pseudonymous usernames, and deletion notifications for these can result in frustration. Vaticidalprophet 02:13, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Vaticidalprophet. I don't have to do more research. All the necessary information must be on the file description page. Return my template to its place or I will be forced to transfer the file to FfD. — Ирука13 02:21, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Please be mindful that making large volumes of deletion nominations without verifying that your rationales are valid consumes significant amounts of other editors' time and accomplishes nothing. jp×g 22:40, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

File:The Internationale French.mp3
I noticed that you tagged File:The Internationale French.mp3 saying that the file violates the non-free guidelines; but here is the thing: this version of The Internationale is in the public domain. The melody composed by Pierre De Geyter was published in 1888 in France; which is before July 1, 1909 in the United States. It has been in the public domain in France since October 2017 due to the copyright expiring including extensions from both World Wars; and it has been in the public domain in the United States since its copyright term (the life of the author plus 80 years or less) has expired. This version also contains the original French lyrics which were written in 1871 by Eugene Pottier; Pottier died in 1887; as a result these lyrics are also in the public domain. Is it somehow possible you could maybe remove the current tag and move the file to Wikimedia Commons? Brainyshark03 14:12, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The file is marked as non-free by the uploader. If you believe a file is free, you can change its license yourself or even upload it to Commons. — Ирука13 06:11, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Brainyshark03 13:10, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

File:Bartaman logo 2023.png listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bartaman logo 2023.png, has been listed at Files for discussion. 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.

''' This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. ''' Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

File:Sydspissen,_Troms%C3%B8,_1956.jpg
To Your last comment on the file before the discussion was closed:

(wrongly I belive, as User:JPxG did produce a valid PD-declaration)

Your comment "On what basis do you conclude that copyright lasts 25 years in cases where photographs were taken for hire?"

The Norwegian law was changed in 1995/96 an what happens before that is according to older law.

From my memory on that topic, an agency-copyright would last a reasonable time, and then the material would be in the public domain. I belive (Yes, i know, i belive) that period was 25 year at the time.

The agency, as part of business model, would "keep the plate", they controlled the physical negative and god copies could only be gotten from the agency. Whatever copyright-time there was.

At the the source URL here searches can be made. The image given have several versions, also some almost like negatives.

Both the copyrighet side of this case (=PD) and the physical ownership of the material today (govermental from private agency) points to that the right to make copies can be done without hinder of copyright law.

There might be som "Right to be named" -rights. So naming Lie-Svendsen would not be wrong.

The file is deleted in EN:WP. I am not going to war on that. Andrez1 (talk) 12:31, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I see that images are regularly keep here without evidence of publication on the basis of “looks like a photo from a newspaper”, etc. But it doesn’t seem to me that “there seemed to be such a law” is a sufficient reason for keeping the file. — Ирука13 12:42, 17 September 2023 (UTC)


 * There once was such a law. Nobody is claiming that there is a copyright connected to the image. The eventual death of the photograper is not relevant on this. As I am not going to war on that. I leave it there. Andrez1 (talk) 13:30, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You should have provided a link to the law immediately during the discussion, quoted it.
 * You can still recover the file via WP:REFUND. — Ирука13 13:37, 17 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I belive the link was there, in the discussion. Not quoted. The descision ask for something that was provided. I leave it at that. Andrez1 (talk) 19:00, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see in the discussion a link to the information you provided. — Ирука13 06:36, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * https://urn.nb.no/URN:NBN:no-nb_digifoto_20170830_00015_NB_MIT_KNR_06309 is cearly marked as "Tillatelse" "Du kan kopiere, endre, spre, vise og fremføre dette verket, selv for kommersielle formål, uten å spørre om tillatelse." with a Public Domain flag to it.
 * Old law and dead photographers do not matter in this. Andrez1 (talk) 12:33, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "On what basis do you conclude that copyright lasts 25 years in cases where photographs were taken for hire?" -- link. — Ирука13 12:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It does not matter for the delted image. But. here is the old "Lov om rett til fotografi" translates to "Law on the right to photography",  valid 1960-1995. In its §13, the last sentence is stated " Når ein juridisk person har laga eit fotografisk bilete, fell eineretten bort 25 år etter utgangen av det året då biletet vart offentleggjort.​" That translates to " When a legal person has created a photographic image, the exclusive right expires 25 years after the end of the year in which the image was made public.​​"
 * The "Mittet & Co AS", the image-agency is in this case such a "legal person". Anything published by that entity in 1956 will be in the free, Public Domain, in 1982.
 * My point is that several ways lead to the conclusion that this is in the Public Domain. Andrez1 (talk) 15:56, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Regarding File:Gautama_Buddha_statue_at_Kyaikto,_Myanmar_(1).jpg
The photo was originally taken by me on 2019 and uploaded to Commons as c:File:Gautama Buddha statue at Kyaikto, Myanmar.jpg since 2020 and used on mywiki article. Later, the files were deleted according Myanmar's new copyright law. The source you mentioned was probably taken from commons before deletion. here is the original high resolution image which consists full metadata. Cheer! Ninja ✮ Strikers «☎» 09:11, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That's pretty much what I thought. However, you should quickly (and easily) - because you have all the data - resolve this issue with VRT, so that no one has any questions in the future. — Ирука13 09:23, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

File:LMessi.jpg
Hi, Hope you are doing well, Recently I have uploaded a image of Lionel Messi. Is there any mistake on that. Please tell me. Fade258 (talk) 11:48, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Fade258. The image is indexed by search engines much earlier than 2022, so it most likely does not belong to the author of the page you took it from. Therefore, the likelihood that it is free is low. And, most likely, there will be problems with him it. I recommend setting the c:Template:Db-author on its description page. — Ирука13 12:05, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I will do it. Fade258 (talk) 12:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

About the authorship of File:SvirelyAndGubianuriWithFriends_1993.jpg
Dear Iruka! I noticed that you marked the file for deletion, due to unclear source. The wife of late Temo Svirely, Irina, gave me this photo. It is from their family album. She allowed me to post it on Wikipedia. Please advise, how should I proceed in this case, to make that image acceptable? Andrei — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndreiMikhailov (talk • contribs) 02:33, 23 September 2023 (UTC) --AndreiMikhailov (talk) 03:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello Andrei. The rights to the photo belong to the person who took the photo. When an image is posted on Wikipedia by a person other than the author of the image, written consent from the author is required. You can find out more about this here. — Ирука13 10:06, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

About File:Al-zaytun-stadion-palagan-agung.jpg
Hello Iruka, what do you think about the continuation of this file problem? I have added again regarding whether this file can be replaced or not. This is a problem caused by machine translation. Moreover, if there are already free files that can be used, these files can be deleted. Your sincerely, ▪︎ Fazoffic  ( ʖ╎ᓵᔑ∷ᔑ ) 09:36, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello Fazoffic. I think the same as on the day the template was installed - the stadium is not destroyed and can be photographed any day (WP:NFCC#1). — Ирука13 09:54, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmmm...So, this file will still be deleted? ▪︎ Fazoffic  ( ʖ╎ᓵᔑ∷ᔑ ) 11:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Most likely. — Ирука13 12:05, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

RFU tagging suggestions
Hi Iruka13. Thanks for helping to find and tag non-free images of still-living persons like File:Karen Huger BET Awards 2023.jpeg and File:Sutton Stracke 2019.jpeg that clearly fail WP:FREER. There's not too many people checking on those types of files these days so it can be a bit hard to keep up with the speed that they're being uploaded. I do have suggestion though when it comes to tagging such files. If you set the help parameter to on when using rfu, you'll find another template (deletable file-caption) that you can add to the captions of files you're tagging. It's one more step so to speak, but it helps others besides the uploader know that the file has been tagged for speedy deletion. If the infobox where the file is being used has no caption parameter, you can always add one and then add the template. If you're technically unable to do that, you can always add di-replaceable non-free use-notice (with some minor tweaking of wording) to the article talk pages where the file is being used. These extra steps are optional for sure, but doing such things can help mitigate any after-the-fact complaints about non-free files being tagged for speedy deletion without proper notification from users other than the uploader.Another suggestion is to check the recent file upload histories of user whose files you've tagged as rfu, particularly if you've tagged more than one. Some users (in good faith) upload a number of similiar files within a short period of time, and in many cases they also have non-free issues. For example, you found the two above files uploaded by, but the same user also uploaded a few other files which failed FREER; one of them was even from Getty which meant it was eligible for immediate speedy deletion. So, if you come accross multiple rfu files from the same uploader, there's a good chance that they probably upload some others as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC) It seems like I managed to structure the mess in my head, and my best answer would be: “Imagine what will happen if ImageTaggingBot will respond with "Deletable file-caption" template.” If that's not enough, add Commons here. In more detail: in obvious cases, when the file will definitely be deleted, they are not needed. Also, there is little point in installing them when delayed removal takes less than 5 days - not many people who will have time to react. It should also be borne in mind that at least two people decided that the file did not comply with the rules: myself and the administrator - an extremely competent editor. Further. Any file can be recovered. Most can be uploaded again. Most editors, including experienced ones, have little understanding of licenses and WP:NFC. Setting this template is polite, but ineffective.
 * Hi Marchjuly.
 * I have 2.5 bans for harassing users on 3 projects. Now I prefer to minimize the number of interventions in the work of each individual participant. — Ирука13 15:43, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics
Andrew🐉(talk) 09:39, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Images
Iruka, Commons has a toxic editing community and its editors are insanely overly litigious about nearly every upload I make. If I wish to instead upload to Wikipedia, I have that right. I do not want to engage with Commons and thus I should be able to request that. Please, as another human being, respect my wishes not to be harassed, and to engage with the project that I choose to. ɱ (talk) 15:00, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

There is a simply unacceptable level of paranoia over copyright. Not only for photos I upload from other photographers, but I've had my own photos deleted simply because they show a bit too much text, or show a room in an art museum with blank walls or shapes on floors, etc. I've had someone take a name and write a whole genealogical history to attempt to make their own history of who took the photograph and when. It's so much WP:OR, and people will dive into insane rabbit-holes and waste hours of my time just to frustrate me and remove things I took time to document. If this attitude changes there ever, please let me know. I can only imagine it'll continue to get worse. ɱ (talk) 15:16, 24 August 2023 (UTC)


 * @Ɱ (comment of a talk page visitor) well, at least for photos of artworks, enwiki mostly follows the rules of Commons (non-free artworks must be deleted from enwiki), except that potentially-usable photos can be retained but in reduced quality and resolution (to respect artists' copyrights) in accordance with WP:Non-free content guidelines. I also thought before that enwiki is supposed to be a "safe haven" for those "escaping from Commons", but it is not the real case. Safe haven for those only uploading physical buildings of France, Korea, UAE, et cetera (thru enwiki's application of U.S. law only via FoP-USonly), but not those uploading contemporary monuments of Denmark, Taiwan, France, Korea et cetera. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Sanghmitra Maurya
May you please remove the transfer to commons tag as there it would remain with the tag "unreviewed photo of GODL-INDIA for next 10 years. It is sourced from India.gov.in which is a website owned by government of India, yet at commons many people are active who search pretext to get photos deleted or chose to not review it. It is good here at Wikipedia.- Admantine123 (talk) 05:24, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I don’t think the lack of a reviewer’s mark is anything significant, but if you remove the “move to Commons” tag yourself, I will not restore it. — Ирука13 05:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

[[File:PMD Beach.png]]
Hi, I've noticed that you've flagged my file for deletion due to lacking a rationale for free use. I have since reviewed the guidelines on Non-free content criteria, whose "Policy" section gives ten criteria for the use of non-free content. First of all, when I uploaded the file yesterday, I added a description of what game the screenshot comes from, with the text "All rights go to Chunsoft, Nintendo, and the Pokémon Company" to give rights to the copyright holders of content in that game. There is obviously no free equivalent, since the game is from 2008, which is way too new to be in public domain (US copyright protection, for example, extends back nearly 100 years). It's unlikely to hurt the market for Pokémon Mystery Dungeon; to experience the game in full, one has to either buy the game or watch a YouTube video of someone playing it. If anything, seeing this image might make people more willing to buy the game. But that's not the point. I added the image of the beach to help readers understand the article better. On Pokémon Mystery Dungeon: Explorers of Time and Explorers of Darkness, the article to which I am using this image, the first sentence of the "Plot" section reads "The player is washed ashore by a storm and is discovered by the partner ...", and this image serves to reinforce that sentence. The caption also explains that this is the beach where this happens. Seckends (talk) 15:20, 13 October 2023 (UTC)


 * PS: I have now added a non-free use rationale to the page.
 * Thank you. In the future, fill out the description of the files, regardless of whether they are free or not, in as much detail as possible. This will make life much easier for people who visit the file description page. — Ирука13 15:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

TruxtVerified

 * why are you telling "image within an image". Where is this? This is 100% real logo of Star Gold Select Television channel. Don't nominate image for delection without particular reason. TruxtVerified (talk) 12:02, 20 October 2023 (UTC)￼

WXDC-FM Logo
Hi, you asked for on the image, this is literally the source link used on the station's website. So, I'm unsure of what you are asking for. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 19:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Special:Diff/1181709694/1181714726. — Ирука13 19:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I was always told to source the image link and not the corresponding website.  Clearly that rule has changed.  I will update my uploads from here on out accordingly.  Take Care.... Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 19:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, the rule is to include the link to the page. I like to include the link to the page and the image. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 12:00, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you. — Ирука13 18:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

October 2023
Hello, I'm Davest3r08. An edit that you recently made to Beti Bachao Beti Padhao seemed to be a test and has been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Davest3r08 (^ &lowbar; ^) ( t a l k )  17:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Are yoy shure about that? — Ирука13 17:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Question
Hi, I was curious about something. I saw you tagged File:우리말샘.png as possibly free; I was wondering what the rationale is? I'm still a newbie with copyright so I'd like to learn! toobigtokale (talk) 17:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi. This logo looks simple enough to be copyrighted. If another experienced participant thinks the same, he can change the license. No action is required from you. — Ирука13 18:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh; interesting. I knew about that guideline but assume because the font and coloring of the last char was unique maybe it wouldn't pass. I'll defer to whatever other reviewers think though toobigtokale (talk) 20:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)