User talk:Magog the Ogre/Archive 3

Files being threatened with deletion
The first file of mine that you listed and which you have not addressed following my counter to your complaint is being threatened with deletion. 83d40m (talk) 01:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: User:88.210.238.25
Hey Magog, OWNTALK only applies to registered users. Because different people may use IP addresses, it is best practice to keep those talk pages fully intact, both so they can see what has happened before (in case they walk into the middle of an existing block) and so others can more easily review the situation at hand. In this case, 88.* is a purely disruptive user who appears to enjoy pushing editors' buttons, so in my opinion the block is the best option to minimise disruption. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, disregard. I see now that IPs are now apparently allowed to blank their pages. I can't keep up with all the nonsensical changes that get made around here. — Huntster (t @ c) 15:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Meh, I think you might have been on to a decent policy or guideline. No hard feelings: anyone that intent on signing on to WP just to blank their own talk page probably has better things to do than edit. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Possible derivative uploads by User:83d40m
I am receiving no direction regarding how to proceed in order to prevent the deletion of my images that qualify as Florida public documents and you initiated the complaint and participated in the discussion at Possibly unfree files/2010 August 23. I suspect that these images will be deleted today even though I was told that I had two weeks to respond.

May I open those image files, insert the correct template in the license window, delete the notice, and get on with life?

One of my images already has been deleted. How do I make correction to that so that it may be restored? Any help you can give me would be most appreciated. 83d40m (talk) 16:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

PMC-Sierra
Hello Magog,

Looks like we're in a bit of a disagreement over my edits to the PMC-Sierra wikipedia page. Hopefully we can resolve this amicably. I would like to discuss the fact that my edits keep getting deleted. It is my understanding that the focus should be on content and my contributions should not be deleted whether you think the additions are biased or not. In fact all the information I provided as an employee of the company was factual in nature as PMC-Sierra is publicly traded and as an employee I would not be able to post information from www.pmc-sierra.com or other sources unless it was in deed factual. I would really appreciate it if instead of deleting posts you recommend/provide edits so it addresses your concerns that my edits are biased. I would also like to submit the following pages as examples that host similar information on them to my posts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HP and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel. I will now repost my edits and look forward to your contribution to making the page better by providing suggestions and edits as opposed to deleting factual information. If it's a matter of providing more references I would be happy to do so. I look forward to your feedback.

Thank you, Astamour (talk) 21:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I will take a look at the additions shortly. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

File:EzraPound Pavannes.png
Hi, regarding File:EzraPound Pavannes.png, the image is the frontispiece of a book published in the United States in 1918 by Knopf. I have many sources to verify this information. Does it need to have a source added? Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that is the source, it's OK. I was just saying that if the image was *first* published in the US, then we could move the image to commons, and it would be public domain in many countries (see commons:template:PD-US). But if it was first published somewhere else (most likely UK or Germany), then it's only public domain in the US and shouldn't be transfered to commons, which requires images to be public domain in the country of first publishing. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

According to the biographies, first published in New York. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The book was first published in New York (you're sure that wasn't the first American publishing?); was that image first published in that book? Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the biographies describe the photo-shoot, the decision to use the image as the frontispiece for the Knopf edition - which according to the biographies is the first edition. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright I'll make a note there then, thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Closing PUF discussions
When closing PUF discussions, please place puf top below the section header rather than above. A number of admins rely on AnomieBOT to close discussions after they delete the images. The bot cannot tell the difference between "someone put puf top above the section header" and "someone forgot puf bottom", so when it sees puf top (or its substed output) not at the very start of a section it refuses to process the page to avoid possibly screwing it up. Anomie⚔ 01:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh OK sorry. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Anomie⚔ 10:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Free South Paisley
as already specified to another wiki editor, the copyright has long since expired the source is the church records the image was created at the turn of the 20th century as a commission for the then Free South church

Djt1812 (talk) 08:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK I've updated the wording to be a bit clearer: . Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the great edits. :) Definitely appreciate your help! --astamour (talk)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.68.160.241 (talk) 20:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure! Just let any of us know if you have any questions in the future. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hallett House
Hello - regarding the Hallett house image - The image was taken in the late 1800's, and the house itself burned to the ground in 1974, so I think it should not be deleted. PAR (talk) 14:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no issue with the date on the image; the only issue at the moment is the source. You haven't indicated how you came across the image. Can you please explain that on the image page? Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I will dig that up, but I would like to delay the deletion date while I do that. PAR (talk) 23:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You have a week before it will be deleted. If you need more time than that, let me know and I'll reset the timer. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I have added source information and removed the no source tag from the image file. PAR (talk) 15:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Image File:SPAD A2.jpg
Isn't this a bit much?

While I can see that the purging of images with questionable copyright status is useful, and in fact important, the pursuit of this on purely technical grounds, when the age and nature of the image makes it so VERY unlikely there is any question about copyright, seems to be neither useful nor important (except that in many cases it must result in the unnecessary deletion of images and the impoverishment of Wikipedia). Can't you find something better to do.

I was very annoyed by this and let myself rave a bit - delete anything you don't like by all means. But is the "source" given satisfactory? And does this legitimise something that shouldn't have needed it anyway? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 19:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * First, I'm sorry if I've caused you any caused distress, that wasn't the intent: nor was it my intent to do anything that will worsen the project. But is it really necessary to speak that way to me (e.g., this edit summary)? I'll give you an explanation, but I'd like to ask for the courtesy of an apology, as I'm editing in good faith just like you are (I certainly have no right to demand one, but I just would prefer one).


 * In any case, the answer is that all images must have a source. This is not simply lawyering: without this requirement, we've had a huge amount of copyright violations uploaded: to the point that we've instituted a policy that any uploader must indicate where he or she got the image from, or we will delete it. We don't need a ridiculous amount of text: just an indication of where the image came from, so that anyone else can ascertain the copyright status (whether it was from a personal collection, a book, or from the internet).


 * Part of the issue here is that the original copyright tag you used (PD-old-50) doesn't make much sense in this case: neither France (where the image was taken) nor the United States (where Wikimedia holds its images) has a policy of allowing images be in the public domain 50 years after the author's death. As such, I wanted to fix the license, but I couldn't do that without an explanation of how you came across the image. Believe it or not, there are cases where an image taken in 1915 would not be copyright free in the US, so we'd have to delete it.


 * Another issue is that I wanted to figure out if the image is free in its home country of France, because then we can transfer it to Wikimedia Commons (which has stricter requirements then en.wikipedia). If we'd known the author, and he or she had died after 1939 (entirely plausible), then we couldn't transfer to Commons because the image is still under copyright in France. Given what your explanation on the source, however, we can transfer it. This is important because an image on Commons can be used by any of the other 5 languages that have Wikipedia articles on the SPAD A.2.


 * I hope that clarifies anything, and sorry if the explanation was too long. :) Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I was in a stinker of a mood and in considerable physical pain - not feeling a lot better this morning, but I recognise that this is no excuse for that edit summary, at least, for which, of course I unreservedly apologise. On the other hand I must record that I still think that attacking images that are 70, 80, 90 or 100 years old in this way is more than a little silly - especially when there remain so many other (much more recent) examples of doubtful copyright around. Could the BOT used to locate these be modified to take some account of age?? I am also concerned that this item was marked for "speedy deletion" - it could easily have slipped under the radar and disappeared without anyone being aware. This remarkable aeroplane absolutely NEEDS an image, as its layout (a passenger sitting in front of a tractor propeller!) is otherwise pretty unbelievable. I also do not withdraw the idea that the important job of "weeding" images in Wikipedia merits the exercise of a sense of history, as well as ordinary common sense. It really does. Thank you for your patience, anyway, --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * OK thanks first off :). To answer your question, it was marked "speedy" deletion, but "speedy" is really a misnomer. I marked the file, but as stated I stated on the automated message on your talk page, the file didn't actually become eligible for deletion for a while, giving you a period of seven days to find the source. The policy page says "Media files that lack the necessary licensing information may be deleted after being identified as such for seven days if the information is not added." (WP:CSD). The only reason we call it "speedy" deletion is that it doesn't fit neatly into any other category. The only way it could have been deleted is if you didn't check your talk page for 7 days, at which time you could have just reuploaded it again with the right information.


 * The edit was not made by a bot, the edit was made by me. I've been relicensing all the images in Category:Author died more than 50 years ago public domain images because literally 99% of them are mistagged with PD-old-50. I can't retag the image if I don't know where it came from. And because it's policy (a good policy, IMO) for us to require each image uploaded to have a source, I marked it as no source. Again, if you read above, there are rare cases in which the image you uploaded isn't public domain in the US, and there are cases which are not rare in which the image you uploaded isn't public domain outside the US. For example, someone in France needed to know that this is a anonymous work, otherwise they couldn't reuse it as public domain. So I guess I disagree with your definition of "common sense."


 * Does that answer your concerns? If not, please respond again.


 * PS. this policy was in effect when you uploaded your image, and that policy was stated on the upload form you used. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response - and also for your continued patience. I do feel a lot better about this now - although I would appreciate your considering the following:
 * 1. "Speedy deletion" bear in mind that articles (in particular in the aviation area) may have images that were originally uploaded by editors no longer actively involved - in these cases does the speedy delete message get through to current editors with an interest in maintaining the quality and usefulness of the article concerned? I suspect not - which means that the image may end up getting deleted without any warning at all - or even disappear and be gone for some time before anyone notices, depending on the stability of the article concerned. This is not a trivial question. In implementing this policy (I agree it is a very good one) we do need to avoid unnecessary collateral damage. This could be avoided (or at least made less likely) by posting notices about questionable copyright to current editors of the article concerned, as well as the original poster of the image - and in possible by allowing more time for editors to get back with the requisite information.
 * 2. Older Images I remain unconvinced that 90%, (or even 5%) of images over (say) 70 years old are likely to have genuine copyright issues. A common sense assumption in these cases would probably indicate that the copyright of the items concerned HAS in fact expired. Asking for information missing from the original upload to confirm this may very well be justifiable - but putting them in the same bracket as more recent items, which are very much more likely to have real issues, seems a bit draconian.
 * 3. I have a picture of a BOT finding images for you to question - while you do the actual editing. My suggestion was that perhaps the BOT needs to be a little more selective, and that it would be an improvement if its findings were acted on with more sensitivity and selectivity - with items likely to be IN copyright having priority over those likely to be OUT of it. Is a "speedy delete" tag actually the only option? What about a tag saying something like "This image seems likely to be free of copyright, but we need more information to properly tag it?"

I hope the above is considered appropriately constructive. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I use WP:TWINKLE to tag the article, which I thought automatically placed a note on the pages that have images, but apparently it doesn't do it for this type of deletion. I'll make a note to the authors of the script, and perhaps even write up a little tag for an event like this, so that editors who have the article watchlisted will see it. That said, I think there may be a bot that posts a note on the talk page of said articles after a few days.
 * I disagree; our philosophy has never been to assume a file is copyright-free. It has always been the responsibility of the uploader to prove it's copyright-free. That's the difference between Wikipedia, and, say Google Books or YouTube. We don't turn a blind eye to copyright violations.
 * Are you talking about the edit summary? Again, I'll make a note to the authors of the Twinkle software. Or are you saying there's another tag that should be created? The closest we have right now is bsr, but I suspect anything more liberal than that might get deleted by the community, which prefers that any files without proper source are marked with a 7-day deletion process. Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your understanding about how that BOT may be malfunctioning - if you can get the authors to improve it that would be great. On the other point you misunderstand me a little. Certain classes of image (like VERY old ones) ARE very likely indeed to be copyright-free (the older they are, the more likely this is to be the case) - AND FOR THESE FILES a blanket assumption of the opposite, with a pretty snappy speedy delete unless everything has been done just right, WILL cause collateral damage more often than it wipes a genuinely "copyright still current" file. I am NOT suggesting the "turning of a blind eye" to obvious (or even likely) copyright violations for a moment (heaven forbid we ever descend to the level of YouTube) - just suggesting that in the case of images etc. that are unlikely to have any current copyright (e.g. because they are very old)"zeal to delete" be tempered with a measure of common sense, and while they might still be subject to deletion this is done in a slightly less cavalier manner. Check this one, by the way, but I think it was marked for deletion in 48 hours, not seven days! There was something in the fine print that said it was an improper "fair-use" thing too - which certainly wasn't the case, of course. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 18:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Which one are you talking about? The 48 hours one I mean? Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, after a bit of research, it appears a bot tags the file a day or two after it's been tagged by a human, so anyone with the article in their watchlist who sees bot edits will see the file is tagged for deletion. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you tell me
...more about the process that leads to "A good faith effort to search for the US copyright has been made, and nothing under X's name was renewed any time between 1955-57"? With regards to that painter, I am pretty sure that we have had images of his deleted do to his death being after 1940 (I was able to find this one; I was not familiar that they may be eligible for the above exception. I looked through his images we have and this one currently has a different template that the one you used. There are many other images I would like to see restored if they can be put through similar procedure, as I am pretty sure they were not in the past (and come from about the same period). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You know I was going by an odd interpretation, and on second thought it may not be a good one. According to this, if an item is ever published in the US between 1923-77, it must be renewed 28 years after the original copyright date, or it falls out of copyright. However, I was assuming that the item was originally published abroad and then again in the US within 30 days; this may have been a poor interpretation. Perhaps you, knowing the author, can expand on that better than I can. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I do not know if the item(s) in question have been ever published in the USA. Is inclusion in an art album publishing? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Amusing (perhaps), yet something you should note
{Well, this is OR; my OR, so just disregard it if you think it's stupid analysis; but given your good intentions, I thought I'll leave a note for you). One particular statement you've made in your RfA might not be coming out to imply exactly what you're wishing it to. For example, in the answer to JClemens, you mentioned at the end, "Is this a clear response or do I need to elaborate more?" Even in the answer you gave to my question (which I should repeat was apt), you wrote at the end, "Is that specific enough?" Now, there's just this extremely slight possibility that the person who asked you the question might believe you're giving the above statements to chide them. "If you need more clarification, do please write back," might work as well for you. But like I said, this is an insane analysis I did and you should simply wipe it off your talk once you're done with it :-) Best wishes for your adminship.   ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪    ―Œ  ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣  12:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that's an unorthodox interpretation. But I worked in telephone based customer service for nearly two years. I am all too familiar with human irrationality (after speaking with these people, who were probably below average intelligence on average, I became rather jaded about humanity). Ahem, rant aside, what I mean to say is yes I could see someone interpreting it that way. Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Really. Haven't I been specific enough or do I need to keep elaborating more? :):) Just an exercise in humour. Have fun in your adminship. Warm regards and see you later.  ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪    ―Œ  ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣  14:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Manson
I don't think the image of Manson as young artist is suitable in the article about Manson the director of the Tate. On the contrary - the picture of Manson as director of the Tate is far more appropriate, He is seated at his desk with a ton of papers on it - which is explanation itself as to why he was considered to be a poor director perhaps; it gives us a glimpse of the character of the real person we are writing about; not just some little picture of a nondescript young guy with a pipe, think about it. One picture is worth a thousand words and the other picture will take a thousand words to explain how - that guy got to be director of the Tate...Modernist (talk) 19:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK I think that would probably work. Feel free to remove the tag again, but do me a favor and put that in the replaceability section of the fur template. :) Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem, appreciated...Modernist (talk) 20:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

File deletion
Hi... not sure what was happening at File:Google Chrome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.png. You were requesting speedy deletion for a reason that didn't make sense. I declined the speedy and advised you to use relative speedy (di). Why did you add back the speedy template? Another admin came in and added the di template. Are we just dense? :) --Spike Wilbury (talk) 03:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No I was referring to the overwritten versions of the file, which had unnecessary nonfree content in them. Fastily indeed deleted them: . Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Re:RfA spam
Congrats :) Ajraddatz (Talk) 14:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

SPI case
Hi, I have requested a check user on the Michel5806 case. Bobby122  Contact Me   (C)  14:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

PUF problem?
Hi. As you're an image expert, I wonder if you could help with something I've spotted. File:Wsj cover.jpg is a picture of a Wall Street Journal front page, and has been uploaded by User:Lbertman, who is presumably Louisa Bertman. She claims she is the copyright holder, and it (along with other images) is used to show some of her illustration work. I don't see a problem with the actual illustration shown on the page being her copyright, but it looks like she's claiming copyright of the whole WSJ page, which I would think would present us with a problem. I haven't listed it at WP:PUF myself yet, because I don't know enough to be sure it's a problem - and there are a few others like it too. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a clearcut copyright violation... technically speaking they could be speedy deletable, but the better option is probably upload a cropped version of the images, or to blur out the other parts (e.g., the other text/images) so they're not recognizable. We'll probably want to get some sort of OTRS permission for her too to avoid any problems. Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks - I'm a complete newbie to this area, so what should I do? Should I report the images to WP:PUF and let the experts deal with them? (I don't want to do any work on the images myself, like cropping or blurring, because there are other issues with the Louisa Bertman article they're used in - POV, COI, possibly excessive image gallery - and they might not all survive anyway) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll work on a crop shortly; if the article doesn't survive, we can put it up for a mass FFD as files no longer in use, and which could create a potential problem. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks. You probably have them already, but the others that look like similar copyvios are: -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Wsj slash.jpg
 * File:Dallasmorningnewszz.jpg
 * File:Dallas morningnews michaeljackson.jpg
 * File:Bust michelleobama.jpg
 * File:Hightimes michaelphelps.jpg
 * File:Yrb whitestripes.jpg
 * File:Cartalk.jpg
 * File:Village voice.jpg
 * File:Rotariancover.jpg
 * File:Yrb greenday.jpg
 * File:Jazziz theloniousmonk.jpg
 * File:Coloradobiz cover.jpg
 * File:Gq.jpg
 * File:Penthouse 2.jpg
 * File:Yrb kanyewest.jpg
 * File:Jazziz raybaretta.jpg
 * File:Bertman hightimes 1.jpg

Oh, I suppose I'd better let the author know I'm talking about her too -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Notified at User talk:Lbertman -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, more thought (sorry this is so disjointed - my brain gets like this sometimes). Judging by discussions at User talk:Lbertman, it seems she's using those images as a means of citation to show her notability, when just a citation of the print edition of the publications should suffice - I've suggested that to her, so maybe the best solution is to just add proper citations and remove the offending images. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Just FYI, Boing!, if you have any confusion about this type of issue on the future, you can try Copyright problems, although the process looks to have changed since I looked at it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I did look there, but I found it a little confusing about what to actually do if you're not certain. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

"Man Jab" info page should not be deleted
Hi, thanks for your contributions. I have checked the external links and explored the whole internet and I found that this page must be kept for public audiences.109.108.173.153 (talk) 14:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolutely: can you please make a comment on the case at Articles for deletion/Mansour Jabalameli, as well as make sure you can demonstrate the notability of the person per WP:BIO. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

You have new messages

 * Waiting for you at the Help Desk. Warm regards.  ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪    ―Œ  ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣  16:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Waiting for you at the Help Desk|And again :):)   ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪    ―Œ  ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣  19:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

MAGOG THE OGRE REMOVES FACTS WITH REFERENCES
Magog The Ogre has removed FACTS with REFERENCES to a FIRST PERSON INTERVIEW simply because he has an agenda. THERE IS NO PLACE FOR AN AGENDA on WIKIPEDIA. Go write a BLOG if you want people to hear your personal opinions about politics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.50.226.21 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see my comments on your talk page. Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit on Mansour Jabalameli Page
Hi, As I was searching on the Internet for my professor, I found his page in Wikipedia. I saw the page history of Mansour Jabalameli and then I wanted to add something to the information provided on his page. I am a new user and actually one of his students. Please add his CCIE Certification from Cisco Systems. His CCIE number in Routing and Switching is 24044 and is verifiable by Cisco CCIE verification tool available in Cisco official website. Anyone can verify his Cisco System certificates from this address, but first one has to register. I also post this in the Talk section.Shahinemadi (talk) 16:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You did the right thing by posting the editprotected request at the talk page. I or another administrator will be willing to unlock the article if you (and every other incarnation of editor that's appeared) promise not to a) use the hangon template (it's not relevant anymore) and b) not delete the AFD notice. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Signpost blurb on you
Hi, could you check what I wrote? Tony  (talk)  13:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I will work on it shortly. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Ahmad Shah Massoud.jpg
--ARTEST4ECHO talk 15:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

PD in India
Hi, you wrote in the deletion discussion for File:Rafistamp.jpg that PD-US-1923-abroad is necessary for files to be hosted here but I wanted to tell you, in case you were not aware, that images that are PD in India can be allowed here per PD-US-1996, which, combined with the 1991 change in copyright length in India, makes Indian photographs published before 1940 PD in the U.S. Hekerui (talk) 15:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Anything published before 1946 if I'm not mistaken. But I was referring to the rest of the image. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

No, the law was changed in 1991 to extend longer and retroactively so it's only 1940. But I was not referring to the image in the discussion. Hekerui (talk) 15:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

British Army cap badges
The query I was awaiting has arrived ;-). I have a number of images of badges of British Army regiments, obtained from various sources (such as Ebay and other sites where people sell these things) that I have highly modified, using the Gimp, for size, appearance and consistency and uploaded. An example is File:QODY01.jpg that I have turned into File:Queens Own Dorset Yeomanry Badge.jpg. The copyright status is, I think, fairly clear: that of a logo. The question is the source I should specify. It is certainly not the original image. Is it sufficiently modified to be described as my own work? Maybe "Own work, based on an image at http://www.blahblahblah.com"? Or are such images unusable on Wikipedia? TIA. Wally Wiglet (talk) 18:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, however, this provides a significant wrinkle. You see, your images are derivatives of another work, and as such, you don't own the copyright. What's more, a free alternative could certainly be created that is only your work (unless we are saying that the medals themselves are copyrighted, although I'd have to go over them in a case-by-case basis). Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Having looked at the licensing of many of the images of British Army badges on Wikipedia, my understanding is that that is the case, i.e. it is the design itself that is copyrighted by the Crown (which is why I and most others have used the copyrighted logo licensing terms). That being the case, even if I take a picture of a badge in my possession, or sit down with Inkscape and draw a copy of it, we still do not have a free image. Indeed, there never can be a truly free image, so we have no alternative but to invoke fair use. That being the case, it would seem reasonable to source the image as "Based on an image at http://www.blahblahblah.com". Wally Wiglet (talk) 00:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, it would, although again I'd have to take it on a case by case basis. Some of the badges may be too simple for copyright (e.g., PD-ineligible) or may be old enough to be out of copyright (e.g, PD-US-1923-abroad). Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, that's what I will do. Thanks. Wally Wiglet (talk) 14:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Dancers angkor wat.jpg
That image deleted was part of a series of photos published more than 50 years ago.

See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Pierre_Dieulefils for other photos by Dieulefils.

From http://www.answers.com/topic/pierre-dieulefils : His major legacy is a huge series of postcards (over 5, 000 items, mostly on Indo-China) published between 1902 and the 1920s.

I believed I had this mentioned in the file description. Is there a way that it can be restored? And how can I look at the file history? I want to see if it was actually there and maybe you didn't see it. I thought I had that mentioned in the file description. --Dara (talk) 02:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've restored the file: File:Dancers angkor wat.jpg. You'll see it lacks that information. Can you please add it to the page, as well as the source (if it's scanned by you, that would be a source)? A date as well would be extremely helpful. Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Irayimman thampi1.jpg
Can you please verify the license and details of the image File:Irayimman thampi1.jpg ? --Sreejith K (talk) 04:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you specify who created that painting? It's entirely possible it was created recently and not out of copyright. Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Wittgenstein's image
Hi, I was wondering how you know that this was published before 1923. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 17:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the source noted says "The Wittgenstein siblings in about 1890." That was a pretty big clue. ;) Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess it's possible it wasn't published before then (just taken), but it doesn't seem likely, given the family's notoriety. In any case, if it were to fall into the public domain in the US, it would have to be first published between 1923-1989, I think, otherwise it's too old for copyright. Given how unlikely that is, I just tagged the image. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, the pd-old-50 tag you placed on the image really doesn't apply, as neither the US nor the UK abides by a 50 year rule. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

We would have to know it had been published before 1923 to use the tag you added; the date it was created isn't relevant to that. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 19:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * OK I guess you'll have to tag it fair use then. Although I'd search for a free equivalent first. Magog the Ogre (talk)

I tagged it old-50 for a reason. :) Would you mind reverting your addition of the 1923 tag?  SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 20:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You can tag it old-50 again (you don't need my permission :)), but that won't make it free. Old-50 does not apply in the US (must be published before 1923 in almost all circumstances for UK photos), and the UK uses the old-70 law. In fact, I'm in the process of clearing out the old-50 category for precisely this reason: it's almost always used in error. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

(copied from elsewhere)
 * In my own defense on my talk page, I partially explained (not nearly as thoroughly as I should have), that a very unlikely sequence of events would have to happen:
 * The author of this work had to be known. (PD-UK + PD-US-1996... current copyright laws in the UK regarding anonymous works have been around since 1956)
 * The item had to be published for the first time after 1922, more than 30 years after it was first created. (PD-US-1923-abroad)
 * If the item was published after 1977, the author has to have died after 1939, 50 years after its creation. (PD-old-70 applies in the US in this situation)
 * If the item was published between 1923-77, the author has to have died after 1925, 35 years after its creation. (PD-UK + PD-US-1996)
 * Given that the source for the image fails to address a single one of these issues (it doesn't even explain where it got the image from, let alone certify an alternate publication date), and sans any evidence to the contrary, I think it's safe to call this image PD.
 * And an additional note: the license under which SlimVirgin uploaded the content was PD-old-50, which is not an applicable license in the UK or the US, and such should only have been tagged on the image as a side-explanation to a correct tag (if even then). Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I just saw your response on the RfA, which I copied above. I don't understand why you keep mentioning the UK. The image has nothing to do with the UK. The point is that you randomly added a tag saying it had been published before 1923, when we don't know that's correct, and you won't remove it, which I find odd. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 06:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, no wonder you're upset with me. Feel free to oblige, I apparently saw the .uk and got carried away. Can I ask why you don't want it uploaded to commons? Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

for the revert. I'll leave you to self-slap. :) We can't upload it to Commons because the status is really quite unclear. It's almost certainly PD, but almost certainly isn't good enough for the Commons, so I'm continuing to try to track down when it was first published. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 08:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, although could I ask you to consider PD-Austria, as it's more descriptive? I still don't believe PD-old-50 is relevant for Austria. Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * How about if I mark it as fair use, just in case? Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. And I'm continuing to make enquiries to see if I can track down the owners. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 17:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

RE File:University of Tubingen Seminar.jpg‎
Hi Magog, the uploader has had a chance to respond, I first tagged the image as WP:CSD ten days ago and I've discussed it with them today on my talk page. The image should clearly be deleted as it has absolutely no potential for being used in an article, since the only thing it has been used for in a year is as a reference in Kresimir Chris Kunej. There may not be a perfect category to put it in, but common sense suggests to me that it's deleted as soon as possible as it is a copyright violation that has existed for over a year. Smartse (talk) 23:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've marked it as no rationale. Once the rationale is up, if you think it's still replaceable, try {{subst:rfu}}; if you think it fails in general, try {{subst:dfu}}. The problem is you tagged it as orphan, whereas it has not been orphan for a week (the other editor tried to reinsert it). Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The image has never actually been used in an article though so technically it's always been an orphan. Also I don't understand why it does not come under WP:CSD (the most recent tag I added)? The fair use template says that it can only be used for critical commentary of the website, which it isn't and can never be. What happens if the uploader comes along in 5 days and removes the deletion templates again? Do we have to wait another 7 days for a fair use rationale to appear? Smartse (talk) 09:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Premakeerhini.jpg
dear Friend could you please assist me to Upload a picture to Premakeerthi de Alwis there is copy white problem of this image and could you pls help --Wipeouting (talk) 02:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've fixed up the image; if you have any more questions, you can always drop by the help desk or media copyright questions desk. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear Friend, Thanks --Wipeouting (talk) 11:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  17:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks

 * Magog, I might be thanking you late, but my thanks are as sincere as you can imagine. Thank you for voting in my RfA. I appreciated it too much. And I'll keep a big note of your advice on the CSD issue. Surely. Best regards (and zanks again).  Wifione    .......  Leave a message  19:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Wigwag photo
Hi! A few things:


 * I was the photographer; I can release it under the GFDL if you'd like.


 * It's also used under boilerplate permission from Trainweb.org and is compatible so long as the site is properly attributed.


 * It's a scan of a photograph; I didn't have a digital camera back in 1999 when I took the photo. I mailed the print to the webmaster, so I don't have it anymore.


 * The crossing has since been updated in preparation for high-speed passenger service by Metrolink.

I hope this helps. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, go ahead and release it under GFDL. I just discovered the trainweb template, which has somehow passed under the radar for the last 5 years. Trainweb.org has an incompatible license with Wikipedia: it allows no commercial use or derivatives. Just go ahead and clearly specify that you created it and mark it as GFDL, CC, or PD. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks for letting me know; I know how touchy copyright issues can be. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Your RfA
[ My admin log ]

Congratulations! ( X! ·  talk )  · @133  · 02:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Congrats! Good luck with the mop! ~  Nerdy Science  Dude  02:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yay! Have fun, Airplaneman   ✈  02:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 'grats, and good luck. Connormah (talk) 02:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Knew you could do it! Best of luck to you,  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 04:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Aww, thanks guys . I'm so happy I don't know what to do! And what are all those extra buttons? Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, just push them all and see what they do ;-) Congrats from me too -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Congratulations and best of luck!..Modernist (talk) 11:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well done. When you are ready there are some scripts in my monobook that you might find useful. - Drop downs for block messages etc.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  12:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, I know you'll be one of the best!--Hokeman (talk) 12:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * So you did finally succeed in fooling them all! :):):) Congrats :):)   ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪    ―Œ  ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣  14:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Congrats! --  j &#9883; e decker  talk  17:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Be sure to read WP:NOTNAS if you haven't already! Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 18:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Been awhile since I got thankspam. Good luck! UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 21:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Congrats, I have no doubt you'll do a good job! And don't delete the mainpage ;)  Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм &#124;  Champagne?  02:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the message and congrats to you. MarmadukePercy (talk) 01:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I forgot again, which administrative areas did you want to work in? I'm just curious and I forgot his RfA link >.<.  Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм &#124;  Champagne?  04:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Images and copyrights. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh ok, looking forward to seeing your work :) Regards, —  Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм   • Champagne?  • 23:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Teramo jerk
Ciao! I would like to draw your attention about the beahviour of this user, User:DDF19483 (I think, an Italian whose only interest is in Teramo), who has repeatedly reverted the current version to his very poorly formatted and written (looks like a rough translation from Italian) one, and also continuously deleted from this talk page my comments and attempts to make him give a glane to WP:Manual of Style. Ciao and good work! --&#39;&#39;&#39;Attilios&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 14:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't immediately see what's wrong with the edits, although his behavior may be a bit problematic. I suggest trying WP:EAR at this point, and if that fails we can take it further. I also recommend not calling someone a jerk on Wikipedia. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Kroepke 1895.jpg
Hi, I noticed you. Your rationale asserts that the image is a duplicate of one on commons which makes it possible to speedily delete it. In future it might be easier for you to use Template:Db-f1 (with the name of the new file on commons of course, as you did in the nomination). Nev1 (talk) 18:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:CSD only applies to other images on Wikipedia of the same format. This image is not on Wikipedia, it's on commons, which means you probably were thinking of WP:CSD. However, it's not of the same format (jpg vs. png). Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

You're right, F8 is the correct CSD. But both images were .jpg so in what way were they not the same format? Nev1 (talk) 19:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I thought you were referring to File:Thermodynamic schools (connection diagram) 1000x920.png. The two images were tinted differently and one has a watermark: (cf. vs. ). Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

You can't fight in here, this is the war room
Hey, thanks for all your work on the Edit Warring noticeboard. You've no doubt discovered it can be a dirty job. Have you started collecting nastygrams in your personal email yet? --Spike Wilbury (talk) 19:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, sir, not yet! Although the cluelessness level of many of the editors I've blocked rivals only the days when I worked in a bank and people always blamed the bank for their overdraft fees. :) To be honest, I'm dreading the day I block a well-known editor, and soon I'm being called an unfair mediator and party to every wrong ever committed in the 500+ year animosity of the said ethnic conflict. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I have seen about every accusation you can imagine come down the pike, including being in collusion with editors have never interacted with. But, I just try to remember why I picked up the mop to begin with and carry on smartly. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 21:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

That and this
As I said at PUF, I am fairly sure the lion pic was first published in Chicago. I left some comments at Possibly unfree files/2010 September 17 if you'd care to review my possible dubious logic. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Magog the Ogre - Please read
I am a complete novice when it comes to Wikipedia. Please excuse that I am contacting you this way. This is in reference to Richard Agudelo - Ricagu/Terrificmachine. Richard Donovan Agudelo is a previously convicted felon in the state of Florida and New York. He is of course the editor Ricagu as well as Terrificmachine. He is a professional criminal and is again on trial in New York city for a variety of felonies. Please verify for yourself using the NY online court system: http://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/webcrim_attorney/Login > login as a public user and search for case using his name Richard Agudelo.

With all the promotion this guy is trying to do with his bogus Wiki page, I wonder how he would feel if this info was posted on his promo page?! I would think that a deletion of his page is an act of preserving the quality and community standards of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spencerleo (talk • contribs) 12:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Please take this issue to the community noticeboard: WP:ANI. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Romes Gnome
You "Speedy deleted per CSD G3, pure vandalism or blatant and obvious misinformation. using TW)" Why??  How is it that I can look up any vile kind of sex act like a Dirty Sanchez or Bukkake and it's there, sometimes with graphic illustrations along with the graphic descriptions of it all, yet I can't post about the travels of a plastic gnome that has been around the United States for the general public.  I can't understand why this is something Wikipedia (you) would take a stand on.  There is nothing being vandalized, no hoaxes and you maybe want to look up the definition of obvious when you put it in front of misinformation when I can PROVE everything with pictures I took of it myself being in these locations.  Please reconsider.  Thank you.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Romes Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've reopened the text of the article, and it appears to be nothing other than a joke. The page makes no credible assertion of notability (a Facebook link doesn't count). The other pages you listed, however, are all notable. Perhaps you should read Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Please don't recreate the article unless you can prove its notability with third party reliable sources. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

A joke is a one-sided way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it is that there is one person (me) that travels for business and took a vacation, and instead of having my stupid face in Times Square, I put the gnome there instead. Another person now has the gnome and retired from his job a few months ago, and now is traveling the country seeing things he has never seen before and has put this gnome in the places where he has been. I will agree that it is stupid, but is having feces spread across someones face by a penis that was just in someones anus significantly more notable?? I have over 50 people following the travels of this gnome and that would qualify at the very least as pop culture regardless of the size of the population interested in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Romes Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Having feces spread across your face by a penis is very stupid, yes. Very very stupid. And people have tried to get the article deleted, in fact on 8 different occasions by my count (see Articles for deletion/Dirty Sanchez (sexual act) (4th nomination)). Unfortunately, the term fits within our guidelines at WP:Notability. Your gnome, however, does not fit those guidelines. If your gnome gains more notoriety and significant press, we'd be happy to publish about it.
 * On another note, I did nominate your user page for deletion because it looks like it's just being used as a substitute for the article. However, if you actually were a regular contributor to Wikipedia, or demonstrated that you wish to be, we'd probably be more than happy to let you put up silliness in your own userspace. I would even withdraw my nomination. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Mexican homicide rates by state article
Magog, I already made a special article for the subnational rates of Mexico, just put a link into the international article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homice_rates_in_Mexico_by_state

(talk) 19:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by kardrak (talk • contribs)

File:Helen-1636.jpg
I've re-added the speedy deletion request for this image. I'm doing so because in the information box on the image description page, the uploader is claiming this is entirely his own work. This is false. Also note that he has taken a number of images from the Internet and claimed them as his. I've noted this problem to him on his talk page User_talk:Rahuloof. The image is a bit for bit copy of. There's no question he does not hold rights to the image, especially given the context of his multiple other copyright violations. CSD F9; "Unambiguous copyright infringement". There's no ambiguity here. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:CSD clearly states the uploader must declare the image to be free use. I've lobbied for a change in it for precisely this reason, but that's why I declined. I suppose G12 might apply, although it's a bit out of process. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Tayrailbridge.jpg
The image can be dated to 1879, from the date of the Tay Bridge disaster. So why do we need to have a source, or else be forced to delete it? No matter who the source was, aren't we old enough here to be clear anyway? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably; I knew nothing of your image. Can you just put the source on where you originally found it? It is policy. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

It isn't my image, I just noticed the tag. We don't need a source (i.e. last source), we need an author (i.e. original source), and we only need that to demonstrate PD by age issues. If the author is unknown, and the age is sufficient (which usually means age since first publication), then we can still tag it as "unknown" and legitmately claim PD-old. This is not only an "old" image, it's an event-related image that dates itself quite clearly (admittedly you have to know about the Tay Bridge). Andy Dingley (talk) 16:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Mt_Zion_School_cropped.jpg
I'm really not understanding what you want me to do with this image file. It is already clearly stated in the source notes that this photo was taken by an unknown photographer circa 1910. The photographer is surely dead by now, and the photo was made well before 1923, so. . . ? What else do you want?

Image file info and marking are always a bit confusing to get right. I'm happy to cooperate here, but a little guidance please. Textorus (talk) 05:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, we just need to know where you got the file from. "Sent to me from a correspondent" is really vague; the reason we need to know is so we can establish the copyright status. Is it in a private collection and was it never published? If so, its copyright still endures (1923 is a publication date, not creation date for copyright expiration). If it was published, when? Please provide as much information as your correspondent has about where s/he got the photo. Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, first please notice that the image accompanies the article Dominickers, which I created back in 2006 about a very small and barely documented triracial group, now absorbed into the surrounding population and effectively vanished as a distinct community. While looking for printed references to the group, I ran into someone who lives in that area, via a genealogy forum. He was able to obtain the image for me, which is a scan of a copy of a family photo, which several families have copies of down there. Nobody now, a hundred years later, knows who took the photo; it's a school photo, as you can see, which like today's school photos, was probably not limited to one single print.

So - I'm not about to put up on Wikipedia the name of the private, non-notable person who kindly scanned this old photo, but now do you see any need to delete this image? I uploaded a couple of others from the same source at the time I created the article, and they too were deleted. I didn't contest those, figuring at the time that Wikipedia knew better than I did - but this is the last photo remaining there to visually document this ethnic group. Please advise exactly what it is you want me to say on the image summary, if we can save this. Textorus (talk) 19:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * That's fine, that's actually the information I needed. Ironically, we will not be able to house the image if it wasn't published before, which sounds likely to me. Let me elaborate:
 * Unpublished works were indefinitely copyrighted until a recent law change; They now have the copyright expire 120 years after creation, or approximately 2031.
 * We could house the image under fair use, but WP:NFCC states the image must have been published elsewhere first.
 * What you can do to get around this is, I kid you not, put the image on a blog or personal webpage or something. Then it will be considered "published" for legal purposes. The other thing you might be able to do, if you're still in correspondence with the person who scanned the image, is ask if it was ever printed anywhere (e.g., a newspaper, family reunion pamphlet open to the public, etc.). The answer may of course be "I don't know", in which case we'd assume the former.
 * If it turns out it was never published, and we have to use a workaround like publishing it elsewhere, we'll have to have a slightly reduced version of the pixels on the photograph, however we can undelete the high scan version when the copyright expires in 2031.
 * If it turns out it was published, it may still be under copyright, depending on the year, and if there was a copyright notice. The publication date would determine the year of copyright expiration.
 * Even I admit this is pretty quirky; that's why Congress finally passed a law closing the unpublished works loophole. Is all this too complex? I will make sure the photo doesn't get deleted for now. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks much for the very helpful link to the Cornell copyright page; that explains the current law very clearly, unlike, sad to say, the WP image upload page which is rather confusing, to me anyway. The idea of 120 years is new to me; I was thinking 75 was the magic number. Anyway, I believe I have seen the same photo on somebody's blog; it's been a few years now since my intense research effort on this topic, but let me see if I can find it.

Thanks also for holding off on the delete and for the friendly advice. I'll get back to you. Textorus (talk) 20:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Update: I'm not finding the photo, and don't want to bother with creating a website just for that one thing. Go ahead and delete it, the article has solid information and sources for anyone who is interested in the topic and wants to delve further. If I come up with the version you need, I'll let you know. Thanks again. Textorus (talk) 02:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking of proposing a change to NFCC, to be honest with you. I think it's quite silly that we can't use a 1916 photograph. Or maybe I'll take you at your word that you saw it published elsewhere, as long as you're sure. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)