User talk:ShakespeareFan00/Sfan00 IMG/Archive

Kinkles ltd
how can you delete this becasue you dont know the copyright? I made it myself on Paint! Remember you can&#39;t spell aircraft without RAF (talk) 13:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Policy
PLEASE RESPOND TO THE QUESTION ON User talk:ShakespeareFan00! Yamakiri TC    [ §]  06-17-2008 • 02:39:04
 * Where did you find this policy, and of what purpose is it (eg, why is it making us remove these links)?  Yamakiri  TC    [ §]  06-17-2008 • 02:42:41
 * Yes, I couldn't understand why you were querying the copyright status of Wikimapia links. Surely the content is just as much Public Domain as Wikipedia is itself? If no convincing answer within 48 hours I will reinstate Skeptic2 (talk) 12:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Good work on generalising Wikipedia information with the coordinate links! That's a project WP:GEO has worked on for a long time already and it's supported by WP:ELNO#15 and the related external link discussion about issues with inclusion of map service links. Anyone interested in this project should go through the discussion. I won't repeat all that again here, but converting and/or removing Wikimapia links is fully supported. --Para (talk) 12:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

what does this mean?
In Carabinier - Remove Wikimapia-(C) Status of linked material unclear?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 21:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah...we went through this before, and as long as Wikimapia is on the geohack page, there's no copyright justification for removing links. I definitely agree with converting external links to the templates, but do not make edits like. --NE2 17:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If these Wikimapia links are the only facts on the web, they'll have to do. The same goes for the others. DanTD (talk) 17:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, no...that could use a better source (such as a simple statement that the road is named "Old Montauk Highway"). But the Wikimapia link is a decent link to show the configuration, possibly as a note in a reference. It's certainly not a copyright problem though. --NE2 18:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If every former segment of Montauk Highway were named "Old Montauk Highway," seeking such evidence wouldn't be necessary. Don't you think? DanTD (talk) 20:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikimapia isn't "such evidence", however. --NE2 21:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup
Thank you for helping in improving coordinates links. -- User:Docu

Please stop
You are continuing to remove Wikimapia links for copyright reasons. Please stop. --NE2 18:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Stopping, but would like an explanation given on the relavnt pages as to why IN EACH INSTANCE

they are acceptable.

Where they are duplicated by the presence of a geo-code, I'll continue removals, or convert

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You might want to explain in each instance why they are not acceptable; copyright issues do not apply here. For instance, has no geolinks template, and on  it is referring to one part of a longer feature. --NE2 18:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It was held on a disscusion I had at OSM, that because Wikimapia hadn't explictly stated what permissions it had to derive geo-data from Google Maps, that the site's (C) status was grey. Up until now ( and I wll consider doing rollback on some links) I was led to belive that WP:EL was generally against linking to sites where the (C) or (D)atabase right status wasn't clear.

In general what i plan to do on the remaining non-geo links-= is follow the link- get the coordinate and replace it in the article..) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think you understand: the geohack page that the templates link to includes Wikimapia. --NE2 18:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

See:  for an example of the intended strategy :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I just looked at that one, and you seem to have gotten the coordinates wrong. When I zoom in on, I don't see . --NE2 18:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Never mind - somehow breaks the Wikimapia link on the right side. That was a good edit (except for the missing > that I fixed). --NE2 18:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Question, Is this fault in the link, the tool or how Wikimapia recognises it? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks like it's the geohack page itself; the Wikimapia link on the left side is fine. I've reported it at Template talk:GeoTemplate. --NE2 18:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Starting a roolback pending, the new approach (This may take awhile)- You Can Help! :) Sfan00 IMG (talk)


 * Thank you. Not all of these rollbacks are necessary however; was a fine edit. --NE2 18:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * OK Sensible Rollback - Recoded a few in places as I went :)Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Coordinates
Regarding this, could you, please, refer me to the page where the guidelines for sourcing the coordinates are located? I am not quite sure what exactly is being requested, seeing that one can always click on the provided coordinates and see if they indeed match the place described in the article. Adding documentation to that effect to Unsourced-geodata would also be useful, but I hope that's coming up, since you only created the template a few hours ago. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That doesn't answer my question, which was not about sourcing in general, but about sourcing the geographic coordinates in particular. WP:RS does not deal with particularities of geographic coordinates, and WP:EL only mentions them in light of the coordinates shown in an article being linked to map sources.  The latter, to me, is precisely the tool which can be used as a reference, so unsourced-geodata seems kind of redundant.  What do you expect editors to do, put the ref tags after the coordinates?  What's the point?  Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm one concerned admin, and, honestly, while I can imagine how this new template can be useful, I have no clue what reaction you are expecting from the editors now. Why not define the problem first, offer ways to fix it, and only then start tagging dozens of articles?  Like you said, there is no easy way to reference the coordinates now, so why not apply yourself to solving that problem first instead of first mass-tagging articles, then having the editors manually insert comments (which are not visible to our readers anyway), and then having to re-reference them once a way to do so properly is devised?  Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Your note
I would agree it's not necessarily bad faith, but ignoring talk page discussion and removing (or footnoting) other links while adding GeoHack links is poor style. Crum375 (talk) 00:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Geofact template
Not a bad idea. But something more like Template:cite would be better as the more precise targeting this permits is very helpful to editors trying to resolve such queries. A banner is such a blunt and ugly instrument.

Template geofact's "What links here" is interesting too. It is not clear how the choice of which articles to tag was made. Why, for example, did you not tag Norton Furniture?

-Arb. (talk) 14:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Because from the look of it, it doesn't contain anything problematic.., BTW If you check my history I am at present going through the links Yamakiri removed (bar the ones you are looking into) and reinstating links as references.. It seems that the issue with Wikimapia ( just as last time) doesn't

exist in the minds of the community as large, besides citing is better than being seen to lift :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Re - see  which can be used for things beside coordinates.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Norton Furniture has a link to Wikimapia but does not state where the coordinates for this came from. How does that differ from any of the other pages you tagged? -Arb. (talk) 14:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There don't seem to be coordinates listed in the article, have updated the article Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Er, as of just now you haven't. -Arb. (talk) 14:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Bother, browser must be playing up. There isn't an issue with that article as there's no coordinates in it, the only other geo-location data in it IS sourced.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Browser playing up? Nothing to stop you changing it now... -Arb. (talk) 14:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Assuming you don't intend to, explain again how Norton Furniture differs from all the other pages you tagged. In many of these the only geo-location data appears to be a Wikimapia link or two. -Arb. (talk) 15:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, Norton Furniture is now fixed and sourced albiet to Wikimapia..

The issue with the others tagged is that they don't have a link to an item that shows/proves the coordinates. I am reviewing them anyway. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, Fine- Rolling back ALL removals/conversions in a sensible way as well as geofact tagging. Wikipedia's loss. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to tag, please use geofacti (per your own suggestion) - it is so much easier to fix things when the precise deficiency is clear. Thanks. -Arb. (talk) 15:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm maybe that came over a bit strong, In any case geofact seems to be causing problems.. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Re "bit strong". Yeah, we must all feel like that from time to time. Shows we care. -Arb. (talk) 15:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm Geofact removed.. Can you do me a big favour? It would be reasonable given that the Wikimapia issue that caused links to be nuked doesn't exist, for some of them to be carefully re-instated?

Would you mind checking my contributions back and doing so? Thanks Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll be doing the ones on my watchlist as and when time permits as already stated somewhere. Perhaps you can get User:Yamakiri and User:Para to help you with the others. After all, they helped make the mess. -Arb. (talk) 16:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * All map service links outside references will slowly disappear from Wikipedia because of multiple issues with such links, but converting tens of thousands of links takes a while. If some of them have been converted to point to the location without any scale, that's easier to fix than reverting for now and later converting the link again. I don't have any opinion on whether coordinates should be referenced and won't participate in that, but the use of coordinates instead of map links follows common Wikipedia practice. --Para (talk) 16:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * To me Geo-Data needs referencing which is why the Wikimapia links are going back in.
 * One annoyance i've found is that if you make a link such that the co-ordinate is confirmed, you cant see the map/arieal underneath on Wikimapia. Subtle,but annoying :Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * They will be converted to coordinates eventually, so all these reverts and additional edits are just unnecessary noise in the article history. Wikimapia is a site that anyone can edit, and as a source to confirm anything it's as reliable as nothing at all. --Para (talk) 16:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * OK Stopping, As you say smoke and sparks but no fire. I'll just be more careful when converting in future :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * See Broadgate Tower for an example of the current strategy, I do intend ultimatly to review all coord and related tags, It will be a while before I am doing that though :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If you look twice at your version of Broadgate Tower, you will notice that it's really a mess . Please have a look at version improving on Yamakiri's version: . -- User:Docu

Done! Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Broken templates
Some of your geo code changes have been breaking templates, as can be seen at. Can you please fix these errors? --- RockMFR 14:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Sandyford Industrial Estate
Your recent edit here was summarised as "geocode updating" whereas you made extensive edits including the removal of an image I'd just added. Please don't carry out major surgery on articles without some sort of explanation. Sarah777 (talk) 22:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Unsourced-geodata
Template:Unsourced-geodata has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Somno (talk) 04:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Timeranger.jpg
This image had a fair use rationale, just not in one of the template forms. Please be careful tagging with Twinkle.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 11:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

RE:youtube
okay man dont have kittens. my god. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sector311 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

My YouTube link

 * What are you talking about? I haven't added any copyrighted material...► Chris Nelson Holla! 21:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

RE: Youtube
Hey there. I saw your comment on my talk page. I've filmed all the stuff in my videos, so I guess I'm the copyright holder? (sorry, I'm not very intelligent with copyright, maybe you can fill me in? :p) However, there are some songs in the videos that I don't own the copyright to. And could you tell me a bit more information about Creative Commons? I mean, I'll take any chance for people to watch my videos, as I like to get feedback (btw, thanks for your comment about my videos :D), but I don't really know that there was a creative commons/wikipedia video feature.

So yeah, if you could answer a few of my query's that would be good.

Thanks again,

-David Black Mesa (talk) 21:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

YouTube
Unfortunately my free time is quite limited these day. So I'm afraid that I won't be able to copy my videos from YouTube to Wikimedia Commons in near future. If you have the time to do it, please just go ahead! I hereby release all my videos on YouTube into public domain (do I have to say more to make it "legal"?).

Enjoy!

Feelinabsurd (talk) 23:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Removing YouTube videos taken of shows and replacing them with (fact) tags
bad form! ==

Please don't do it. 

I see from other comments that you are making a habit of doing it.

If we are talking about what happened in a show, and we are linking to YouTube footage of the show itself then THAT IS ENOUGH PROOF that that is what actually happened.

Please restore your edits. Dyinghappy (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that you can see the problem, however. We are talking about a show, namely Australian Idol, and what happened in the show. YouTube has footage of what happened in the show. We are using that footage as proof that it really did happen in the show. There is no way in the world that it is possible that that footage could be fabricated.

If you think that the material is copyright protected (which it may well be, who knows) then by all means remove it. But DO NOT then replace it with a (fact) tag, as if to suggest that there is no "real" proof that what was said was true. Anyone who watched it knows that that is what happened, hence there is no need for such a tag. Whether or not the YouTube footage is legal or not is irrelevant - it proves that what happened really happened.

Given that you cannot view the footage live on the Australian Idol site itself, or anywhere else that might be considered to be acceptable, how is it even theoretically possible to put in a link that proves it, without linking to the footage itself on YouTube?

You set an impossible precedent. An insane precedent, moreover. Dyinghappy (talk) 15:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please stop taking out YouTube videos. Sometimes, they are necessary to an article. I know I'm not the only one whose been subject to you removing vids. For red state blue state divide, its important that we have proof of what has been going on over the years to give actual dimension and citation to the articles, being that there is no other way to show this.Tallicfan20 (talk) 04:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you some kind of admin? because if you are not, stop bossing everyone around on copyright issues. Those vids on Red State and Blue State Divide are important to illustrate the topic.Tallicfan20 (talk) 18:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Re-July 2008
I am sorry, I have no idea of what you are talking about. I have added no links to any external websites. If so, please show me the proof. Thank you.-- Vintei Talk  17:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Very well. Thank you for noticing me.-- Vintei Talk  18:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Rescue 911 videos
Sfan00 IMG, please do not remove the video links of Rescue 911. They are fully authorized, and most of them have been on YouTube for more than 2 years. This is not a copyright violation by Wikipedia guidelines. Sebwite (talk) 17:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I read an article one time (I think in the Washington Post) about Rescue 911 being on YouTube that promoted its presence. Though I don't remember exactly when the article was published, the article seemed to indicate that this was authorized. Most of these videos have been there for more than two years - had they been a copyright violation, they would have been removed a lot sooner. Sebwite (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Major League Baseball on CBS GIFs
I should clearly state that what was posted on the Major League Baseball on CBS was purely a GIF image that I created via a video editing/creation software. That's a whole lot different than simply adding a regular old YouTube (which simply served as the source). Besides, the GIFs were meant to give a better illustration on how CBS Sports produced and presented Major League Baseball telecasts back in the early 1990s (1990-1993, when they had the exclusive, over-the-air, national TV contract). I didn't just put the GIFs up there just for the sake of vanity. They were also meant to educate somewhat on how Major League Baseball television coverage was like from 15 years ago (before the era of Fox Sports). TMC1982 (talk) 11:20 p.m., 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikimania
Hi, actually I'm not attending wikimania, nor know anything about how it will be organized, but I messaged Meno25 (on the Arabic Wikipedia) about it. He's attending and organizing though. Mohamed Magdy (talk) 08:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.

Vandalism
From what I see here on your talk page, you're vandalizing. Please stop making messes. Rj1020 (talk) 08:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I had a link to YouTube in my article (it wasnt even an article, it was just a user subpage for leisure.) So I came to your user page and it has several comments of removing useful links just because of not being sure of copyright. The people seem to know what they're doing, and it looked like a form of vandalism to me. Rj1020 (talk) 20:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe some were violations, but mine were not. Rj1020 (talk) 23:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

{facts} for links?
Two questions: Unschool (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * One, why have you deleted the YouTube links from Red states and blue states? I didn't place them, so it's not my ox you've gored, and I'm sure from your edit summary that you have a logically thought out rationale, but I don't as yet understand it.  Could you explain?
 * Even if we assume that you are correct in your removal of the links, why in the world are you replacing them with {fact} tags? The only way I could see the logic in that is if you are applying the exclusionary rule to wikipedia procedures, but that's hardly called for.  Look, the links that you deleted did, in fact, establish the factual nature of the comments. I'm willing to acknowledge that you may have ground for removing them, but the "facts" are not in doubt.
 * To say that they are "unclear" sounds pretty weak to me. Do you have reason to doubt their appropriateness for usage? Could you cite lines from WP:C supporting this? Answer as if I am totally ignorant in these matters—because, in fact, that's largely true. Unschool (talk) 01:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you; the matter is now very clear to me. I appreciate that you've taken the time to educate me. Unschool (talk) 22:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Inter Baku logo image
You marked the Inter Baku image I uploaded for deletion as the image description says there is no article to which it refers. This is incorrect. The image, which is a logo, appears on the appropriate page for the sports team in question: FC Inter Baku. I'm not sure why the error message came up, but it is inaccurate, and I would be appreciative of your help in correcting the situation, as I believe this is an appropriate fair use of the logo. Thanks. --Friejose (talk) 19:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you! --Friejose (talk) 17:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

New proposal
Just letting you know, you may be interested in giving your input on the discussion page of a new proposal, Videos. Sebwite (talk) 18:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Non free gvmt forms
What makes you think being a gov'mt form makes them non-free? The license is clearly explained in the image description. I am confused as to what makes you think they are potentially unfree.  Asenine   18:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Listings on PUI
Hello, Sfan00 IMG. I notice you've been listing some images at WP:PUI lately (for example, Image:The Adventures of Willy Beamish Coverart.png, Image:Universe Coverart.png, Image:Dalekattackgame.jpg, and Image:Barbarian (psygnosis) 02.png) because you believe the given sources of the images likely did not have permission from the copyright holder to post the images on their sites. You are probably right in that regard. However, PUI is not an appropriate venue for discussing these images; it is for "possibly unfree images", i.e., images listed as freely licensed but whose free status is in dispute, whereas these four images are clearly tagged as unfree. Moreover, whether or not the listed sources had permission from the copyright holder to post the images is entirely irrelevant. This is the basis of fair use: for certain uses, you don't need permission from the copyright holder. Every "fair-use" image on Wikipedia is posted here without permission of the copyright holder. So it doesn't matter whether we get an image of a copyrighted video game cover or screenshot from some "official" site or somewhere else; the copyright status is the same in both cases, and in both cases we're using it here without the copyright holder's permission. —Bkell (talk) 14:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents
I have started a thread at WP:ANI requesting input on your recent mass deletion of links that you claim link to copyvios. The discussion can be found here. Chris lk02  Chris Kreider 14:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going to steer clear of the ANI discussion because in the case of Odyssey: The Compleat Apventure I think it was a fair call and I'm not familiar with the other issues mentioned; however it's worth noting that there is such a thing as abandonware and as such some of these old-game sites could be hosting the files with either authorization or, if the program is abandonware, that's the same as public domain. There are also developers such as Scott Adams/Adventure International that have placed their 30-year-old games on the web for anyone to access and distribute. I don't know whether this sort of scenario was the case with regards to the Odyssey links (I'll have to check), but especially when you're dealing with older software, it's probably a good idea to make sure the site isn't a legitimate source before declaring it copyvio. Cheers! 23skidoo (talk) 22:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

What edit exactly?
Would you care to provide the diff from my edit history that resulted in this? Please reply on my talk page. Fnagaton 21:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Linking URLs
Please stop changing citations that have URL links as they provide a secondary source of information. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC).
 * What? you claim that URls represent a form of copyviol? Excuse me if that doesn't seem preposterous judging by your indiscriminate deletion of URLs. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC).

Hermann Görner
Ouch - yes. I should have checked the copyright bit. 1951 is well in copyright, and their disclaimer doesn't washl. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Links to Google Books in references and citations
The rationale for your deletion of parts of references that make use of Google books is in error: they are not to be avoided, though they may not be in the appropriate form. I think you need to revert your changes of removing crucial parts of the references and add appropriate notes to the talk pages of these articles if you do not have the ability or time to make the appropriate changes yourself. There is a discussion on WP:RSN. The edit which drew my attention to this (Peterloo Massacre) was in the appropriate form, and the other links you have edited out may well have been in appropriate forms, and so you need to take more care in future. I do not expect to see any more removals of google books urls in references and citations from you which remove quite appropriately formatted references, until the matter is discussed by yourself on the WP:RSN talkpage. DDStretch   (talk)  16:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm also concerned about this part: book ref + Google Books deep link to exact passage are a lot more informative than just book ref. But I don't know where policy stands on this. I'm happy to go with whatever consensus emerges at WP:RSN as mentioned above. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Bad fair use of Image:Ique.jpg
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Ique.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Ique.jpg is an image with a clearly invalid fair use tag; or it is an image that fails some part of the non-free content criteria and the uploader has been given 48 hours' notification (for images uploaded after 2006-07-13) or seven days' notification (for images uploaded before that date). (CSD I7). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Ique.jpg, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 18:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:AutoCAD_drawing_of_a_Great_Western_King.jpg
Moved to commons,

If you could file a note to the permissions queue at OTRS as well it would be helpful :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello Sfan00 IMG

With reference to this note above that you left on my talk page. I have no idea what you are talking about so I would appreciate what your message means. By-the-way the diagram of the train was drawn by me and placed on wikipedia by me. I have placed the right license on the image and don’t know what your problem is.  stavros1  ♣

UK Road Signs
Hello Sfan00 IMG I have removed all the tags you placed on the UK road sign PNG. A long discussion has already taken place with an administrator on Wikipedia and the tag is sufficient to satisfy the licensing of these images. READ THE COMMUNICATIONS FURTHER UP MY TALK PAGE. They are current and useful images on Wikipedia and placeing tags to get them deleted is not very constructive.  stavros1  ♣

Image:Amityville main theme.ogg
I am a busy person. Somebody here clearly has far too little to do with their time. The Image:Amityville main theme.ogg clearly has an adequate tag and is fair use in The Amityville Horror. Please do not waste the time of serious users with frivolous, poorly thought out or overzealous tagging. -- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 19:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Aquabarbie.jpg
For goodness' sake. This image is used to illustrate the articles as mentioned. It is clearly fair use in these contexts. This is making unnecessary work for me without any article improvement occurring. Please stop. -- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 20:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This one was overzealously tagged - Removed or reverted! Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:What a feeling 12".jpg
Any more tagging like this and I am calling in an admin. Whoever is doing this is not up to the job. -- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 20:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive behavior
If you know what is good for yourself you will stop. You already know why you should stop, numerous editors have told you, so do it already. Have a nice day. :)  Asenine   19:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not a good editor's job to do something which is not necessary at all.  Asenine   21:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What sort of "disruption" are you possibly claiming here? How has the wiki process been disrupted? What is this editor doing wrong? Bstone (talk) 21:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Cock. Ignore me, wrong user messaged (too many bloody tabs). As for my second reply, take is as a nonunderstanding response. Have a nice day. :)  Asenine   21:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know, I am much too tired. I'll sort this out in the morning, those messages might have been for you, they might not be. Too many bloody tabs, and too much bloody RL work. Best wishes.  Asenine   21:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's morning, and I still can't work out if these messages were for you or not. Ignore them, I'd say. Have a nice day. :)

 Asenine   09:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Material from ukfree.tv
TV region maps - and other content from ukfree.tv

In regard to TV region maps on English Wikipedia, could you if you are the site owner of ukfree.tv lodge an approriate permission with the Wikimedia authorities via the permissons queue in OTRS. (see WP:COPYREQ )

Marking the images as PD-Self is fine, but it would be nice to confirm this so that the contributors flagging up images can be SURE thier legal :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

What is OTRS?  BRIANTIST  (talk) 21:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I still have no idea why loads of my work has been "untagged". Can you please explain why and what I have to do.  BRIANTIST   (talk) 22:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sfan00 - we seem to have been at cross-purposes, There's been no "unilateral nuking" - the tags I added were to state more specifically what the problems with each image are, and they all give the uploader time in which to address the issues. I've also been in touch with him to provide additional clarification; as I see you have as well. Cheers --Rlandmann (talk)

Linking to copyrighted material
Having some issues with people reverting removal of links to copyrighted material that was spammed. Specifically at Cray and Digital Equipment Corporation. Thought you may be the one to explain things better for User talk:Rilak, considering he doesn't appear to understand policy given what he wrote on my talk page. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 16:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Shelob.jpg
Thanks for the heads-up. That picture was uploaded way back in my wikichildhood. I've added a more comprehensive fair use rationale for the image now. I do think that making it a candidate for speedy deletion was a bit harsh as there was some explanation already there. But, all fixed now anyway. ▫ Urbane Legend chinwag 11:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't figure out how to make the template work. *shrug* ▫ Urbane Legend chinwag 11:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, template filled and added. Copyright holder clearly identified (New Line Cinema) and rationale transferred from my previous paragraph of text into template format. Please provide any further feedback on how to make this image pass muster, if necessary. ▫ Urbane Legend chinwag 23:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Scopes trial.jpg
Thank you for your help. I added that pithily-worded "fair use rationale" as part of a very frustrating exchange with the guy who posted the fair use banner. He advised me to read the article about fair use and that he didn't have time for the "hassle" of any further discussion on it. I hate the guessing games. My ongoing question simply is, "How can I word it so it won't get tagged for deletion?" I seldom get anything resembling an answer on that question, which reinforces my attitude that they just enjoy deleting stuff, as kind of a hobby. I'm not unmindful of copyright issues, but this is an 83-year-old photo fer cryin' out loud! Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

More copyrighted material problems
I would appreciate it if you could pop in over at User talk:Rilak and further explain the execution of Wikipedia copyright policy. He is having some issues with the removal of links to copyrighted material that was spammed by the computermuseum. Specifically at Cray and Digital Equipment Corporation. He keeps insisting that the fact that they stated on their talk page they have permission is good enough, and the issue is that simply stating it is not enough - as you even mentioned to them, they need to provide actual proof. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 14:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You had commented on Computerhistory's talk page regarding the matter of needing proof of permission.  I was asking if you could respond on Rilak's page as originally requested, because he's having a hard time understanding policy (as you can see on my talk page as well). Computerhistory was literally used just to spam links to their own site across Wikipedia, hence the links were reverted on a COI basis, not to mention the copyright issues. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Invitation
The following is a quote from my talk page in response to your comments.

"Yes I get that. I get that since the very beginning of this dispute. The current course of this dispute is heading towards unpleastness. It is clear that we need to contact the Computer History Mueseum to encourage them to get a proper statement regarding the copyright status of their materials displayed somewhere on their website. I suggest that we, being involved in the dispute, create a user subpage on one of our user pages and draft an email that can be sent. Since I am supporting the inclusion of the disputed external links, I feel that I should provide this resource. It can be accessed here. However, if you wish to not use mine, that is fine, just let me know where it is.

I also propose a halt to all edits to articles in response to the external links in question. If you choose not to, that is fine, but as a demonstration of good will, I will halt all edits of such nature until this dispute has been resolved."

I hope that you will accept this invitation. And as for the COI and linkspam concerns, I will add the external links myself after this matter has been resolved. Thanks. Rilak (talk) 15:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Wwh.png
please review the page. There is absolutely NOTHING lacking per CSD10. remove the tag yourself, or I'll do it again. ThuranX (talk) 21:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Vimal (company)
A tag has been placed on Vimal (company) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Goodvac (talk)  22:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: You Tube
I added a link to my Youtube account page, not a video. if you could please explain to me how a youtube account is violating copyright terms then by all means, explain. Point93 (talk) 20:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Youtube links
I hope this helps you answer the question. Let me know if you need more sane admin comments...  - Jameson L. Tai   talk ♦  contribs  23:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Fleischer Studios image deletion
Can you provide a reason for your proposed CSD? -- Big Scary Mike  (Talk/Contrib)  19:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Commons upload
Just wanted to let you know, you uploaded Image:Bob Parsons.jpg‎ to the Commons a few minutes ago and credited me as the original uploader. I'm not. All I did was crop the original version to clean it up. Not sure what you need to do to correct that so the entire file history is shown on Commons. Kafziel Complaint Department 22:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Silver ball Pubsign.JPG

 * Are you sure about photographs of pub signs? There are several pubsigns at Wikicommons. Unless I'm mistaken all the photographers there claim copyright. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Pub_signs

Re: Disputed Fair Use
I am actually trying to find and convert all of my fiar use images still here to carry and support the non-free fair us rational template. I do thank you for the notices though, as it appears I will have to work on the gundam images a little earlier than planned :) TomStar81 (Talk) 03:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Gwdervish.jpg
FYI, I updated the page and removed the delete tag. --Xeeron (talk) 13:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The Beatles Box Set
I've updated the formal fair use rationale for Image:TheBeatlesBoxSet.JPG. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Image taggings
Hi, I see you have recently been tagging non-free images for deletion, often because their rationale "lacked detail". I have the impression many of those you tagged were quite obvious routine cases, of types of images where the community has a very firm consensus that they are generally legitimate, such as company logos or cover art. I'd recommend that we shouldn't be overly obsessive in tagging those – just because a rationale is short and crisp and doesn't rehash the obvious doesn't mean the image should be deleted.

Don't get me wrong, I'm very much in favour of taking a strict line on non-free images and I appreciate your efforts. It's just that I'd recommend concentrating more on those areas where the substance of fair use claims is wrong, not just where the formalities have been treated a bit more laxly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I would like to add that I don't see where it says at Non-free use rationale guideline that you need to state the name of the original copyright holder. Asher196 (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, WP:NFCC 10a says that; Sfan is right about that one. We need to know the copyright holder in order to assess whether our use is really "fair". Although, in obvious cases such as cover art or screenshots it's rather trivial, because the copyright holder will always be whoever owns the work as a whole – in such cases, tagging for deletion really makes not too much sense. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Then we have a conflict, because the guideline doesn't seem to require it. Asher196 (talk) 21:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the guideline is woefully inadequate. But the whole general practice of writing rationales is totally f...d up anyway. 99% of all rationales that get written are totally useless. Nobody ever does what really ought to be done: explain in their own words, simply and straightforwardly, what they are going to do with that image and why they think they need it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It does (re NFCC10a)? In any case although it may obvious to some people, when scanning through them it's not obvious that say Bandi owns Gundam or Tomy Zoids character designs, that's why quite a few images were DFU tagged. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Infectious cover small.jpg
I don't understand why you tagged this as not having a non-free image rationale. There is one on there, it does explain who the owners of the image are (Suburban Legends), and I don't know what further information is needed. --Lyght (talk) 17:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Anime screenshots
I don't know the specifc name of the person or persons who hold(s) the copyright. I would assume that it is the same person or persons that hold(s) the copyright for the work the screenshot apperas in, but then you've got licensing complications, shared or loaned rights, etc ad infinium.

Just delete them. I've got IRL stuff to worry about. -- saberwyn 21:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair use images
Hi, it would be helpful if you did not remove images you have tagged as disputed fair use from articles, as the context within the article is useful to the reviewing administrator. Do you think you could leave them there in future? Kevin (talk) 06:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Do my updates satify the requirments to prevent deletion?
Picture up for deletion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lelouch-geass.jpg --The Virginian (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The Clientele album covers
You have taged my album cover uploads for deletion. These images were uploaded under standard fair use guidelines, and uses the standard Template:Non-free use rationale. There is nothing wrong with the provided rationale. The explicit mention of a copyright holder is irrelavent. See particularly famous album covers such as Rubber Soul, Stripped, or Back in Black. If you still don't agree with me, I request some form of outside and unbiased mediation to reach a conclusion on this subject.--Entoaggie09 (talk) 08:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Why have you tagged this image?
What is your rationale for tagging this image for speedy deletion? Which CSD criterion do you believe applies? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this really necessary?
Hi, and thanks for your message. No one will ever know, or want to know&mdash;except Wikipedia, it seems&mdash;who the orginal copyright holder of a piece of age-old junk was (Image:RAshtray.JPG). What can I do to salvage that image? Why have you tagged it and put it up for speedy deletion? Best wishes, &lt;K  F&gt;  19:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

PS The cigarette butt is mine, but hereby I release it into the public domain. &lt;K F&gt;

Dark Mousy image
I don't understand. Is the copyright holder not Yukiru Sugisaki, as mentioned in the rationale? Please reply on your talk page, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It may be the animation company that artist worked for, but point taken Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Blue cat image
Hi, you tagged the Image:3000WhysofBlueCat.jpg with not having a source information. It clearly does. As it is from the "Beijing Sunchime Happy Culture Company" according to the fairuse rationale. Benjwong (talk) 04:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Re:Fair Use images
So? It's not our job to be the detectives, is it? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Hardy boys cover 01.jpg
Hello, I gave you the detailed fair use explanation that you requested for the copy of the book cover for The Tower Treasure the first time you asked for it back in 2007.

Subsequent to that time, someone else inserted this image into another article.

You are now asking me to provide a detailed fair use explanation for the use of an image in an article that I have had nothing to do with. I will not do this, you may contact the article's author if this concerns you. Alternatively, you may remove the image from that article ONLY if you see fit.

You may not delete this image, as it has met all criteria in Wikipedia for fair use in the article for which it was intended. Please remove the "candidate for deletion" verbiage you inserted into that image at your earliest convenience.

In the future, may I suggest you deal directly with those wikipedia users who are incorrectly/improperly using images, rather than placing the onus on the original image uploader.

FinFangFoom (talk) 02:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Flashdance etc
The rationales for these images were rewritten a few weeks ago after a similar request from the same user. I had hoped that frivolous and timewasting behaviour of this kind would cease. It is obvious that web resolution screenshots of Jennifer Beals, Michael Nouri etc are fair use in the article Flashdance. No more timewasting, please remove these tags or I am calling in an administrator. I am not going to spend time running around after someone who is either on an ego trip or does not have even the most basic idea of how fair use works.

Please note that just because a fair use rationale is not written to your personal satisfaction, it does not mean that it is wrong in some way. It is a pity to have to mention this again. To save time, all of these tags have been removed. Regular Wikipedians take copyright issues seriously and cannot spend valuable time on things like this. The talk page of this user shows that he/she has an ongoing problem with overzealous tagging of images, leading to criticism from other users. It is poor wikiquette to create excessive janitorial duties for other users, and time spent on rewriting image tags simply to please this user would be bettter spent on article improvement. It is to be hoped that this user will take these comments on board, and avoid similar issues in the future. -- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:AD&D 2nd Edition Player's Handbook.jpg
I have updated Image:AD&D 2nd Edition Player's Handbook.jpg by removing di-disputed fair use rationale and adding Non-free use rationale for Editions of Dungeons & Dragons. I see you have been very active in policing images. I would offer that your time be better spent by updating the fair use rationale instead of adding deletion templates. In the case of this image, 99% of the information about the fair use was right there on the image's page. &mdash; MrDolomite &bull; Talk 11:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Re:  Thanks for the note.  I know there are many issues with image copyright all over WP.  Some are easy to fix, like this one; many are not.  With enough editors eventually they can be resolved.  I have an inclusionist view on WP:FURG, which is odd, because on other issues, I am definitely a deletionist. :)  Such are the ways of the wiki. &mdash; MrDolomite &bull; Talk 11:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Images
Please don't start plastering tags on my talk page, didn't you read the notice??. If you have a problem with some image please compile a list and post it to me once rather than drilling me unnecessary text messages every time and every few seconds. Thankyou The Bald One       White cat 21:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I've done the first two. It would help naturally of course if they already have the rationale if you could quickly check the distributer in the film article box and quickly add the copyright holder if it only requires minor work. The Bald One     <font size="-4"> White cat 21:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Look I know it is important that we get the licensing of every image sorted on here and appreciate your efforts in this area but please can you avoid sending long lists of messages on peoples talk pages in one go. Put yourself in User:Shshshsh's shoes. Imagine logging into wikipedia and finding a stressful long list of problematic images like that. It isn't really welcoming is it? If you compile it can you please just write the titles of the images in a list rather than the repeated drills which can spam a talk page beyond 100kb in only minutes and that goes for any editor. Its not to bad up to five messages but beyond please consider doing it. Cheers  The Bald One      <font size="-4"> White cat 21:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. I know that many editors have raised concerns over bot drills in the past which resulted in the modification of the bot to list format. I don;t see why TWINKLE couldn't be adapted accordingly. As I said its not so bad up to 5, but anything more and it really can be quite discouraging to log into wikipedia and find that it has been swamped with repeated messages with nothing different other than the titles. Sheesh there is a huge backlog of images which need copyright holder proclamation on them. I know and expect it to be the responsibility of the uploader, but if any images you find only need require minor alteration I would hope you could help the cause if it needs to be done quickly. We both know that film posters are within guidelines on wikipedia. They all just need a proper rationale and attributation to the copyright holder. If you have a TWINKLE proposal to suggest at the village pump or wherever let me know. Best  The Bald One      <font size="-4"> White cat 22:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Please stop!
Stop tagging images with proper FU rationales for no reason. I want to know according to what criterion in the WP:FU policy you are tagging the images. Please see WP:RAT andTemplate:Non-free use rationale and learn something else about what should and what shouldn't be in an image rationale. Secondly, according to what WP:CSD criterion are you doing this? BTW, you also tagged images in which the copyright holder is cited. Shahid •  Talk 2 me  08:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I find it completely offensive to check my talkpage only to find numerous random image notices - all of which carry the same text. I also think you tag many images for no reasons whatsoever. I do all according to Wikipedia's policies and guideline. WP:RAT is the guideline for me, not your notices. Secondly, if your tagging was indeed correct, I think you could work a bit harder and send me that in one take (one message) instead of filling my page with redundant automatic messages. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  15:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Adonis.JPG
One of the ongoing problems of this user is a lack of common sense and proportion in matters relating to fair use. When people can go to the internet and download entire albums and films illegally, is a copyright lawyer really going to make a huge fuss about the mugshot of Joe Adonis? Does this user have a thing about copyright, or is he/she getting a kick out of issuing disputed fair use tags like confetti? This sort of thing could discourage people from contributing to Wikipedia, so it needs to be addressed. The whole question of disputed fair use tags needs to be discussed at Village pump (policy). -- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 11:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

You're_a_good_man,_CB_Leo.jpg‎
Looks like it has a rationale similar or the same as used on other LPs: The cover art copyright is believed to belong to the record label or the graphic artist. I didn't upload the image but if you tell me what is wrong, I will try and fix it. XF Law (talk) 03:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The image for this particular rendition is owned by MGM Records. XF Law (talk) 12:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Striking through problem image tags
Thank you for the gesture. If it's ok with you, I'd rather you not strike through, or even add, any problem image tags to my talk page from now on. I have a fairly sizable watchlist of images that I check regularly (though one obviously fell through the cracks). Also I find receiving these tags a little irritating and I assure you that if a useful image that I've uploaded is deleted, I'll restore it and add the requisite copyright info and fair use rationale(s). Otherwise, keep up the good work, it must take a lot of dedication to keep sifting through as many problem images as you have, and for that you have my gratitude and respect. Regards, ˉˉanetode╦╩ 06:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Flirting Scholar DVD cover.jpg
You tagged the above image that I uploaded for deletion. Why exactly? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool thanks. That was amazingly fast. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Drawings derivative of copyrighted photographs
FYI, Village pump discussion here. Thought you'd be well-equipped to properly and speedily tag them and/or list them for deletion. Cheers, Postdlf (talk) 02:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! If you have time, he uploaded other such images for which the originals have not yet been identified, but which are also presumably copyvios.  Postdlf (talk) 17:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of traps in the Saw film series
An article that you have been involved in editing, List of traps in the Saw film series, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/List of traps in the Saw film series (2nd nomination). Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? CyberGhostface (talk) 15:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Vimal (company)
A tag has been placed on Vimal (company) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Bongomatic (talk) 07:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyright concerns about Virtuallybaroque.com?
What copyright concerns do you have about the site Virtuallybaroque.com? I'm not sure what the problem is: the files are made from scores of works in the public domain (or scores for which the author, James Pressler, has copyright), made into midi files with organ registrations and the like, and converted using organ samples that are either freely available or which James has permission to use for the site. You can certainly discuss concerns with him by email. I find it very useful to have links to audio in articles, and therefore I think Virtually Baroque is a great resource. That's why I've been adding highly relevant links to it from Wikipedia articles. Graham 87 01:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * And there is nothing wrong with deep links. As it says in the file name, obliquely in the metadata, and at the main site, it's performed by Canto Armonico, which would have been trivial to find out. And the copyright must rest with them as the file is on their official site. Graham 87 01:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC) Graham 87  01:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Great Tit
licence amended jimfbleak (talk) 08:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Stiens photo
This photo has already been transferred to Commons from the Dutch Wikipedia. Mjroots (talk) 14:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Mourning Dove picture
I updated the license to include Creative Commons. When you move it to Commons, can you please rename it from Quail to Mourning Dove? For example NestlingMourningDoveNestlingsAndMourningDoveMother.jpg. Thank you. --15:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

License for Image:Northern_Heights_Map_Mockup.png
Hi, thanks for the query about this image. Although I created the current and two previous versions, I did not create the original and apply the license. The original author was McDRye, so you should ask him if the license can be changed.--DavidCane (talk) 22:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Little Lakes.jpg
Thanks for reminding me of this image: I uploaded a higher-res, multi-licensed version of the image to Commons. hike395 (talk) 08:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

netball court.svg
That image was originally placed in the public domain by me; the person who has edited it later has put the GFDL licence on it. So, technically, you'll have to talk to them to relicense it. --Robert Merkel (talk) 02:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I have been having problems getting that image to render correctly. The version currently used in the netball article is netball-edit2.svg. Also, there is another version already on Commons, netball court medium.png, based on the original version by Robert Merkel. Let me know if you would still like me to relicense. --Lasunncty (talk) 01:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:1093LC Tupatukasi Waterfall.jpg
What exactly (what template, what syntax) do you want me to add? I have currently there:

Licensing:
Lester Kovac (talk) 03:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Possibly Unfree Images
If you aren't sure whether the images I have uploaded are free, why don't you find out for sure before listing them for deletion? Why not try and find a solution instead of just charging headlong in and getting rid of relevant content? Hammersfan 10/11/08, 22.40 BST

Reducing image
Would you kindly reduce this image to the required size? I'm not very tech savvy: Image:EastsidePlayhouse.jpg  BTW, everyone shown in this image is dead, and the building no longer exists, so it is an image of historical interest as used in the article on the Light Opera of Manhattan. So, if possible, we shouldn't reduce it too much. I also have corresponded with the photographer, and he is pleased that it is being shown on WP. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much! Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:PuneFC Senior Squad and Staff.jpg
Hi, I have changed the licensing as suggested by you. Shovon (talk) 08:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair use, etc.
First of all, I thought it was common courtesy to let the uploader of an image know when it's been tagged for deletion... At least a bot was kind enough to give me a heads up.

I see the changes that you made to The Clientele album covers that I uploaded. I will now be using that template for any future uploads. I'm just looking for some confirmation here: As long as I use the template you used and insert a source website and the potential copyright holders (record label, graphic artist) in the appropriate places then the images are ok? I reduced the size of the God Save The Clientele cover and added the appropriate source website. Is that one acceptable? Let me know and I will adjust any future edits accordingly. Cheers, --Entoaggie09 (talk) 20:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Youtube links
Please don't remove links to youtube.com from userpages. While links to individual copyrighted videos might be disallowed, you're taking an extreme stance that will only antagonise people when you remove even links to the main site. Remember: Consensus helps a great deal in these situations. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Youtube main page removals from userpages
I've undone a few of your edits removing Youtube's main page from a few userpages. I see absolutely no reason for doing this, and I find it pretty rude to remove stuff from userpages without talking to the users first. These links do not go to copyrighted content, but to the landing page for youtube. I'd ask that you don't do this anymore without some legitimate reason. Thanks. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Same difference. Thanks for not doing it anymore. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd be interested in seeing the policy that says they must be removed. I understand the rationale in article space, but certainly not in userspace. It's not as if I am hosting copyrighted material on Wikimedia servers, I apparently just have external links to a site which is known to host them - there is nothing wrong with that.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 18:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

RE: License for Image:Tecan LiqHandlingRobot.JPG
Sounds good. I'll take care of it. Sorry for delay in response. Had to take a wikibreak or I'd go crazy. will381796 (talk) 19:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

GeoTemplate
I responded to your query at Template talk:GeoTemplate. —EncMstr (talk) 23:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Devonport Dockyard in 1909 plan.png
Sorry, I decline your request to add non-GFDL licenses for this image. In addition, the image was already at Commons and I nominated it for speedy cdeletion as a breach of copyright, for these reasons: the image use here breaches the terms of the GFDL license that I granted:
 * 1) Many people moving images to Commons have failed to include full image history and on one occasion this has given the impression that I uploaded a map that misrepresented the distribution of the populations in Palestine prior to partition, libeling me. The version I uploaded was correct, the later versions were not, but nobody could examine the earlier versions to see which ones I'd personally uploaded or discover who had uploaded the misrepresentative image. This image does not include the full image history, lacking the old image version and author/owner information. So, breach of the GFDL.
 * 2) The move process currently replaces the original owner information with that of the person who copied or moved the image and leaves no link to the user page of the actual owner of the work that others can follow up on easily to  do license compliance checks. The GFDL requires proper ownership information to be preserved, as do general policies to provide a proper audit trail for copyright compliance checking. No copyright trail and the image will have to be deleted due to lack of proper licensing record. Better to get it right now than lose the image later.
 * 3) The author information and history can currently be obtained via the link to en, but en policy allows speedy deletion of images that have a copy on Commons, so it can vanish at any time. That both compounds the license breach and makes us even more likely to lose the image in the future.
 * 4) Loss of owner information means that it'll be impossible to ask the owner for additional licenses, locking up the image with only the GFDL license. That's not a good thing for a project that wants to encourage future reuse under future licenses to be doing.
 * 5) It's possible for the developers to rectify these defects. Ask them. I used to be one, it's not that hard to stop the routine failure to preserve copyright ownership trail, and comply with the GFDL.

I have absolutely no objection to the image being copied there. Just so long as it's done properly, following the license and preserving ownership and contact information. Once its there properly, in full compliance with the GFDL and U.S. law on accurate copyright ownership information, I'll add a grant of a CC license. It's not currently prudent for me to upload it directly, unfortunately, but it may be possible for me to generate a scan of the original work and reduce the risk sufficiently for me to do that. If I can later do this, I will. Jamesday (talk) 13:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * RE your message on my de talk page: I don't see any trace of my bot being used for transferring this image. I will need to see exactly what the bot did, and what it did wrong. Also, I do not know what you mean with "complete audit trail" in this context. --Magnus Manske (talk) 18:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Tagging on roads articles
Please stop that. Using Google Maps as a source for length data does not make it a derivative work any more than using a newspaper article as a source does. Basic facts such as this aren't copyrightable. Thanks. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The Wikimedia Foundation is incorporated in the United States, so U.S. copyright laws apply, not the European Union. I highly recommend that you study the copyright policies further before continuing work in this area. To say citing a source makes the article a derivative work is patently ridiculous. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not how it works, though. If it is five miles from point X to point Y, that is a fact, and regardless of how that data is represented, it is not eligible for copyright. It would not be any different to cite this than it would if a state Department of Transportation map stated the same distance, and we cited that. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It is clear that you do not understand copyright rules at all. Please study them thoroughly before making brash edits such as this. Otherwise, further problems will occur. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * if anything, acknowledging something as a source affirms the copyright, but doesn't infringe it. Please read the article Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service for information on why the contents of a database are not copyrightable, only the presentation. Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I been asked by Sfan00 to help solve the issue. Can anyone tell me, at my talk page, what the main problem is? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Cord-data is not copyrightable and does not need a fair-use rational. Facts and figures cannot be copyrighted. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * In the US, Some of us are EU based, Also Google own terms of use seem to say you aren't supposed to derive data-sets from them. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * WIkimedia is based in the US, as is Google Maps, so US law should be controlling. These links aren't deriving a dataset from Google. The links in the articles' references are pointing to Google, but nothing is being downloaded from them. If anything the facts and details being used in the references belong to NAVTEQ or TeleAtlas, the companies that supply the data to Google in the first place, not Google. It is no different than a reference that points someone to the Michigan Department of Transportation's Official DOT Map, or a page in the Rand McNally Atlas. No copyright is being infringed. Elements of fact in a database are copyrightable under the Feist v. Rural case I noted above, only the presentation of those facts. Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all, we don't care about Google's TOS. It dosn't matter in regards to copyright.  Secondly, this is not what they are talking about.
 * There is no country in the world that will enforce a copyright on cords. In order for something to be copyrightable it MUST have some element of creativity. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 23:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Wrong. In the UK, organisations HAVE been taken to court for reusing derived data-sets even if this was by peicemeal incorporation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What here is being "derived"? The links are just pointing to a map being hosted by Google. It's no different than if I linked to the online PDFs for the MDOT maps in addition to the paper version of the map. Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And who cares about the UK? We are talking about United States law. We got a divorce from the UK over 225 years ago. We are not bound by the same laws as the UK. We are not in Europe. We are not part of the European Union. We are not bound by the same laws as the EU. Got it? --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Sfan00, while it would be interesting to read though those cases it's irrelevant here. Wikipedia's server is located in USA... and Google is located in the USA.  British law can not apply. In either case, cords, as a system have existed for much longer then Google. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 23:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, The point about external links appears to have been made - Those can be reinstated as external links..
 * In terms of referencing to a specfic location, where the coord data is implicit in the URL, those are probably alos acceptable, but ideally should be supported with an additional source if possible..
 * This leaves remaining, coordinate and milage data, where the geo-data concerned has been obtained from Google Maps (or another commerical mapping provider) and where the Google Data is used as a reference. The concern with this last group, is that over time by a peicemeal approach, a dataset contained in enwiki (being coordinates/milage date) has been built-up from that held in Google Maps, something Google Maps terms do not permit a single user to do (let alone on GFDL compatible terms). In many cases there are alternative data sources which are 'free' which could be used in preference to the Google Data.


 * The links were commented, because of an ongoing disscussion elsewhere Template Talk:GeoTemplate IIRC about what exactly

Google's term's said. Sometimes taking a precautionary approach, and reinstating later is better than having to suddenly remove a lot of links. In most cases, some contributors have already rollbacked the commentings, something I don't nessacrily agree with.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh, because the commentings were wrong in the first place? --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * On External links maybe - I'll go and reinstate those... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * By now 4-5 people have complained at your talk page about what you have done. Does that tell you anything? --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 4-5 People complaining doesn't nessacirly decide a matter. I am looking over the commentings/removals, that should also tell you something. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

While I appreciate the intent, the result is wrong. There is no derivation of the data set in the English Wikipedia site. In no place in the encyclopedia is a second database being built up out of Google's data. The data being hosted by Google is not subject to copyright protection in the US, the county whose law is controlling on both WP and Google. Yes, a lot of your commenting has been reverted as the end result of your actions is wrong. You can't copyright the fact that a playground or building is located next to a certain road, and even if you could, there's no difference between giving the Google Map as a reference, using a phone book reference or even a photo showing the road next to the feature in question. In short, using it as a source doesn't infringe on what Google can copyright, the presentation of the data, something that these reference link don't replicate on WP. Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Well... we have been advised by other administrators to rollback such changes as vandalism, meaning that it can be treated as such. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

OK Looks like the debate over Google Maps/Wikimapia is going to run, as I've said elsewhere futher removals would thus appear to be premature..

It would be advised to try and find additonal citations to use for geo-data alongside Google though. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Copyrights and Google Maps/Google Books
You may want to be much more careful when tagging "copyright issues". A simple reference to a copyrighted work is not a derivative work; if it was there would be approximately zero references on Wikipedia... In addition, on Cumberland, Maryland, you removed a reference to a book, claiming copyright issues. Not only does the above apply (simply linking to a copyrighted work is not a violation of its copyright), but in addition that book is in the public domain: it was published in the 1870s. - Algorerhythms (talk) 22:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

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. --NE2 01:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)