User talk:ShakespeareFan00/Sfan00 IMG/Archive 6

Copyright License
So then how do I create one because both those are my pictures that I took on the cruise that I went on? --Yankeesman312 (talk) 01:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Diptendu Pramanick's photos tagged repeatedly
Not sure why you tag this photo (Dipt_suit.jpg) repeatedly. I had put a fair use rationale and Wiki policy does not require the rationale to be given in template form only. In fact there are examples showing how the information can be given in paragraph form also. The info was already in the summary for any intelligent person to understand. Unnecessary tagging. Am sure all such images on Wikipedia are not tagged in the same fashion. SP 16:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pramanick (talk • contribs)

Licensing issues
Not sure why you tagged a number of my photos. They are archival materials published prior to 1923, so they are public domain in the U.S. (several were published in 1908, others in 1914, others even earlier). They are identified as "archival, published prior to 1923" and categorized as public domain. Two other photos you tagged were self-created. They are now identified as "self-created" but still categorized as public domain. I am a teacher and am using some of my free summer time to update historical, geographical, and political data on the communities and townships in my home county (Nobles County, MN). Students in my school are required to do a local government report, and I am trying to put something on the web for them to work with. Ray.lowry (talk) 15:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Licensing, copyright, file source issues
Hey there- would you mind checking the file source and copyright licensing problems you tagged for the American Association of Teachers of Spanish and Portuguese? I have added rationales and copyright information as far as I can tell. Thanks Chelschamplin (talk) 13:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I corrected the mistake and fixed license. Gracias, me corrige el error y la licencia fija. Shatilov Konstantin (talk) 11:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Fixed up the NAFTA Union image
Hey thanks for pointing that out, the SVG version is now available CartoonDiablo (talk) 18:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

US Yacht Ensign
Not sure what the copy right is for that drawn image, so long ago I don't remember. I know the ensign was established by the US government, but there is an identical yacht flag ensign that has its copyrights clearly defined. Suggest replace where ever this ensign is displayed with the alternate image.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vchapman (talk • contribs) 01:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Archives

 * User talk:ShakespeareFan00/Sfan00 IMG/Archive
 * User talk:ShakespeareFan00/Sfan00 IMG/Archive 1
 * User talk:ShakespeareFan00/Sfan00 IMG/Archive 2
 * User talk:ShakespeareFan00/Sfan00 IMG/Archive 3
 * User talk:ShakespeareFan00/Sfan00 IMG/Archive 4
 * User talk:ShakespeareFan00/Sfan00 IMG/Archive 5

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Unsigned talk page posts
Whatever you're using to post to talk pages isn't adding a signature. For example, this. Please adjust this. Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The bug is that it's not appending " ~ " to the template code. It's fairly straightforward. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

File Tagging
Just FYI - You might find this useful in assisting you do some tagging (It takes awhile to load so be patient :) ). Regards,  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 00:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair use
The English Wikipedia is turning into the German Wikipedia, what with this new long-term strategy for removing all fair use images by thinking up ever more-stringent required rationales for the existing images every few years, then going on an enforcing spree and deleting all the ones whose editors have moved on (which I'll bet is the vast majority) rather than adding the rationales yourselves.

Very clever.

Do what you want. I played your game for a long while, but it gets wearying. You make bots to make your enforcing jobs easier, while at the same time make rules to discourage using bots to write rationales, with the result that your job gets easier and easier and the job for those on the other side gets harder and harder. And since most new editors are inclusionist by nature, it doesn't surprise me that the number of active editors on the English Wikipedia is decreasing. Esn (talk) 01:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Uhhh Very clever?? Pft, more like very smart.  If it wasn't for editors like Shakespeare Fan here, tagging images lacking appropriate copyright status, this project would have been sued to the ground a very long time ago; in other words, you would not have a Wikipedia to even edit today if we flaunted copyright law. Perhaps instead of taking the time to write an egregious complaint, you could have instead taken the time to educate yourself by reading the relevant polices and guidelines (WP:IUP, WP:NFC, WP:FUG, WP:NFCC, WP:PERMISSION, ect.)  Alternatively, you could have slowed down, and taken the time to read the text on the form you used to upload your files. The whole process is described there in excruciating detail.  Contrary to your flawed assumption, most newbies actually upload images correctly; it's the few arrogant and ignorant individuals we have issues with.  -  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 02:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That's a pretty harsh tone, Fastily, for someone criticising the defects in another's complaint. Arrogant and ignorant? Given your appreciation of education in the area of copyright law, can you explain how Wikipedia could be "sued to the ground" for hosting copyrighted images with policy-inadequate claims of fair use? My understanding is that the law doesn't require explicit, per use written rationales to earn exemption under the fair use doctrine. More importantly, Wikipedia (or rather the Wikimedia Foundation) enjoys significant immunity for hosted content. The reason the Foundation is relatively strict (moreso than the law requires) is to protect downstream reusers, not the Foundation itself. You might want to read up on that before snidely insulting people who are, for whatever reason, fed up with the changing rules for uploads. Nathan  T 17:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Protected, but absolutely not immune. If the latter were true, there would be no need for legal counsel. With all due respect, perhaps you too, should do some reading before whining about the way I conduct business.  I will say no more. -  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 21:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As it turns out, there are other legal issues confronting the Foundation than the peril of being sued over copyright violations. You can leave it here if you like, but allow me to return the favor of sage advice - exaggerated language and inaccurate statements don't mix well with sarcastic advice to "read up." Nathan  T 02:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

"Sued to the ground"?! That's not going to happen! If you take down a file when asked to, you'll be fine. The internet is full of not-100% legal usage, but who's getting sued? No-one! A picture my parents took was deleted, despite me saying that it was under GFDL. You think they're going to sue?!

It's ridiculous. It's over-enforcement, and it is of more detriment to Wikipedia than the imagined threat of infringement suit. Tristanb (talk) 09:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Dar ul Islam Journal.jpg
Thanks for the notice. Under Pakistani law, the image (dated 1940) is now in the public domain. This image is from a journal that ceased publication over 50 years ago. Since the date of the publication of the image is on the image itself, it would be very easy to establish public domain under law. Furthermore, this image was given by the legal heir of the printer and publisher who was the copyright owner at the time. Kindly advise. Poloplayers (talk) 11:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion tagging of File:Bishop Ignace Bourget (photograph).jpg
Hi! You tagged File:Bishop Ignace Bourget (photograph).jpg for deletion on the basis that it did not contain copyright tags. Tags have now been added, but as a user relatively new to adding images to Wikipedia, could you please direct me to the policy that requires images to have these tags? My understanding is that the image is merely required to contain a valid free use rationale (which the image already contained in its Permissions data field), and that the tags are simply a way to highlight this information. My understanding was also that before tagging a file or article on Wikipedia for deletion, the onus was on the editor proposing deletion to make a good faith attempt to address the concerns where possible through regular editing, which would have been easy based upon the information contained in the image Permissions data. If I am incorrect in this I stand to be corrected! - DustFormsWords (talk) 13:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Specifically WP:IUP does require all images to have these tags; however, this is a style requirement, not a ground for deletion. The CSD criteria F4 and F6 only allow deletion where the image is missing a fair use rationale, and specifically state that the copyright tags do NOT constitute such a rationale.  Just concerned you're going around and tagging images for deletion when what you should be doing is advising editors of the style requirement to add these tags.  (I am now advised, thank you for furthering my Wikipedia education.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 13:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Easy TV (DTT)
Thanks Sfan00..will attempt to bring it back on track Scathain (talk) 13:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

iPhone pictures
yea you can delete them

only used them on the village pump to show what app i meant.

--Sophie (talk) 15:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * i did mean both of them
 * --Sophie (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Wouter.jpg
It was taken from the Dutch Wikipedia ages ago (as far as I remember) and it seems to be gone from there so to be honest I have no idea about its providence. Might be best to delete to be on the safe side although this is not an area of Wikipedia that I know much about so I'll leave any decisions up to you. Keresaspa (talk) 15:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Vengaboys Picture
I took the picture "Venga2" myself at the event in UCD, and uploaded it to my Mac and published it on Facebook and Wikipedia. I give full permission to use this under the creative commons licence, but I'm not sure how to put a "Licensing" section into the image page. Can you help with that?Mc8755 (talk) 17:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Drogba 2010.jpg
I have no idea how to make a copyright tag to the image description page. Can you please do it for me? Here is the the license and the source of the file:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/about-us/3692012/Terms-and-Conditions.html

File:Drogba 2010.jpg

chelsea-fan1 (talk) 19:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Chipotle Growth Graph.png
I added a GFDL copyright tag to the file, as I am the one who created the graph. Is this sufficient, or do I need to add anything else to the file? I am new to uploading files, so any advice would be helpful. Angryapathy (talk) 18:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

HI
Marubbi is not on copyright, because the photo is from 19 century. Can you help me with copyright because he died in year 1903  Stupidus Maximus (talk) 20:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Faik Konica + Josif Pani is domain of the public. I taked the photo from  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stupidus Maximus (talk • contribs) 20:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space
Hey there Sfan00 IMG, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User talk:ShakespeareFan00/Sfan00 IMG/Archive 5. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.


 * See a log of files removed today here.


 * Shut off the bot here.


 * Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Message
I don't know how to add a copyright to the article. The picture is in public domain. The author passed over 80 years ago and had no heirs. It's a scaled down version, necessarily for ID purpose. I tried to add the appropriate information onto the image's description. Please take care of this for me, and remove the error message. This is no article without this image. Jim Percy (talk) 16:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Phil Cooke Image
Hey sfan00 IMG, I've added the non-free fair use template to the image page. This is the first time I've uploaded an image, so please let me know if I'm missing anything else. Thanks! Jeremiah (talk) 19:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Digitized Sky Survey NGC images
Hello Sfan00. Since I am the one untagging all those galaxy images, I thought I would let you follow/see a thread that I have started on the use of those images. We will see what comes of it. ==> Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomical_objects -- Kheider (talk) 22:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

See also: SKY-MAP.ORG (a new section that I have started since no-one seems to be responding on the astro talk page.) -- Kheider (talk) 22:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Emma shah.jpg
Hello Sfan00.I uploading the  image of Emma shah with the  approval of the image, and this is the text of Approval: I'm Ema Shah, I dedicate a picture to the encyclopedia of Wikipedia to be used for the definition and publication only, and any encyclopedias or TV or newspapers could use it for publication, without the benefit of business, and without changing any part of the picture or the colors. Theatre Photos: Dari AL fozan. Album Photo: Khalid Allahho. For more information, you can check with yourself by contacting with the owner of the image  directly contact on the site. Regards --Jacksyria (talk) 23:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

File:USSAeolus.jpg
What an unpleasant aggravation it is to hear repeatedly from you about this Official U.S. Navy Photo. These photos exist by the hundreds of thousands, and are easily recognized for what they are. They almost never include any information about themselves except the designation "Official U.S. Navy Photo." It is beyond me why people like you not only question these photos, but provide reams of nearly useless suggestions about what to do with them to make them meet your requirements. Every action like this makes our world a little less pleasant place to live in, and Wikipedia a little less helpful to its users. Really, we'd all be better off if you could find some sort of constructive outlet for your efforts. Lou Sander (talk) 01:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Image Copyrights
✅ I simply forgot to license them, they are taken care of now.-- Ezekiel 7:19 †Go Canucks! (sign) 11:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment regarding bluewaterarena.jpg
Hi, please make sure to read the file page before copy/pasting something and adding it to the page. On the page in question there is a direct link to the copyright policy of the author. The copyright does not fall within any of the mentioned wikipedia boxes, and they are therefore not applicable. The copyright policy, which is linked to on the image page is as follows: World Stadiums copyright policy, accessdate 2010-05-04: "Every person is free to use our stadium pictures on the condition that the appropriate references are made." Mecil (talk) 13:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Error in this message for my talk page "Copy and paste"-->Speedy deletion nomination of File:Iceberg with hole 2.jpg
A tag has been placed on File:Iceberg with hole 2.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

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 page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Confusion about this notice - placed hon my talk page in error
--I do not know anything about this photo. It is not my work at all. Please contact the original copyright owner or the photographer of the photo and tell them your message. SriMesh | talk  19:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

message
Got it off a site. Never says "All rights reserved". GG360 (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Wholesale Applications Community (WAC)
Hi, I got a message from you about the picture I made for this article (that I also wrote). I certify I made this picture and it was not copied from an existing material. I also don't understand what you want me to do about this picture "then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page", if you can explain me it, in a few words, in plain English, without any of the Wikipedia acronyms I most probably would be happy to comply. Jean-Pierre —Preceding unsigned comment added by JPLeRouzic (talk • contribs) 16:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

DC ADIZ file
I'm not sure what the issue is with this image. It is altered from a NACO/FAA VFR navigation chart. That chart is published by the Federal Government and was marked as such under copyright status. These charts unaltered can be viewed on skyvector.com to confirm that is the source material. The charts include on the left margin information about the Federal agencies responsible for publishing them. Skywayman (talk) 22:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I see this image has been removed anyway even though I attempted to answer your question and received no further feedback. Should I upload it again or is there a reason the information provided was insufficient? Skywayman (talk) 13:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Albrecht von Hohenzollern.jpg, Hermann von Salza1.jpg
These images are about 800 years old so the copyright doesnt apply to them. According to Wiki, it has to be over a 100 years so those paintings are way older than that. Norum 22:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

PD-Canada images
I removed your trigger-happy templates from the PD-Canada images you notified me didn't have a "source"; what they DO have is public domain status, period. Source is irrelevant in such cases as the image is IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. No other explanation is needed, and if some little clique of rule-crazy Wikipedians has decided otherwise, it's a cockamamey policy that has no legal substance or relevance. Enough historical diggings could probably turn up which artist sketched Rear-Admiral Baynes and which Victoria photographer took a picture of his flagship, the HMS Ganges, likewise whoever it was in 1868 who tok a photo of the Alexandra Bridge (only so many photographers were in BC at the time, and only so many would have travelled upcountry in that year). But it doesn't matter who took the pictures, what matters is that THEY'RE IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. I note in above sections from other people you seem to have a habit of throwing down deletion templates apparently for the thrill of it, or the hell of it, and at times even on images 800 years old.....give your head a shake please, and find something more relevant to do than trying to delete the past.Skookum1 (talk) 00:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's simplify that: requesting a source so that copyright status may be determined is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT if something is in the public domain. SOMETHING IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN CANNOT HAVE A COPYRIGHT - 'no matter the source.  It's that simple.  Period.Skookum1 (talk) 00:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears you wish to turn this into an edit war on my talkpage; the logic of your request, as in the just-previous paragraph, is clearly non-existent and the rules you're invoking are built out of hot air and somebody with a powerful template who doesn't understand the subject matter. I oppose these deletions as images taken by an unknown photographer from over 100 years ago CANNOT HAVE A COPYRIGHT because they are IMPLICITLY in the public domain and CANNOT HAVE A COPYRIGHT.  Period period period.Skookum1 (talk) 00:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You know it would be so much easier to just provide the sourcing, than go into arguments about status. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You may also wish to read Help:Image_page Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Simple summary: Legally, no source needs to be provided. However, Wikipedia requires that a source be provided. If you can't provide one, then it could be deleted. Simple. --Deskana (talk) 00:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Adding on to Deskana, WP:V sums it up fairly well. -  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 01:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

[undent] NO, Wikipedia doesn't "require" source, some wikipedians came up with a rule demanding a source for things that do not have copyright and CANNOT. It's a nonsensical rule, founded in illogic and obsessive rule-mongering. All list "undetermined" and all are in the possession - but not exclusive possesion - of the BC Archives. These all have BC Archives and have catalogue numbers and BC Archives claims copyright (illegally), but some I know (such as the Alexandra Bridge pictures) are in VPL and/or the Vancouver Archives and similar collections, neither of which claim copyright control over anything (because they know they can't, as is also the case with the National Archives). Citing the BC Archives call numbers may satisfy this, but then some other earnest-but-uneducated admin is going to read the BC ARchives cash-grabbing false claim of copyright and remove them.....the BC Archives, once a publicly-owned institution like its parent the Royal British Columbia Museum, is now a private company trying to make its ownership of the province's public historical resources profitable by charging fees for use - fees which it has no legal right to exact and which it tries to exert on images that are also in other collections; including those of the originating party in many cases. This was gone over at length in determination fo the creation of PD-Canada in the course of coming to use BC Archives images, I don't know where the archived discussion is, but if the boilerplate on teh Archives site is read carefully the language only asks for payment, it has no legal binding claim on anything. Simply marking "copyright" on something you didn't create and dno't have exclusive ownership of is just not legal or binding; the fabrications of a private company are at odds with legal fact, and the practices of other archives who DO acknowledge public domain. If you like, use the BC Archives cal numbers, as I know has been done on itmes such as those on Steamboats of the Upper Fraser River; though in those cases the photographers are generally known and the images in wide circulation (like these) long before the Archives began its false claim of copyright ownership....the "source" for the image of HMS Ganges is the Royal Navy, because it was them who hired the photographer; the "source" for the 1868 Alexandra Bridge was probably Charles Gentile - whose negatives are not in the BC ARchives, but which are in the Vancouver Archives (which doesn'st claim copyright on anything).Skookum1 (talk) 00:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The images are:


 * this painting of Admiral Baynes, 1880s, artist undetermined. Society registers and diaries probably will contain the information as to who the Admiral "sat for" at the time
 * HMS Ganges at anchor in Victoria, 1880s, photographer undetermined - but likely under contract to the Royal Navy
 * Alexandra Bridge, c. 1868 - photographer undetermined, but from my knowledge of the time is most likely Charles Gentile. There were very few active photographers in BC in the 1860s, and only one or two "foreign 'photographers who took the trip to the Cariboo; this image is also either in VPL or the Vancouver Archives; BC Archives' claim to own copyright is as spurious as their claim that the Phair family collection, of which they have copies, is under their copyright; or indeed if one of my family photos were in their possession and they made such a claim.
 * Alexandra Bridge, 1926 - "Miscellaneous E album", whatever "E" is in Archives-speak or government-of-the-day-speak. My guess is that this is a DoH-type image (the Cariboo Highway had only recently been reopened, in 1922, and there was probably talk of upgrading the bridge).  It doesn't matter who the photographer was since these are in the public domain (no matter what BC Archives claims).Skookum1 (talk) 01:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * this edit by Fastilysock, though removed with "nevermind" as the edit comment, smacks of a threat to have me blocked for disputing illogical "policy", or actually for having me blocked for allegedly uploading copyrighted images knowingly. Which is not the case in the slightest; I'm disputing that copyright regs can be invoked on obviously public domain images; in this case there happens to be an online source whose copyright claims are dubious, and which have been dispensed with in previous discussions (and which I'll try to find deep in the archives of WP:CANTALK; even now, because of hte dispute, BC Archives has adjusted its wording to "other use requires permission", rather than their previous claim of copyright, but I happen to know from ongoing contact with the Archives that all that's required is that the catalogue number and a link to the item's index page be provided.  They don't want a deluge of requests from Wikipedia users asking for permissions for each and every item.  And they don't have copyright, and apparently knowing it have taken down their previous admonitions.  As noted, the other Canadian archives very pointedly label items which are public domain as public domain and make no requirement that "other use requires permission".  the difference is between publicly-funded, not-for-profit sources and corporate-owned sources trying to bluff people into paying for things they have no right to charge for.  In any case, after removing his little lecture-cum-threat to me about playing by the rules or else, Fastilysock added a "no license" tag to File:Van_1929_lrg_portofvancouverpan.jpg, which used to be linked on Port of Vancouver (it's on nothing now, though conceivably it has other uses), but the license was actually there, just mislabelled; once again, a PD-Canada item; if I recall right, it's sourced from http://www.bcer.bc.ca - if I haven't got the URL right it should be on British Columbia Electric Railway and is part of the region's then-transit system's publications for its customers, featured on that site.  And not copyrighted, then or now.  What struck me as "odd" was the way Fastilysock half-threatened me, then changed his mind, and targeted another of my added images, from long, long ago, as if to engage in entrapment.....why not just fix the obvious error in the license?  And in that case it says straight out that it's from an uncopyrighted system map from that year; I'll find the original image/site but nowhere on it does it say antyhing about copyright and, being from 1929, is definitely PD-Canada.   Do I have to name the artist who drew it, for pity's sake?  This reminds me of another instance, when I uploaded the cover of a vintage nightclub program, that had been in my parent's estate (for "the Cave", a famous old show club in Vancouver), stating clearly that it was uncopyrighted, was produced by the club for its patrons - but was "copyright challenged" and wantonly deleted, despite it being both public domain and also without copyright marking of any kind.  The same cover is probably in Vancouver Archives of Vancouver Public Library or other archival holdings, but not online; but even so, it shouldn't matter if they're online or not, or in a public holding vs a private one; the source was the Cave nightclub, who contracted the photographer who used t he program/souvenir as packaging for the photos inside (of my drunken parents having a good time, which wasn't in the uploaded image).  this is an example of the Vancouver Public Library not being so coy/greedy as the BC Archives.....to me, your insisting that copyright be proven when it can't exist is such a non sequitur that it really does make me wonder about logic vs appropriated bureaucratic power....I'll add the BC Archives source nos. and links to those items, but I'm highly offended at the suggestion, deleted/shrugged away or not, that I shoudl be blocked for disputing a policy that doesn't make any sense.....and to have been targeted, it seems, by the same person who made/withdrew that threat....Skookum1 (talk) 03:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And re the map, nah it wasn't BCER, I just checked that site...."railway system map" is what I'd said (way back in 2007) so perhaps it was a CPR tourist map...the filename was derived from teh filename used on the source, adn this was a crop of a much larger map....I'll work at finding it again but, unlike the archives images, it's not as easy a search to re-locate; but it's legit, is from 1929 and implicitly is in the public domain both by dint of date AND because it's a system map meant for public circulation/use. What galls me is that the standards of internet-era modernity are being exerted on items from the past, with teh result that much of the past cannot be included.  speaking as a historiographer (and someone who has his own copryights on images and music) this is a complete absurdity.Skookum1 (talk) 03:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * To anyone following this discussion, I have responded here. Regards,  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 05:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello, I've just read this thread and am confused. I understand that the lack of source information in the images Skookum uploaded would be a cause of concern, but see that he's provided some in this thread (and I'm guessing all the images come from the BC Archives). I checked some of them and they appear to be quite old photographs and drawings. For example, the one of Admiral Baynes, File:AdmiralBaynes.png, is from this BC Archives page, which says it was drawn in "185-" by an unknown artist. The digital image at the BC Archives page is clearly a "purely mechanical reproduction"--a scan or photocopy. I was under the impression that a purely mechanical copying cannot create a new copyright in most countries. I know many many websites claim copyright over such things, like the BC Archives, but anyone can claim anything. I've always liked how the [PD-art template at the Commons puts it: The official position taken by the Wikimedia Foundation is that "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain, and that claims to the contrary represent an assault on the very concept of a public domain". There are literally hundreds of thousands of old photos that have been digitized and put online with claims of copyright on the Commons. The claim by itself is irrelevant, right? It's the law that matters.


 * I'm not certain about the relevant laws on this for Canada, but the WP:PD page says, In Canada, any photograph created (not published!) before January 1, 1949 and not covered by Crown copyright is in the public domain. And if I understand Crown copyright correctly, it applies only to works first published by or under the direction or control of the Government. The BC Archive page on the Admiral Baynes drawing makes no such claim; it even admits to not knowing who made the drawing in the first place! It isn't under Crown copyright, is it? All the others listed by Skookum above are the same, with the BC Archives saying they don't know who created the photos. So, if Crown copyright doesn't apply (and BC Archives doesn't appear to even claim it does), and if WP:PD is correct in saying, In Canada, any photograph created (not published!) before January 1, 1949  and not covered by Crown copyright is in the public domain, then isn't Skookum correct in saying these images are in the public domain?


 * Perhaps things would have been easier if he had provided the source info when uploading (and perhaps he ought to add the source links to the image pages), and if he had been less aggressive about all this (And "aggressive" might be putting it mildly. I tend to think of him as a WP:Dragon, and understand the difficulty many have with him, although we get along with each other). Nevertheless, isn't he right in saying they are public domain? Or have I missed some key point? Finally, if my research is correct and these are PD, perhaps the PD-Canada template ought to be changed to make it easier to understand exactly what is and what isn't PD in Canada. Perhaps something about how claims of copyright do not necessarily mean there is copyright, something like the PD-art template at the Commons, which makes it clear that claims of copyright can be ignored if the works are clearly PD. Pfly (talk) 10:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The images ARE clearly PD, but that wasn't the issue. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry for misunderstanding. It was about requiring source info then, I assume? If so, I agree that one ought to say where they got an image. Pfly (talk) 10:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, this was about source info. I was told (off-wiki) that when re-using old images you say which archive you used. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. I do sympathize with people being annoyed when archives make sweeping claims of copyright they don't actually have. For years I thought it was not ok to upload an old image and source it to an archive page that had a copyright statement. Knowing, or suspecting that an image is public domain but needing to source it to a page that claims copyright seemed wrong. The first time I actually did it felt like a minor act of civil disobedience! Not to make guesses about Skookum's motivations, but I could see an editor choosing to not provide a source that had copyright statements. It is somewhat self-contradictory to upload an image and say it is public domain, yet link to a source that says it is not. Usually on Wikipedia sources are linked to, as references in articles, for the purpose of confirming the claims being made. In this case the source links actually contradict the claims made. It would be nice if there was a bit more information about this on the upload pages and templates. It took me 3-4 years to realize it was not always wrong to do. I realize though that all this is tangential here, and sources still need to be provided. Pfly (talk) 11:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Re:Advice needed.
-  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 01:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

ArtPrize.png
Now that you've posted on my talk page twice about insufficient rationale, care to help with correct wording? --Astronouth7303 (talk) 06:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

combative social norms
"Whilst Wikipedia and Wikimedia are, in themselves, exciting projects, their structure, design and combative social norms do not currently make them the friendly or the protected space that museums tend to be comfortable operating in."

Okip  15:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

My image uploads
Lately, it seems you've been discovering a lot of my old image uploads which were done when the new template system was first being put into action and you keep listing images for deletion because I use text to describe it instead of a preloaded templated message. Would you stop doing this as the text is definitely a viable substitute for the template and the fair use criteria are all being met with?— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 18:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey man, Sfan00 IMG is just doing his job, trying to hasten the upgrade ;) -  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 00:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Orphans
Hi Sfan,

Those images are improvements that were requested on WP:GL/I, and have not yet been put into use. Note that neither the new image or the old one should be deleted, or else you can break the attribution chain. The older images are all .jpg files. I'm now going to link them.--Slashme (talk) 18:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, seeing as we're not claiming authorship, maybe the old files can go: attribution might be irrelevant in this case. --Slashme (talk) 06:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Billiton logo
Hi Sfan, can you help me with something? You listed File:Billiton logo.png for deletion as being a fair use file that isn't in use. Sure enough, at the bottom of the file page the file links say that it's not linked to anything on English wikipedia. But on the BHP Billiton article, the file is clearly linked to and in use. I don't understand what's going on! - Gump Stump (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The article links to an svg file, not the png. --Slashme (talk) 06:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my mistake, the PNG is linked, and the image page now correctly reflects that fact! And sfan, I hope you don't mind me answering your questions! ;-) --Slashme (talk) 06:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HuynhTanPhat.jpg
Do you really think it is necessary to delete a picture speedily 4 years (!) after it's been uploaded from another wiki (namely wiki vi as I gave as source when I uploaded it)? You allege that there would be no source for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HuynhTanPhat.jpg, so I give you the complete URL: http://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%E1%BA%ADp_tin:HuynhTanPhat.jpg maybe you will see this as a "source"—or since when is another wiki no possible source? Thank you. 峻義 Jùnyì 論 08:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Gee, each time I come here to see whether there's an answer to my questions, I see stuff that I can answer! I've put up a template on the image page.  Another wiki is not a useful source.  We need to know where the file came from the first time it came to Wikipedia, and what we still don't know in this case is: Who took the picture?  Who owns the copyright?  Will anyone sue us for using it?  I see that the Vietnamese file has some kind of fair use template saying why it's OK to use the file specifically to illustrate the subject, but I can't translate it because I don't speak Vietnamese! --Slashme (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Nuclear-bomb.gif
Hi Sfan00 IMG!

The picture was taken from yesterday article on the Smashing Magazine Don't ask me about all that copyright info - from where should I get it? Take a closer look - it is obvious that it is scan from some school book. Are you American? I'm Ukrainian and I can't know American (or British?) books.

If you know how to insert all those copyright tags or source links, please do - I don't have the time for it right now —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebit.hao (talk • contribs) 18:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for File:Triangle-grey.svg
An editor has asked for a of File:Triangle-grey.svg. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Please note: This also applies to File:Triangle-gold.svg. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 19:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Muh-hund-original-rondellliten.JPG
Just a note: I removed your speedy delete tag from File:Muh-hund-original-rondellliten.JPG because I'm not sure it qualifies for speedy deletion. Per the policy, "If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations." As the file survived a deletion in April 2009, I suspect it needs to have a full FfD before it can be removed. Do you want to start that? I'm not expressing an opinion that the image should stay, but it may warrant additional non-speedy discussion. JRP (talk) 20:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

BWEFC Badge.jpg
thanks for adding the FUR. Appreciate it. cheers. batobatobato (talk) 01:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Copyright of Soundpool Hires 4
Hey, about soundpool hires 4, the source is the band's webpage, www.soundpoolmusic.com, under the section "Media Kit" with a link to download the high res image for use in media/promotion. Would this be considered fair use? I'm sorry I haven't logged in in a while, and the image has already been removed. However I believe it is suitable for wikipedia, and I'd like to take the steps to put it back. Thank you. Phixxor (talk) 04:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:BTMP-84.jpg
Hi. Thanks for pasting a template into my talk page. I've added {Non-free use rationale} to the item, but if you would actually let me know what your concerns are, then I'd have some idea whether this could address them. Yours, typed by hand, —Michael Z. 2010-05-12 04:38 z 

Please reply at wikt:User talk:Mzajac, if you don't want this process to take a month or so. Thanks. —Michael Z. 2010-05-12 04:39 z 

File:Baldaccinigrave.jpg
This is a photo I took. I don't understand what wording to use to provide a rationale. If you decide to delete it, then so be it.--Smerus (talk) 13:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Baise-moi image
I imagine the rationale given at File:Titanic_poster.jpg, to give one example, would apply to the Baise-moi image more or less verbatim. Pcb21 Pete 20:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Canada--Saint lallemant2.jpg
I changed the source, but you should know the picture is over 150 years old and came from open source Jesuit Archives and or National Arhvices of Canada. I don't see why you tagged it as it was already tagged as Wikiable Avé 01:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Ohai picture
Sorry about that, it was a simple mistake I will correct it--Andrewrutherford (talk) 11:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Copyright of File:Apb_dragnerve_large.jpg and File:Apb_dragnerve_small.jpg
Hi, I have a very similar ussue raised by Phixxor on your page about the copyright of Soundpool Hires 4.

You mentioned on my two images File:Apb_dragnerve_large.jpg and File:Apb_dragnerve_small.jpg that "EA possible source given inclusion of thier logo in artwork". All images used barring the Dragnerve logo (my own work) is from a freely available fan/press kit from the Realtimeworlds website. http://www.apb.com/media/

This pack contains all images from the game in question, plus all logo in hires formats with alphas to used by press, fans and the bands involved in the game (of which my band Dragnerve is one) in the creation of new promotional imagery. This should be considered fair use as the comapanies involved have given permission to use their logos and imagery.

The image I have uploaded can not be found anywhere else as I have created it, it's my own composition using given artwork and logos. Simply puting on a logo which a company has freely given permission to use does not mean that company owns the copyright to that image. I could however choose to omit the EA and Realtimeworlds logos but seeing as we are working together on the project of the game I think that would not be benificial to either party.

Similarly, would you flag up an image of the game cover just because it has our band logo on it?

Many thanks, Bradley brown72 talk

File:2919 East 29th Avenue plaque.JPG‎
Please delete as I placed the wrong address on the image and I've uploaded the correct one. Thanks.Iota 9 (talk) 19:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ -  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 00:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Capture3.PNG and File:CTOON_TV-PG_RATING.PNG
FYI, the files File:Capture3.PNG and File:CTOON_TV-PG_RATING.PNG, which I believe you deleted, have been uploaded again. I have marked each as missing evidence of permission. (Since they are described as belonging to CTOONS TV, I presume that entity owns the copyright.) By the way, both images may actually qualify as PD-LOGO, since they seem to consist solely of typesetting. Cnilep (talk) 19:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Bradbury Robinson Images of Concern
As labeled, all of the images were published in the US prior to 1923 and are therefore in the US public domain. I don't know the specific sources/dates of all of the images as the newspaper articles were found unlabled as to specific date and (in some cases) author/publisher in Robinson's scrapbook. They are clearly all old, yellowed, contemporaneous American newspaper articles talking about and/or portraying events that occured in 1904 to 1907.Ruedetocqueville (talk) 21:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:V. Free or unfree, the copyright status of the file must be verifiable by others. -  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 00:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand the issue. However, I don't have a good suggestion as to how someone might verify the date of undated articles and photos found in Robinson's scrapbook.  The scrapbook was given to me by Robinson's daughter before she died.  She asked me to research its contents and (if possible) make its content available to the public.  The articles are clearly contemporaneous to the dates of Robinson's career (1904-1907).  They are free if they pre-date 1923.  They all must pre-date 1923.  I will add as much info as I can to help future researchers.  But, the idea of removing the articles from Wikipedia because specific publication data cannot be obtained for articles that are 100+ years old (and which are free if they are only 87 years old) doesn't seem to make sense.  Removing the items to satisfy a requirement of specificity in a circumstance where there can be no real copyright concern would not improve Wikipedia as a source of useful information.Ruedetocqueville (talk) 22:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Betsy Aardsma1.jpg
Thank you for contacting me about this image. When I uploaded the image I read the policy on fair-use, and decided to upload the image based on the criteria: All of this is demonstrated within the tag that is already on the image. I don't understand what more is needed - you don't make this terribly clear? --  role player 16:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a picture of Betsy Aardsma
 * No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information (on account of the fact that she's dead)
 * I assume it is hosted correctly
 * The file is missing fair-use rationale. All files tagged as non-free/copyrighted content are required, no exceptions,  to have fair-use rationale, per official Wikipedia policy, Non-free content criteria. -  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 00:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

HMS_Brazen_monument.JPG
Am puzzled as to why this file is up for speedy deletion. If one goes to the website from which I retrieved the photo one sees that the photo is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share Alike 2.0 UK: England & Wales, which is what I believe I put in the file. That would seem to be enough. In your comment on my talk page you refer to proof. The proof is: http://www.publicsculpturesofsussex.co.uk/object?id=248#photographs which information is in the file. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 00:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for noting that. I have removed the deletion tag accordingly.  Regards,  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 00:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Bettie thumb on the Dave Stevens bio page
Am puzzled as to why this is up for speedy deletion as well. Image was up since before 2006 where it lived in the Bettie Page article. (Thumb sized image scanned from the back cover of defunct magazine circa 1986. Image at this size will not harm the commercial interests of the artist. Original is copyright Dave Stevens 1986. Glamour Internation)

In fact, Dave was happy it was there. Want to explain what the problem is and who you are? - Sparky (talk) 06:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The file is missing fair-use rationale. All files tagged as non-free/copyrighted content are required, no exceptions,  to have fair-use rationale, per official Wikipedia policy, Non-free content criteria. -  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 00:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Can't you read? It's all there - (Thumb sized image scanned from the back cover of defunct magazine circa 1986. Image at this size will not harm the commercial interests of the artist. Original is copyright Dave Stevens 1986. Glamour Internation).

I did this song and dance before. Which is why we only have the thumb in the article now and killed the link to a bigger image of the scan. Magazine is long defunct. We have the proper © info. We have the statement of no harm. And it was good for 4 years because we harmed no one.

The image illustrates Dave's important personal and professional relationship with Bettie Page. Can we stop this nonsense now? Leave the thumbnail there. And who are you and why are you doing this? If there has been no harm in the 4+ years the image has been up, just leave well enough alone. I see no reason to surrender to your ridiculous anxiety on this. Shall we go to mediation on this? Now? Else back down and bully someone else. - Sparky (talk) 03:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Look, I'm just doing my job here - and no, I'm trying not singling you out. If you don't add the fair-use rationale, the file will be deleted.  This is non-negotiable.  -  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 03:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And is your job reopening old settled arguments? Or simply add the magic fair use words you want to see so we can keep the thumbnail image to illustrate the article properly. Don't you see your just following orders mindset is bring out negative emotions in others? I want you to halt the clock on the image deletion. And I want this stupid argument to be mediated by your superior. - Sparky (talk) 17:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In the time it took you to write any one of your posts on this talk page, you could have added a (better) fair use rationale (template or plain text). Killiondude (talk) 18:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * ^ this guys like, a genius ✅. Let me know if there are any lingering issues please. Regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 18:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

delete on your own
How to delete the file on your own?-limited2fan 15:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Limited2fan (talk • contribs)
 * Press the edit button and replace all the text with . If you do this, an admin will delete the file within a few hours. Theleftorium (talk) 17:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks that great.

With regard to File:Eliot Bible.jpg
There's no problem with this file, which is a two-dimensional representation of a work published in 1663! There is no copyright either for the original work or for a two-dimensional scan of that work. - Nunh-huh 22:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:V. Read it.  Free or unfree, the copyright status of the file must be verifiable by others.  -  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 00:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Assuming the "other" can read roman numerals, the copyright status of the file is verifiable by others. - Nunh-huh 01:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Look, I don't give a flying fuck whether the "other" can read roman numerals or not. For all I know, this could be some copyrighted book cover (yes, there are copyrighted books published in the last few years with covers uploaded to wikipedia that look just like File:Eliot Bible.jpg).  If you don't provide a source, the file will be deleted - it's just that simple.  All I'm just trying to do is my job.  Please don't make this any more difficult than it has to be.  -  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 03:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to be difficult at all. All we need is someone who "gives a flying fuck" about copyright law and acts in a reasonable fashion. - Nunh-huh 05:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Image Tagging
Hi Sfan00 IMG. Just want you to know that your work tagging images is invaluable and greatly appreciated!! That being said, I'd like to share my list of logs/categories that I primarily use to track/locate images to tag with you. I know you can make good use of them :)
 * 1
 * 2
 * 3

Cheers,  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 00:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Concerning NASA image
On my talk page you posted a copyright problem with a NASA image I uploaded: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Joema

Image in question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SaturnVThrust.jpg#Licensing

I added the source information for the graphic. Is that sufficient? Joema (talk) 13:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:1896LafayetteFootballTeam.jpg
In this case, we should go ahead and delete. I never used this image (which was from a 1911 US-published book) on Wikipedia, having found an 1896 source for a better copy of the same image. Sorry I forgot to remove this file when I found the better image. In fact, I may not know how to remove the file, so please remove it for me. Please excuse the inconvenience. Ruedetocqueville (talk) 23:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

File:NoMaDHotel.JPG
You tagged the image above for transfer to Commons. You might take a look at all the images uploaded by User:Richardfalk2, as I believe they are all candidates for transfer to Commons. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

EllaGlasto Picture
Hi. Thanks for comment. I know who took the picture, it was a friend of the label.

How do I put this information in to ensure the image is not deleted? Claire Paxton-Rider (talk) 11:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Chelseaboy and Ernest Lough picture
Hi, I have tried to address your message to me about clarifying copyright status on the Ernest Lough photograph; see your message on my Talk page. Basically, the file Elough.gif is out of copyright for the reasons tagged, i.e. "This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published in the United States between 1923 and 1963, but copyright was not renewed with the US Copyright Office within 28 years of the date of publication, which causes the work to irrevocably fall into the public domain. This should apply worldwide.". In answer to your question, I have added the information that the original copyright holder was His Master's Voice (HMV), Ernest Lough's record company. However, I see that you have re-posted your copyright challenge. Given the information that I have mentioned here, how do I make the change that would resolve your concerns? I don't want the picture to be deleted because I have failed to do something; because, as I say, it is certainly out of copyright now. Cheers Chelseaboy (talk) 13:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

File description pages
Thanks for your efforts to clean up Wikipedia. When you see a file description page that has no file attached, please tag it with rather than. This is a more specific basis for deletion and will make the reviewing admin's job easier. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy F2s on frogs
Hello, I see you have tagged a number of pictures of frogs for speedy deletion under F2 (missing or corrupt image). However the images all look present and correct to me. Do they still need to be deleted? Thparkth (talk) 23:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply - you're obviously acting in good faith and yes I suspect Twinkly is lying to you ;) I expect if you used G8 and left a note explaining what was going on no admin would have a problem with it. Good work by the way! Thparkth (talk) 00:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Photo Source
I have found and entered the information you have asked for on the three photos that you tagged. One of which is File:John A. Green Mansion.jpg Is that enough information? I don't know any more about the source Kepper66 (talk) 07:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

EllaGlasto
Hi there, thank you for noting that about the picture I uploaded... I have changed the picture to one that I took, which would help regarding the copyright (surely?!) but it still is being flagged as I need to tag the license or something? I retrieved the picture from my facebook page as the original has been deleted from my systems... Any help would be greatly appreciated. Claire Paxton-Rider (talk) 12:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Just a reminder
Hi. :) When you add FURs to the image description pages of logos, as you did here, don't forget to add as well. Regards, Theleftorium (talk) 18:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

tagging images
Hi for iamges that are on commons you have been tagging with G6, the correct tag here is db-F2 corrupt or empty image

Re: File source problem with File:Wordperfect-5.1-dos.png
At 2010-05-22 09:35 on my talk page you say File:Wordperfect-5.1-dos.png has "no source information", however the image was reuploaded by User:Daniel_Pritchard at 2010-05-22 07:30, ie. before you sent your message. Presumably you sent your message to the wrong user? Times are UTC. --ozzmosis (talk) 10:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Beelzemon, Barbamon, Belphemon
Could you please clarify which parts of the image rationale you feel are missing? I believe I covered each of the points with what is there. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 18:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Please actually respond this time, by the way. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 18:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, apparently the images have already been deleted. May I ask, again, why the rationale was unacceptable? Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 19:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Amibanglaygangai.gif & Bangla.gif
Dear Sfan, Thank you very much for your message in my talk page. I have uploaded an image for my intended purpose. I also have given the licence for this one. I have used this in Avro Keyboard article. The 2 pictures that you mentioned did not serve my purpose & not used anywhere. Actually, I was unaware of the feature "Upload a new version of this file", so I uploaded 1 by 1 images. I am sorry for this mistake. As I am new, I could not delete those 2 files. Could you please help me to delete those 2? Thanks.Cool BD (talk) 23:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

File:St. Marc's Chapel 2010.JPG
Hi. Thank you for the reminder. I've done it already. Regards. - Nickrds09  (Talk to me)  03:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

ILINKY Tri-State Map
Copyright Issue Resolved. I found out what the problem was. I forgot to select "public domain" on the copyright status. However, I ended up replacing it with another heading because the newer version would not accept the copyright addition. The new file is File:Illinois-Indiana-Kentucky Tri-State Area imposed over WTVW Viewing Area Map-2.png This map was based on my original public domain map showing just the primary counties.Rhatsa26X (talk) 20:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

P&H Mining Images Uploads
Hello Sfan00 IMG,

I read your talk msgs re: the image upload currently under question (my other images would/will certainly garner the same review). Mine, and my coworkers efforts to read through the various copyright types left us without a sure way to post the images in a way that left us in compliance, but also made sure they werent improperly used (i.e. used in commercial projects).

OVERALL OBJECTIVE I am the webmaster for P&H Mining - a child company for Joy Global.The uploading of the P&H images, and page creation were to fix the search-redirect that was previously taking place when searching "P&H MINING" on Wikipedia, which sent the users to Joy Mining Machinery - our sister company.

RECENT IMAGE UPLOADS We (P&H Mining) own all of the images that I recently uploaded. Several of the images were shot by our staff photographer*, however others were shot by someone no longer employed or was a vendor, and we do not know the original photographer, but again, we own the images.

Could you please suggest to us what type of copyright we should attach to these images? We do not want to mark them in such a way that says people are free to use them in business related ways, and my efforts to read through the various copyrights seemed to point to that as the only one available to me.

Also - any affirming email from the P&H address is available from both me, and the staff photographer.

Thanks in advance, Andrewgrosman (talk) 22:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewgrosman (talk • contribs) 22:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi
Hi Sfan. How can i do that? The picture says 1875 (year) It Is not public domain?Stupidus Maximus (talk) 13:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

File:PIIGS Mk 3 map.png
Thank you for putting my map up for a move to wiki-commons. I have compleated my map (File:PIIGS Mk 3 map.png), so if you want to take it to the commons now, you can. Thank you for your intrest!--Snow storm in Eastern Asia (talk) 19:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Boulevard m50 image licence
Thanks for the advice, I've added a licence tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evilbred (talk • contribs) 23:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Common sense bypass ?
You've just gone and left 3 or 4 identical template messages on my talk page for no good reason - could you not have written, yourself, a quick note to ask me to look through my uploads and add in the necessary descriptions, instead of continually boilerplating my talk page ? I know there is probably more images, and thus more boilerplate messages coming my way, which is kind of annoying waiting for the New Messages bar, knowing full well someone will have left me a totally unimportant message.

I also notice your complete inability to answer questions in a polite, helpful and co-operative manner, directing people to the OTRS queues. As someone with OTRS access, I really object to you directing people to OTRS in order to answer questions that your work is directly raising and you could (and should) be directly answering. I kind of think if you can't deal with the feedback your actions are causing, you shouldn't be undertaking the work that you're doing. Nick (talk) 16:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * May I ask what your problem is? If you can't cope with straightforward description requests... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * A straightforward description request would be fine, three or four templates isn't straightforward, it's overkill. And you've not commented on my other concerns, could you please do so. Thanks in advance. Nick (talk) 18:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Firstly you could have just added the descriptions and removed the templates.


 * Secondly, your comment that I don't respond to questions raised I find offensive, given that in respect of a number of the 'contested' images, I have tried to advise (or others have).


 * Thirdly, I've only ever advised people to contact OTRS queues when there was a 'permission' issue, this was based on advice I was given on IRC previously.


 * I expect an immediate apology.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Nick I don't know what the deal is here, if you're just complaining about DTTR or what, but TTR is my response. Is there actual damage caused by these templates? No, and he's right, you're uploading images with no description. Asking someone else to make the description isn't exactly sensible either; I don't even know what File:Heligoland_User_Page_3.JPG is. Hell, even the image title doesn't tell you anything except that it probably was originally uploaded to be used on a user page. Part of the purpose of free content is that things can be reused in new and creative ways beyond that of what they were originally intended for. Releasing an image under CC-BY-SA is good and all, but without any information about it, it's unlikely it will be able to be truly free.


 * That being said, I'm not really sure what your point was in coming here. If the templates bothered you, you could have dealt with them easily. Using your own terminology, it would have been straightforward to remove them from your talk page. It was overkill to go into OTRS matters that have absolutely nothing to do with your issue. If you're not going to add in the descriptions, then fine, perhaps it will be taken care of at a later date, but I really don't see anything to gain from coming here and spawning this discussion. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 10:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The issue at hand here is the uncooperative manner in which Sfan is templating myself and many others, a simple request and I would have quite happily gone through my uploads from three and four years ago, and fixed any issues that I have spotted, when I've got a spare couple of hours. Instead I've been templated something like five times when one simple request would have sufficed, and which would have required Sfan spend considerably less time going through individual images. It seems he's now got some sort of bee in his bonnet and is going through every single image I've ever uploaded, regardless of whether it's missing a description, as evidenced by his latest templated warning and listing an image I uploaded for deletion, when yet again a simple question could have told him everything he needed to know. Nick (talk) 11:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Sfan00 - if anybody deserves an apology, it's me. You've gone and templated me yet again, over an image with a possibly unclear copyright status, if you had asked me directly, I could have saved you the time and hassle of listing at whatever page it's now listed at. As it is, the image is perfectly valid, perfectly legal and perfectly acceptable, which you could have found out by asking me, rather than going to all the trouble of listing the image for deletion. Nick (talk) 11:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * So I'm now expected to apologise for following process am I?. I hardly count objectiongs to process being co-operative.

I'm still waiting for an apology. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Nick, due to the sheer number of uploads with problems Wikipedia receives, it is unreasonable to request a personal message for each one. FinalRapture - † ☪ 15:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Dove_image.gif.
Hi How do I delete a duplicate image, this appears on wikimedia? I have added GDL licence tags.

MegastarLV's image: [File:AFHV logo (1998-present).jpg]
I removed the copyright & fair use tags so that the image can be removed. I don't know how to delete an image I uploaded. How do I do that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MegastarLV (talk • contribs) 21:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

File:E E Speight.jpg
You had added Non-Free-Reduce tag for File:E E Speight.jpg and there is a question about it in the talk page. Can you please voice your opinion there? --Sreejith K (talk) 08:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

You might find this helpful
User:FinalRapture/ISLog. I'll keep it running until I have the full fledged robot coded and approved. Keep on patrolling those images ;-) FinalRapture - † ☪</b> 15:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Template:Non-free screenshot
Note that this bot is still adding this license template to image pages when it was deleted in 2008. It is entirely possible that there are other deprecated license tags which are being still being added by this bot. Could you look into it? Cheers, <b style="color:#FF0000;">haz</b> (talk) 17:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Grey Heron File Permission
Hi there, thanks for your message - I'd like to add a copyleft tag on the picture I uploaded http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Grey_heron_flight.jpg but I don't know how to do so - do you have any info on how to do this?

Cheers,

George. —Preceding unsigned comment added by George Gastin (talk • contribs) 14:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Images on "78th Army Band" Wiki
I have several images posted to the 78th Army Band wiki. They are now cited as best as I can find the methodology on Wikipedia, but the same pop-ups appeared about citing sources and copyright owners. I do not understand how else Wikipedia needs these to be cited. Please advise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanwms (talk • contribs) 21:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

G6 speedy deletion of various Haringey images
Just wondering if you let me know what the housekeeping reason is here. I assume it's something along the lines of that these images shouldn't be in WP categories when they're at Commons and in the appropriate categories there, but no doubt you could put it better. I don't tend to do much image speedy deletion work, but there's not much else to do at CAT:CSD and I'm bored at work... BencherliteTalk 11:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion
I see that you've tagged several images, including File:Church in Cheneyville, Illinois.png, with the db-g6 tag. Can you provide a reason, please, per CSD? Thanks. Omnedon (talk) 12:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link; I may make a good deal of use for it. Nyttend (talk) 15:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Image deletions
Hey, could I possibly ask you to use F2 rather than G6 for the empty local image pages- it makes them easier to delete becuase they go into a specific category, rather than just CAT:SD. Thanks, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   15:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

File:IranKhuzestan.png
Why did you want File:IranKhuzestan.png deleted? You must provide a reason. The image is used in tons of articles across several languages. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, never mind, and sorry, I forgot to put the ANI notice here. I didn't understand what was going on. All's okay now. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

ANI
FYI, you've been mentioned at WP:ANI. Wknight94 <sup style="color: blue;">talk  21:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * par for the course :(

are you a bot?
Hi, I was wondering if you are writing to me automatically, if so, can you please review what your program is producing? thanks, mike James Michael DuPont (talk) 05:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Should be SVG
Just wanted to tell you that Template:Should be SVG only has a few parameters: Adding anything else catagorizes the image as other. --Svgalbertian (talk) 05:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * alphabet
 * chemical
 * circuit
 * coat of arms
 * diagram
 * emblem
 * fair use
 * flag
 * graph
 * logo
 * map
 * music
 * physical
 * symbol

Really minor formatting thing.
Hello. This is just a really minor thing. When you reach the end of a line, you don't need to press 'enter' and move onto the next line: the software takes care of that by itself. I've noticed a couple of times you'll be replying to someone, and it looks like this:

"You saying something".


 * "Someone replying".


 * "You starting to reply, but halfway

through you've pressed 'enter' and started a new line".

It's easier if you don't start a new line, but if you want to do that you can add the same number of colons '::' at the beginning of your new line, so the indenting still works.

Hope this helps. Happy editing :) 86.164.69.239 (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

File:LuxeHotel-BeverlyHills.Eliance - 02.27.2010 - 087.jpg
I have already forwarded an email from the author to permissions at wikimedia; appropriate correction tags have been made on the images as well. Archer Drezelan (talk) 21:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Proper Image Use
i dont understand why my images are ALWAYS marked for speedy deletion if you could help me out please, what should i mark pictures that i take, and upload on Wikipedia? pictures of say, histrical builings taken by MYSELF, ??

Arab League User (talk) 00:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)--

Images already on Commons
I noticed you're tagging pages for images that are on Commons where no image exists locally. I'm just letting you know that the correct criterion for such things is actually F2, not G6. Thanks! SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Ruby Woodson - 83d40m - poster - Florida Acacemy of African American Culture.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Ruby Woodson - 83d40m - poster - Florida Acacemy of African American Culture.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log].

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you -- the file is a duplicate file and should be deleted. An error was made in the title of the image before uploading and was not acceptable (a spelling error), correction was made by uploading a new image with a corrected file name, which remains published at the article with all of the complete copyright information. When I realized the error, I could not find a method available to delete the image, but made note of the need to delete the file with the error in my summary. Perhaps a method of deletion should be available to editors who upload files in case of error -- after all, it is their upload. If there is a method for that please advise. Will copy all of this to your talk page for your convenience also, thanks again. 83d40m (talk) 13:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

speedy tag
Please be more careful when tagging pages for deletion. You tagged File:ATP locomotive bays.jpg with db-g6, when the correct template would be db-nofile. Cheers, --Waldir talk 16:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Image of Carlos Ibarguren
Sfan:

Thank you for your message regarding the photo of Carlos Ibarguren, an Argentine politician prominent during the first half of the twentieth century.

I've noticed (and found myself, in one or two past cases) that no reasonable, common-sense fair use rationale satisfies certain folks, when they've become determined to delete someone else's work, and accordingly, I don't bother uploading photos (logos for company infoboxes, aside) that have, or may plausibly have, a copyright attached.

The portrait in question is taken from a 1978 issue of El Intransigente, a well-circulated former newspaper in Argentina, and probably dates from around 1945, when the respected academic served as adviser to the President; Ibarguren died in 1956.

The posed nature of the photograph makes it a near-certainty that it was taken for either a publication, or for use in an official portrait to be placed in a government bureau. In any case, its print publication in 1978 makes it of public domain per Argentine Statutory Law 11.723, article 34.

I'm not too familiar with "fair use tag" rules. If, despite the public domain nature of the photo, you still feels it should have one, will you please send me a suggestion?

I look forward to your letter, and thanks again for your time.

Cordially, Sherlock4000 (talk) 06:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Tenebrae
Hi, Sfan. I'll get right on it later today. Thanks for the head's up. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

ICC map
Hi Sfan! Thanks for your notice on my discussion page. I have to apologize: The upload under this file name was a bit of an accident. I wanted to update the map on the ICC member states but didn't realize it is on Commons instead of here. After getting an error message I changed the filename which then turned out to be an upload of the map under the new name. This was not my intention. I am therefore very thankful for deletion and solemnly promise to try not to make such a mistake again ... Greetings. --EBB (talk) 05:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

File:TheArtist.jpg
I assume that an unillustrated magazine cover from well over a century ago is out of copyright, but presumably you would know better than I whether this is indeed the case. How would one find out for sure? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 20:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's British, and certainly pre-1902 (perhaps older - the resolution is so low as to make the date obscure). --Andreas Philopater (talk) 20:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the magazine was based in London, but this cover is from the New York edition (which stopped publication in 1901), so would be public domain after all. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 20:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Songfacts Logo
Thanks for letting me know about the copyright info on the logo - it was my first image upload. I added the source to prove that it's acceptable. Ndugu (talk) 00:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Bektashi Baba
I think that copyright expires 70 years after the decease of the creator. I think Thomson (d. 1914) took this pic. Can you help me with the tag, because I'm not very good at tagging. By the way, the work's dated 1913. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Majuru (talk • contribs) 16:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Sigurdur Thorarinssons signature.jpg
Sfan,

I am usually reasonably astute as to copyright issues, but maybe there is something odd here. You infer, from your message, that the contents of a letter, addresed to myself and in my possession, might not be in the public domain even if I release it under a Creative Commons release. Would you like me to post the entire letter?

For potential clarity I offer the following link from Signature: http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/definitions.html#Copyright
 * "Similarly, names, titles, short phrases, slogans, familiar symbols, mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, coloring, and listings of contents or ingredients are not subject to copyright." [my emphasis]

Regards Oxonhutch (talk) 18:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry - checking the talkpage for another matter and chanced to spot this. I happen to know that one of the curiosities of English copyright law is that the writer of the letter owns any intellectual rights in it, the recipient only owns the physical letter (so you need the permission of the recipient to read it, and of the writer to publish it). This could well be the case in other jurisdictions too. Whether it extends to the mere name of the writer is another question. Hope this helps. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Andreas, Thank-you for your comment which correctly reflects the idiosyncrasies of English copyright law. However, in this case - because this is Wikipedia, and the host servers are in the USA - American law applies. My link above is from the US government's website regarding copyright which states that copyright does not apply to the writing by my late colleague of his name, i.e. his signature.
 * Regards Oxonhutch (talk) 07:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That section applies only to short (max 10 word blurbs) phrases and is primarily applied to simple company/organization logos only (e.g. File:Facebook.svg). You would be infringing on your correspondent's rights to the letter if you were to post it on Wikipedia (essentially, by posting to Wikipedia, you would be licensing your correspondent's work under the cc-by-sa 3.0 and GFDL licenses (see fine text beneath edit box) without their permission, which is effectively a copyright violation).  This is why administrators are instructed to redact these letters on-sight.  Hope that helps to clarify things.  -  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 17:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Fastily(sock[?!]). Where did you glean that information? It is certainly not in the guidance furnished by the US government - that published the link I quoted above. The man wrote "Sigurdur" with a typographical style - that cannot according to US copyright law be subject copyright.
 * Am I alone in wondering why Sfan has not replied to his/her own matter on his/her own talk page or has he/she already replied? Regards as always Oxonhutch (talk) 19:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * OK If it's Creative Commons, feel free to tag it accordingly, it seems the message you got was badly phrased :( ,

Sorry for the delayed response Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Help
Re, this is indeed my own work - I thought I had so specified in up loading the file. At any event, like noob I don't know how to change this in the file details. Can you help? Or reprieve the file image until I can figure it out? Tx. Eusebeus (talk) 13:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Where did you obtain the original sheet music that you used to create the digital copy? I'm afraid I can only help you if you can provide that information. Regards,  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 17:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay in replying. The scores are taken from IMSLP, which means they are out of copyright.

http://imslp.org/wiki/Piano_Sonata_No.16,_Op.39_No.3_(Dussek,_Jan_Ladislav) http://imslp.org/wiki/Piano_Sonata_No.5,_Op.10_No.1_(Beethoven,_Ludwig_van)

Hope that helps. Thanks Eusebeus (talk) 14:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sfan I have received messages from you regarding images deletion. 

These images have not been created by me. I don't know who created them. The paintings in the photographs are very old (more than 100 years). Isn't it OK to use them?

~Manoj
 * Well, I'm afraid that could be a problem. Could you please try and find out who created the paintings?  If not, I'm afraid the images will have to be deleted.  -  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 17:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Takovo.png
I created this picture,File:Takovo.png, can you please add the appropriate license for it. My father works in this club so i created for them this logo so they can use it in some documentation.--Obelixus (talk) 16:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you please start by telling us where you obtained this file? -  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 17:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

speedy delete???
Can you explain this message on my talk page? There's no delete notices on the images listed! Tom Ruen (talk) 23:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * User_talk:Tomruen
 * File:Runci_tessaract1.png and File:Runci_tessaract2.png
 * Don't worry about it. There was an local orphaned image description page associated with your files.  They have since been deleted.  Regards,  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 17:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

User:ShakespeareFan00
Hi Sfan00 IMG. Hope all is well. Just out of curiosity, why do you edit out of an alternate account instead of your main? -  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 01:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It's so that the complaints about my tagging are related to a specific account mainly. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So you're still ShakespeareFan00 then? Alright -

-  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 18:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Royal Observer Corps Image
Hi. Have replaced image File:Class 73 Royal Observer Corps.PNG with File:73202-newport-190993-w-s.jpg. Is that OK? if so please feel free to add the .PNG to Files for deletion. Regards Endrick   Shellycoat  20:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:AlvinGreen.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:AlvinGreen.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 19:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I have took Alvin Greene picture from official cite of South Carolina Democratic Party. http://www.scdp.org/candidates/federal/ It is a public domain since he is official Democratic nominee in the 2010 United States Senate election. Innab (talk) 21:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have got permission for Alvin Greene picture from SCDC, and submit to WikiCommons: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Greene1.jpg#filelinks But nobody approving it for 2 days already. Also, I want to rename it to another name like GreenAlvin.jpg because there is an editing conflict between WikiCommons and Wikipedia file with name Greene1.jpg Please help Innab (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

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

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 21:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Cathy Gale image
Just in response to the File:CathyGale.jpg notice that was sent my way (that it's in line for deletion), as I indicate on my talk page, I don't support the current image-use policies of Wikipedia and I uploaded the image in good faith under previous rules. So whether it stays or goes does not concern me. However if I may make a suggestion, if you go to The Avengers (TV series) you'll notice the lead image is of a calendar cover. Even under my own outdated views regarding Wikipedia images, I will agree that it violates the fair use rules as I understand them. It would be more appropriate if the Cathy Gale image in question were used as the infobox/lead image for the article. That might be a way to save it. Otherwise, delete as you see fit. 23skidoo (talk) 21:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

My pics
Why did you delete all my pictures? Everything on my discussion page is a link to a file you about about to delete for no clear reason. You post links to a discussion page, then one person looks at it, and it is deleted. Tristanb (talk) 09:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The matter has been discussed at Village_pump_(policy). Honestly, I think the case of Tristan's copper frog was over the top. Unless there's evidence that it is a work of art, it looks a piece of kitsch based on traditional (non-copyrightable) artwork. Sculpture, probably; copyrightable sculpture? most likely not. East of Borschov (talk) 11:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK images
I noticed that you requested a couple DYK images be speedily deleted (File:Elena Myers after winning Race 1 Round 1 of 2010 AMA Pro Supersport Championship cropped.jpg and File:Natalka-Poltavka (1936).jpg. The bots were run by me (you should be checking if you're placing the alert on a redirect by the way) and DYK has been tagging images locally for months now, like the Featured Picture process. Will you reconsider? Shubinator (talk) 01:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ping. You've edited since my last message; you must have seen it. Shubinator (talk) 16:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * My bad; those images were deleted on Commons. (Though I still would have liked a response from you...) Shubinator (talk) 03:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

1908_12_Metre_course.png
Hi, I'm a bit confused. Last week this image was deleted for not having a fair-use licence. So I have created it again with a fair use licence on advice of the person hwo deleted the other one. I can not make a satalite image my self nor do I have acces to an other source that Google earth. Please advice.NED33 (talk) 08:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Please take a little more care
I can understand why you made this revert. But I was able to confirm the apparent truthfulness of the edit you reverted in under two minutes with a quick google search. Moreover, that he had received this award in 2009 was also stated in our article on the award itself, PWI Most Hated Wrestler of the Year. Had the material you reverted been untruthful and harmful it would still have remained in Wikipedia doing harm. I think a little more care is justified. Cheers! --Gmaxwell (talk) 15:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Fair use for File:1964_Windows.png
1964 is released under GPL and I put  to cover the Windows components. Why is this not enough? <strong style="font-family:Verdana;text-shadow:1px 1px 0 lightBlue, 1px -1px 0 lightBlue, -1px 1px 0 lightBlue, -1px -1px 1px lightBlue">Avindra <span style="color: white; background-color: lightGray; padding: 5px; -moz-border-radius: 7px 7px 7px 7px; font-weight: bold; font-size: 10px;">talk / contribs 17:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Possibly unfree File:Hostmaster Decanter Red.JPG
Sfan00, I am very new to all of this so I may need some clarification. Not only do I own all of the pictures I posted, but I also own the items in these pictures. I took this photo the day I uploaded it (You can see my hand in the photo). I am an avid collector of Elegant Glass. What do I need to do to prove that I own the decanter? Thanks, Miaettia (talk) 17:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Sfan00, Ok, I tried to make some adjustments, please let me know what you think. Miaettia (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Motherhood in the Philippines NGM-v31-p562.jpg‎
This file does not meet Speedy deletion criteria CSD, please reassess your action. Thank You, Sadads (talk) 17:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Ticket scan
Hi; thanks for your note. I will add the template to all remaining ticket scans today. Hassocks 5489 (tickets please!)  10:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Alexander Kronrod
Hello. I would appreciate it if you would please remove your deletion tag from File:A.S.Kronrod.jpg. I added a template that should answer anyone's questions about its use. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Harel Skaat
Hello, you marked 3 music files that I included in the article for Harel Skaat for deletion because of copyright problems. I think I have fixed the problems, could you check to see if it is fixed? Thanks. Hjquazimoto (talk) 00:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC) Hjquazimoto (talk) 02:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

CSK DG
Dear sir, I have uploaded a screenshot of the file about which you have mentioned me about.I have all the sources and required reference for the file but Im unable to understand what the Fair Use Rationale is.Though iv been in wikipedia for over a year i have not yet managed to grasp what the Ratonale is & how to implement it.Iv tried to acknowledge it through various sources but yet im hapless.Though I must be the one to be blammed for my ignorance it can be sorted out if someone volunteers to help me out.So kind & revered sir, please specify me on this so that i get more aquitted to wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by A.arvind.arasu (talk • contribs) 15:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Amen to that! Look, if I create a picture that is mine and mine alone, and I want to share it with the world, I don't want to go to Law School. I want to upload it, do a couple of clicks, maybe fill in a field and be done with it. Think please!! If you wanted to tell someone to cross the street in a cross walk, would you take him/her to the Library of Congress and pull a bunch of Law Books off the shelf? Of course not!

The way to do things like this is to make available specific straight forward choices that cover as much of the common cases and then direct as you have if all else fails. Please remember that if you don't provide the shortest path to the answer, then each and every person that comes up against this problem will waste unnecessary time trying to figure it out. Multiply that by 1000s or even millions of people, and you have caused the waste of a LOT of time. 99.25.112.120 (talk) 09:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Huh?
Since when is "Rationale is short providing only limited explanation on how image usage meets WP:NFCC" a valid deletion argument?

I find the claim particularly ironic, given that your complaint is an even shorter sentence.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 10:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hellooooooooo? Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

(Edit from main account) : The concern is that the rationale is on the short side. If you fill out something like undefined this dispute can be resolved quickly :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

F2
Maybe I'm being thick, but why can't we have a bot to do CSD F2 deletions? Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Plasmatics pic
Hi, is it possible to find out why that picture was deleted and who deleted it? Off2riorob (talk) 09:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Luminol2006.jpg
Hi Sfan00 IMG,

In May you requested a speedy deletion here then as it was Featured. I'm not sure of your rationale for the SD, but just letting you know it was never actually featured and has now been 'delisted' - see. Cheers, --jjron (talk) 15:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

What are you doing?
Hello there, What is with the mass speedy deletion of files that are being used? 117Avenue (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think that images that are being used qualify as speedy deletion. You're going to have to explain that they need to be moved to Wikipedia. If the deletions goes through it will create a mess on a lot of pages. 117Avenue (talk) 17:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Stop tagging Image:Cgscr.jpg
I have provided the rationale. Stop tagging the image. Tomi Undergallows (talk) 18:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Aeronwy.jpg
Hi, what's wrong on this file? The people is not living, and, more, we have an OTRS ticket. -- Roberto  Segnali all'Indiano  21:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Mass deletion tags
Sfan00, please stop placing all of these mass deletion tags on photos that already have adequate fair use rationales. The tags you keep putting merely state that the rationale is short. It doesn't matter if the rationale is short as long as it covers the needed information. To be a good sport, I did go and add even more information to the rationales, so please, please, leave this stuff alone. Sf46 (talk) 07:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Please
See discussion for File:Bayadere - Kirov - Vishneva.jpg. thank you. -- Mrlopez2681 (talk) 08:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Dublinlockout.jpg
Will you please stop tagging this. It is in the PD Gnevin (talk) 13:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI
This account has been blocked pursuant, and pending an acceptable response, to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 15:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And I have proposed an unblock condition on your main talkpage. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
this is user:Anikingos thank you for saving the image File:Nickindia2.png it was true what u said in the description
 * The logo is of a size and resolution sufficient to maintain the quality intended by the company or organization, without being unnecessarily high resolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anikingos (talk • contribs) 09:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Submarine crests
Thanks, I did that one as an experiment, I'll start going through all the others with the same template, plus the others that were uploaded but you haven't tagged, so you don't need to tag the others. Should save you a bit of time, there are over a hundred of them. Thanks again, Benea (talk) 11:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Merck Original Logo 1916-trademarkia.jpg.jpg RESPONSE
Hi, Sfan00 IMG. Thank you for messaging me your concern, I would be glad to edit the image tags to be more accurate, however as I am a new user I am unsure how to do this. I thought that since the image was prior to 1923 it was sufficient to tag the image as public domain. Please advise so that I can correct this ASAP.

Marlova (talk) 00:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Sfan00 IMG for letting me know the image has been updated :)

Marlova (talk) 20:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Mexican Federal Highway 44.png
Oops! I forgot to add the licensing information! It's been added now. Thanks for the heads up. Bumm13 (talk) 19:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Image
File:Lorea.JPG can be deleted. Somehow I uploaded it by accident, I was working out how to upload images to a MediaWiki, and uploaded it to the wrong one. I had stated the artist though. Griever89 (talk) 23:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
You have mail :) --- HI I AM SAUD, WHY ARE YOU DELETING MY PICTURES? --Saudahmed66 (talk) 09:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Could use your help (image compyright)
You tagged two of my images for deletion and I can´t say I was surprised because I just didn´t understand all that talk about copyright at the wiki tutorial. If you could help me I would be very thankfull. I am trying to create my second article (this time with a little more copmplex/challenging and I have uploaded two pictures. Turns out I should have uploaded them to wiki commons since I plan on writing in german and spanish later on BUt thats not the issue. The issue is that I simply don´t know what tags to use and the ones I did use are only in use because I felt they could possible(but not really) fit. This is the Article in question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BerlinBangkokBremen/Ecolog%C3%ADa_y_Desarrollo The first image is the EcodesLogo.jpg and I requested it from the organization via email telling them I wanted to write a wiki article so I don´t know what to tag it with now!? The second (EcodesStructure.jpg) I downloaded from the organisations website and I found NO mention of any copyright ect. ANYWHERE on the website! What to do now? and Pleas tell me what tag to use should I upload images with the same atributes in the future! Thank you in advance and thank you for keeping wiki "clean" (even if I was the "polluter" in this case!)!BerlinBangkokBremen (talk) 11:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Clarification on File:Michiganstatejerseys2010v2.png
I think I tagged it correctly with a GDFL-self, but I'm not entirely sure. Could you check this for me and possibly help if it is incorrect? Wolfforlife40 (talk) 17:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Guoguo12 --Talk--   00:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Guoguo12 --Talk--   12:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

________________________________

Guoguo12 --Talk--   12:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

RE: Speedy deletion nomination of File:Tower of David P8040016.JPG
Hi Sfan: You mistakenly placed the above message on my talk page. I am not the creator or owner of the image on Wikipedia. It belongs to User:Deror_avi, it was done by him. Please contact him. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 07:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

RE: Speedy deletion nomination of File:Jersualem-CBS.jpg
Hi again Sfan: You mistakenly placed the above message on my talk page. I am not the creator or owner of the image on Wikipedia. It belongs to User. Please contact him. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 07:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Copyright
Hi yeah the Andrea Leadsom ,Peter Bone and Paul Stinchcombe are not mine but the signature of Philip Hollobone is mine, I scanned it from my scanner and cleared the background from it I will reupload that once the other one has been deleted. Thanks.

-- HelpingHand  Talk  16:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * OK. Can you link me to the relevant images, as you've moved the 'warning' note on your talk page? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * File:Peter bone.jpg
 * File:Philip hollobone.jpg
 * File:Andrea-leadsom-877.jpg
 * File:Philsignatureh.png
 *  Chzz  ► 17:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

How Do I Retroactively Add a Use Tag to A File I Uploaded?
Yes, I did forget the tag on my most recent upload: MY4112-Ref-Mark-1.jpg on the survey marker page. Thanks for the alert. It should have been just like the image above it on that page--my own work with the Share-Alike Attribution 3.0 release. But I'm new here and don't know how to go back and add a tag to an already-uploaded image. Can you tell me how? Thanks, Pgrig (talk) 17:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Read the link I gave in the note you got, That should explain how you add it to the image Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I can't find the how-to (add a release to an already uploaded image) anywhere in the links you sent me. That's why I came to your Talk page. :-) I could be a little thick (it's happened before), and/or maybe we need to improve the WP Help files a bit. Pgrig (talk) 12:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * OK... At the top of the page [:File:MY4112-Ref-Mark-1.jpg]] there should be a tag saying 'Edit'. Click this to edit the page and add the appropriate license tag :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, done. For what it's worth, I didn't realize that the tag was just a simple text string added to the file description. (The only way I've ever added these is through the Add an Image form, which is "automatic".)  I just went to the Help for image tags, but this was so bewildering as to be useless.  I "solved" the problem by looking at the image above the problematic one on my page, seeing the text, and doing a copy/paste to the problem one.  It's so simple as to be stupefying, but I've added probably 50 images during my two months on WP without encountering/understanding this.


 * Since you're an active "copyright policeman," please understand that the actual mechanics of image tags (for us form users) are a bit opaque, and I'll bet are nowhere described in the Help files. But now I won't make that mistake again! Cheers! Pgrig (talk) 13:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

MovieHatch.com logo
Hi. Thanks for your input regarding logo I uploaded. I believe I have now addressed all the issues with the logo, showing that it is a non-free, fair use logo, with permission and giving appropriate usage rationale. Please advise if you think I've missed something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmatney (talk • contribs) 17:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't forget to update the Article field when you move the article it's used in back to mainspace,. BTW In general the use of non-free images on a 'User' page, is discouraged, but you are presumably using the image in respect of a user-space draft of an article? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Goa Chitra Museum Pics
Please review authorization granted by the copyright holder to use the pictures. Your assistance in resolving this issue will be greatly appreciated. (Dommartin (talk) 19:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)).

British Horseracing Hall of Fame
Please, also see the British Horseracing Hall of Fame and the talk page there. Cgoodwin (talk) 03:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The Lost Hero .jpg
Hey could you add this source to the FUR on my image of The Lost Hero book cover?

http://rickriordan.blogspot.com/2010/06/lost-hero-cover-unveiled.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dancedanceyo (talk • contribs) 19:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

informing category creators
please can you inform category creators (particularly of recently created categories) that these categories are being put up for speedy deletion. I know they should have them on their watchlist but that is not a reason to not inform them. Polargeo (talk) 10:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Concern noted - Will try and inform Category creators from now on :) .. I'd been using TWINKLE, will inform the authors of that tool about a possible modifcation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I see you have nominated Category:Image requests to be listed for speedy deletion. I have declined the nomination, as the page contains the note "This is a deprecated category, and should no longer be in use, but is being kept for archival purposes." If you know of a good reason for over-riding this note, please re-nominate and explain on the category's talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of File:Kill, I Oughtta.gif
You should be careful when you send out generic templates to people. The user you templated in this edit has been banned from Wikipedia, and thus, would be unable to fix the image you mentioned. Also, the only reason it was orphaned is because someone inappropriately removed it from its related article. I have restored it, and its fair use rationale again applies. It might be better practice to find out why an image is suddenly orphaned before taking steps to delete it. Thanks! <B>—Torchiest</B> talk/contribs 13:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've just found two images in a similar situation. File:Max Russo - WOWP.jpg and File:TCG-InConcert.jpg were both orphaned as the result of vandalism and both required simple fixes that would have avoided templating the uploader. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If you find more, don't bother informing me, Strategy modified :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Disney Museum logo.jpg
Hello,

Perhaps you can give me some help. I like to add images to articles but don't have the highest level of skills in working with images. I uploaded this logo which is narrow and tall. When displayed in the article The Walt Disney Family Museum, it looked way too large. So, I modified the file and added the logo in the middle of a white square. However, when the logo displayed, it was distorted and stretched out horizontally. The funny thing is that it looks proper in the image history, but distorted on the article page. I tried adding a border and that didn't help. I didn't have time to figure out the problem so removed the image from the article. I would like to correct it and add the image back into the article. Do you have any suggestions? Thanks. Cullen328 (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Try asking on the Help desk Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Bristol Supertram.jpg
Hello, I have added a "Non-free promotional" tag to this uploaded image. Will this be sufficient? Thanks Nostalgic34 (talk) 16:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't forget to add a Fair-Use Rationale if you had't already :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you a bot?
Are you a bot and how do I shut you off? I know about my orphans, they are all on my watchlist. So I see what's happening. Thank you though. <span style="solid;background:#5D8AA8; border-radius: 8px; -moz-border-radius: 8px; font-family: Segoe Print"> Mike  Allen   19:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No, Not a bot, just trying to clear a backlog.. :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, my, well carry on. I upload film posters all the time and add them to film articles, but for some ungodly reason people upload the same image, most of the time out of fair-use guidelines, and replace my image.  So I was always getting orphan notices.  I shut em' off.   I thought they've made another one and didn't see a shut off link on you. LOL.  I apologize. :P <span style="solid;background:#5D8AA8; border-radius: 8px; -moz-border-radius: 8px; font-family: Segoe Print"> Mike   Allen   20:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * APOLOGY ACCEPTED ..
 * END OF LINE  XD

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

CSD'd cats
I've populated and it's 19th century counterpart. Thanks for keeping me honest, I had started the job but never finished (and am still working on it, help welcome). If you're satisfied, please remove the tags. ~ Gosox ( 55 )( 55 ) 20:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Picture upload
I wasn't entirely comfortable with how to tag the copyright on the 1959 Howard Miller Clock. It is a picture I made but that close up it is clearly of their material. The picture was intended to show the oddball timezone that Liberia previously had but clearly people get the idea without it. I have uploaded a new picture from Kemper Arena that I took and therefore own the copyright to. The arena is somewhat unique in having a sundial and this wan not mentioned anywhere in the article. I have included the inscription on it but I'm not entirely satisfied with the placement in the article. If you have a better idea on placement I welcome your input. Skywayman (talk) 13:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion for Image Upload Form/s
Got another note from you 'cause I forgot the rights tag (sloppy work on my part) and the source info (not requested by the form) on yet another image--sorry! Then it occurred to me that if this info. is important enough to have you spending time tagging our pages, then WP might want to add it (the source info) to the actual form, and consider changing the form so that one can not hit the UPLOAD button until something was in the RIGHTS and SOURCE fields. That would end careless mistakes like mine. (Of course, I could always concentrate a little harder....)Pgrig (talk) 13:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)