User talk:Stefan2/Archive 2

Archive
Archiving by move is absolutely fine - it is the method I use myself. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Facebook screenshot
The tag required for File:Facebook screenshot.JPG should be added by its uploader. I am not responsible for the recent changes to the file as I was the uploader of the previous and rationale file and I can't tag any. The user Jayabharat has created a screenshot under my filename. Please contact him. His screenshot is biased. (You can see his facebook user ID) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1996vishak (talk • contribs) 14:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems that Twinkle only notifies the uploader of the first version. I've now notified the other user too. That said, you uploaded the first version without a fair use rationale, so it doesn't seem wrong to notify you.
 * Non-free screenshots are supposed to have a low resolution. The version used in the article,, is very small, so it isn't possible to read the user name. Once the bot has reduced the image, maybe the user name will be unreadable, even if the reduced image might be a little bit larger. In that case, I guess any bias will be removed automatically. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Emotions
I really hate you --Dogwalkerz (talk) 14:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Screenshot of Neoplanet`s Grinch browser.jpg
Hi Stefan,

I see you tagged for resizing the non-free screenshot I`ve uploaded. Do you really think it needs to be done? I`ve already resized it to less than 0.2 megapixels, and even now the features` names are blurred.. if further sized down it will simply lose its function.. Both browser and company are defunct so I hardly believe this image can damage somebody`s rights.. Best regards, --Pozytyv (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It is still much bigger than the copy used in the article. The recommendations at Category:Rescaled fairuse files more than 7 days old are a bit smaller and the bot would reduce the image a bit if the reduction template stays. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * But the majority of browsers` screenshots are much larger at wikipedia.. like this File:NCSA Mosaic.PNG or this File:Opera Web Browser.png .. why this rule doesn`t apply to them? --Pozytyv (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST to me. I've tagged both for reduction. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ok, I will refrain from providing you with other "too large" browsers screenshots, will look how the bot would reduce Neoplanet`s screenshot, thanks, --Pozytyv (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

St Michael Churchyard photo
Hi, I don't edit on Wikipedia much, and this is the first time I've uploaded a photo. The picture is my own which I took myself and I hold complete copyright on, which I am happy to be freely distributed via Wikipedia. I can't see how to add this information and would be grateful if you could point me in the right direction to tag it properly. I've looked and can't find a clear explanation of what I need to do - it took long enough to figure out how to post the image in the first place. Tizard99 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC).
 * In the meantime, I see that you added a licence template saying that the image has been released to the public domain. The file information page didn't state who the photographer was, so I added that information based on what you wrote above. For future reference: if you take a photo yourself and wish to release it to the public domain, you can indicate this by adding PD-self to the file information page. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Bob Turner
Hi! Thanks for your notice. I think (I'm not sure) if it is small enough now. Just let me know if you can. Thank you!!! :-)

HappyLongIslander (talk) 02:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

RE: Giglio 2010.jpg
The structure itself, not only the photo, was created by myself. It is a copy of a copy that originated in the 5th Century AD, in a town in Italy called Nola. Every year there are at least eight (8) such structures built each of which are individually created from the original 5th century structure. The photo is a picture of the completed work in 2010 build in Glen Cove, New York (USA). The structure as shown has been destroyed as they all are traditionally destroyed after the feast day of San Paolino, June 22nd and after a feast in his honor. --Michael LoCascio 15:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glmike523 (talk • contribs)

apastel, regarding Occupy Buffer Zone leaflets and pictures
Dear Stefan2, I have noticed that you have nominated a number of material uploaded by me for deletion based on copyrights. I have been part of the Occupy Buffer Zone movement for a long time, and have taken the task of enriching Wikipedia on the subject based on sound documentation. The material that was uploaded is not owned by anyone individually or collectively. They are shown publicly, and are under no copyrights, because the movement does not view such copyright laws as necessarily or desirable for its function. If Wikipedia however does not accept this statement or position as legitimate, please inform me if an online statement granting me permission on my Wikipedia's account name for the uploading of leaflets and pictures on the commons is enough for the copyright issue to be resolved. Thank you for your time.

( Apastel (talk) 16:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC) )
 * Please keep the discussion at WP:PUF. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Question
Do you have a picture of the KSMJ logo that was deleted? JoeCool950 (talk) 18:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope. I don't keep copies of deleted images. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

File Mover Rights
Hello Stefan, I am a file mover on English Wiki, and have frequently come across your file renaming requests, seeing your contribution here, i feel an editor like you will be more productive with the file mover rights. Please request here on Requests for permissions/File mover for this and I will support it, or else i can nominate you as well. please leave a {tb}--  Ð ℬig XЯaɣ  00:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

File question
Hey, I noticed that you had added Non-free reduce to File:Ek Tha Tiger.jpg. Is there any specific size limitation for a movie poster, I had been thinking that somewhere around 500 was the maximum size for any non-free media. This one is 505*308, is that too large? If so, I'll reduce it further and upload it. Thanks! Secret of success (talk)  14:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any exact definition of what is too big, but recommendations are given on at least at two different places: Category:Rescaled fairuse files more than 7 days old (which suggests that no dimension should be greater than 400 pixels) and Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests (which suggests that there should be at most 160,000 pixels). As this one is smaller than 160,000 pixels, I've removed the reduction request. It violates the other recommendation, though. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh...this makes it confusing, as till now I thought that the restriction was more or less equal to 500, not 400. User:DASHBot usually re-scales images to that extent (a good example would be this). As an approved bot, I would think it knows better. So, no issues for now. If at all it arises later, the best option would be WP:MCQ. Thanks for your help and regards! Secret of success (talk)  06:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure exactly how DASHBot decides how small the resized images should be, but the result always seems to be less than 160,000 pixels. This one was made much smaller than the one you mentioned. Anyway, no big issue, I'd say. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:32, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Question by User:DJ Mell Starr
dj mell starr

Hi Stefan, May 16th a file that I uploaded will be deleted if I do not get permission from it's original owner. I have sent an email to the owner asking that she email the permissions dept. Que: The owner gave/sent me the picture via email. Do I still need her permission? DJ Mell Starr (talk) 17:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If you are talking about File:Master of The Mix, DJMellStarrW.jpg: permission needs to be sent by e-mail to . Once sent there, tag the image with OTRS pending to prevent deletion whilst waiting for the e-mail to be processed by the permissions department. The instructions at WP:CONSENT might help you. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Falling Skies DVD
The image I uploaded is a scaled down version from the website I got it from. It is not too big - it is standard size and fits the article perfectly. Let Me Eat Cake (talk) 17:06, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The file can be scaled down further. But never mind; the file is tagged as orphaned fair use, so it will probably be deleted soon anyway. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

That's okay. Thanks for the extremely late reply. Let Me Eat Cake (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

OTRS
To Stefan2 and Ronhjones

I haven't been active in PUF, but as a new OTRS agent, I realize that I should at least be watching it, especially for references to OTRS. I will begin doing that. However, I'm writing because I saw references to the backlog. I asked to join OTRS because I heard there was a backlog. When I joined, roughly three weeks ago, there were 800 or so open items in the Permissions queues. That number is down to 345, higher than it should be, but we are making progress. It will be tougher now, because much of the low hanging fruit is gone, and the remaining ones are more challenging. When I first logged on, there were a considerable number of requests over 30 days old. There are a few left, but none left are routine.

My current plan is to regularly visit PUF, and look for any entries where OTRS is mentioned. For example, I just added a note to the WO! album cover.jpg item. I also see one where the uploader has claimed that an email has been sent, but I see no email in the system, so I will follow up with the uploader, to make sure there is no confusion.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  12:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

NON-Free reduce
These two files, File:Teletype Model 28 Tape Punch Set.jpg and File:Teletype Model 28 Receiving Selector.jpg have already gone through this process once. Please see the history files. Also note that these are press release photos from a defunct company.Wa3frp (talk) 12:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, they have been reduced once, but not sufficiently. If you read the fair use rationale, the purpose of the files is to use them in the article Teletype Model 28, where the files take up 62,700 pixels. However, on the file information pages, there are links to versions with 277,800 pixels. It looks as if the total pixel count can be divided by approximately four. See Category:Rescaled fairuse files more than 7 days old: "The resolution should approximately fit the intended use in the article." --Stefan2 (talk) 20:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, constructively you have stated the obvious reason for posting information..."...The resolution should approximately fit the intended use in the article..." Looking objectively at File:Teletype Model 28 Receiving Selector.jpg please relate to me the three speed options, in operations per minute, based on the information that you find in this already very reduced information.  Yes, I can reduce files to the point where they are unreadable if the sole criterion used in file size in pixels.  However, I see that the underlying objective is to convey accurate information to the reader. Please see Wikipedia non-free content - image resolution "...images should be rescaled as small as possible to still be useful as identified by their rationale..."  Should I further reduce this image to obliterate the text or should I follow the intent of the policy and increase the image resolution to be able to unambiguously read the text?Wa3frp (talk) 21:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Take a look at the purpose stated in the fair use rationale: "For visual identification of the object of the article. The article as a whole is dedicated specifically to a discussion of this work." The article is dedicated specifically to the Teletype Model 28, not to the Teletype Model 28 manual. Thus, the only interesting things in the images are the photos of various part of the device, whereas the text is irrelevant. Since the text is irrelevant, there is no need for it to be readable. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for making my point. The file has effectively obliterated the textual content of the page, leaving only the image as the intelligence. Since you mention manual, a manual for the Teletype Model 28 Receiving Selector would require tens of pages, not the critical technical data as a snapshot, something that this file could convey to the reader if the file were slightly larger. The technical data originally displayed in this file is a synthesis of the technical manual and not the manual in totality. Further, a reader of the article could be interested in the technical data, especially since this particular technical device is little known as it was not largely deployed.Wa3frp (talk) 00:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Margrete Heiberg Bose
Hi Stefan,

Can you help me understand why you deleted the file margrete.jpg. I imagine I did not specify the correct permissions. Thanks. Jorge. Pullin —Preceding undated comment added 14:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC).
 * I didn't delete it; the file was deleted by Explicit. Based on the deletion reason, it was deleted because it didn't have any fair use rationale. All non-free files need to have a fair use rationale. See WP:FUR for instructions. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Jorge Pullin —Preceding undated comment added 13:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
just wondering something, please comment. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:FoP-USonly
Template:FoP-USonly has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. 9carney (talk) 19:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

GREY2K USA logo
Hi Stefan,

We are new to wikipedia and wondering what we are doing wrong to have our logo flagged for removal by you. Could you please explain? This is a logo our company owns copyright of. We followed the template as the HSUS has for their logo.

Thank you,

Danielle, Communications Manager, GREY2K USA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfesta (talk • contribs) 17:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The file had no licence template. Never mind, I've added one now. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Hanja help
Hello. Should you know Hanja, please fill it here (Onew and Key's name). Thanks in advance--Morning Sunshine (talk) 06:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ko:Key (歌手) says: 중국, 대만, 홍콩 모두 Key로 쓰고 있다. ( 中國, 臺灣, 香港 모두 Key로 쓰고 있다. = In all of China, Taiwan and Hong Kong, [the name] is written "Key". ) It even looks as if the han'gŭl 키 might be a transcription of the English word "key". Thus, I'd assume that there is no hancha for Key's stage name.
 * ko:온유 (1989年) says: 중국에서는 温流, 대만과 홍콩에서는 溫流로 쓰고 있다. ( 中國에서는 温流, 臺灣과 香港에서는 溫流로 쓰고 있다. = In China, [the name] is written as 温流 and in Taiwan and Hong Kong [it] is written as 溫流. ) The article Onew lists the hancha as 温流, but this looks wrong: 温 is a simplified character/new shape. Korean is only supposed to use traditional characters/old shapes, i.e. 溫. Thus, I'd assume that 溫流 is correct, so I'll fix both articles. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help. I like k-pop but I don't know Korean language at all :-). Your language skill is excellent, I think. Btw, do you consider being admin here. You've done many good work about images here as well as significantly active on Commons. If you agree, I will make a nomination. Regards Morning Sunshine (talk) 14:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Kauffman Center for the Performing Arts
The staff at the Kauffman Center for the Perfoming Arts has repeatedly tried to add images to our Wikipedia page and the images have been removed each time. On our last attempt we included rationale for why the images can not be replaced as they are the photos taken by Tim Hursley, who is the official photographer of Moshe Safdie, the buildings designer. We were given permission to use these images freely and for that reason meet the requirements of the Wikipedia content agreement. Can you please explain to me why the images are still being deleted from the page? Kauffman1601 (talk) 16:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late reply; I forgot about this question. The building, Kauffman Center for the Performing Arts, still exists, so it is possible for anyone to take a photo of the building and publish the photo under a free licence. The photos uploaded by you were listed under an unfree licence, and photos under unfree licences are deemed as unacceptable if it is possible to create a free replacement. See WP:NFCC and WP:NFC §1 for details. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Moving files to Commons
One category down and Category:User-created public domain files from October 2005 is almost also empty :-) And Category:Wikipedia files that shadow a file on Wikimedia Commons is also almost empty... What do you think. Should we look for more files that shadows Commons or should we find some other categories to work on? The reason I ask is because it is more fun to work on categories when you are two or more and categories with 100.000+ files are not as much fun as categories we can empty in a few days. So if you have ideas just let me know :-) --MGA73 (talk) 15:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm currently a bit busy and will probably not have the time to move any files at all for a week or two. Currently, I'm just trying to stay up-to-date with the current file discussions. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem... You know where to find me if you get more time and have ideas. --MGA73 (talk) 17:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * For your information, there are now more files in Category:Wikipedia files that shadow a file on Wikimedia Commons. However, most of those have been proposed for deletion. Maybe I could try looking at the user-created public domain categories, but it seems easier to look for categories on a specific topic since all files on a specific topic tend to get similar Commons categories. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah that is true. If someone likes a specific topic galleries like this could be interessting. The reason I like the PD-self is that they are most likely own work. Anyway, we just have to move 1 million files and it will be much easier to work on the rest :-D --MGA73 (talk) 16:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Another thing: Still a few files left in Category:Images affected by the September 2008 image loss bug. If you have any ideas on how to empty that category feel free to share. Only 3 files left to save/delete. --MGA73 (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Yogo photos
Thanks for responding at Featured article candidates/Yogo sapphire/archive1. To me photo licensing can be sooo confusing. What should I do, find the earliest publication of each? Pumpkin Sky  talk  21:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * These 4 pics are all over the web, often with no date on the web page. Makes it all the more confusing and frustrating. Places I found them are in their source line on the commons page. Pumpkin Sky  talk  21:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that you would have to identify an early publication of those photos, if such a publication exists. United States copyright law is a bit annoying in that sense in that the copyright status depends on when and whether a photo was published. File:JakeHoover1894.png is claimed to be a wedding photo, and such photos are usually private photos which are typically not published. It says that the photo was published in a book published "circa 1985", and if that was the first time the photo was published, then the copyright will expire on 1 January 2048. Anonymous 19th century photos first published between 1978 and 2002 always enter the public domain on 1 January 2048, which is another annoying feature with United States copyright law: the copyright term may be ridiculously long (possibly several centuries) if a photo remains unpublished for decades but then is published somewhere at the wrong time. See Commons:COM:HIRTLE for more details about US copyrights. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:09, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ARGH!! So Hoover isn't free as far as we know. This is weird. Someone publishes a private photo and gains a copyright? WEIRD!!. So I can't claim it as free. What about the Ringold and two old mine ones? Sorry I'm so clueless here. I find photo licensing confusing to the max. Pumpkin Sky   talk  14:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What you should do is search pre-1923 materials in archive.org or books.google.com (set to "free e-books only"). Use the names of the people and places as search terms, if you can't substantiate those, you may find others. Also, you can call historical societies, use images.google.com to search for other usages of the image on the internet (some may have an original publication), or do without.  I don't think any of the questioned images are crucial for the FAC's success and are thus expendable.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * But they're neat! And a 1894 photo being under copyright til 2048 is just ridiculous. They could all be changed to FU too. Pumpkin Sky  talk  14:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think you'd successfully argue that how some guy looked on his wedding day leads to a significantly greater understanding of Yogo sapphires.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * He's key to the story ;=) Pumpkin Sky   talk  20:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * One photo proposed for deletion. Unless an early publication of the other photos can be located, I suppose that they also should be proposed for deletion. Unfortunately, some countries grant unusually long copyright terms for unpublished works. Similarly, in the United Kingdom, the copyright to works by a known author expires at the earliest 50 years after publication, which means that all unpublished works by a known author (regardless of age) currently are copyrighted in the United Kingdom (with some exceptions for photos and government works). --Stefan2 (talk) 20:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The whole thing is batshit insane! Yes, it's all ridiculously long, but thanks for helping! Pumpkin Sky  talk  20:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

About file uploads
The recent files that you have added reduce templates to are already fit for articles! Please remove these templates because these files do not need to be replaced with smaller versions, they are fine where they are! ~ RomeAntic14 16:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The resolution of your images is still way too big. See Category:Rescaled fairuse files more than 7 days old: "The largest dimension should be at most around 300–400px." and "The resolution should approximately fit the intended use in the article." Take File:Bridgit-mendler-summertime.jpg, for example. Only 48,400 pixels are used in the article but you have uploaded 250,000 pixels, which is more than five times as many. Besides, all sides are longer than 300-400 pixels. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
The Illusive Man(Contact) 21:01, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Four fair use images of the same "statue" in one article?
Is that not a bit much? See Are_Years_What%3F_(for_Marianne_Moore). What do you think? You are welcome to send to Ffd if you agree. --MGA73 (talk) 21:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This definitely looks too much. SIRIS tells that the work was made in 1968 but it seems that it wasn't installed at its present location until 1999. It seems that the work has been exhibited at multiple locations. Would some of those count as publication, or would it be something else due to the work not being permanently installed there? If it was first published in the United States, it would need a copyright notice for each publication, including publications outside the United States (I think). There is of course no problem with the images if the statue is in the public domain. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you... Not sure I feel more safe about the thingie now :-D Anyway I'm trying to find a way to tag files that is on Commons but does not have a NowCommons template. So I created Category:Media not suitable for Commons to make it a bit easier and I noticed the 4 similar files in there. --MGA73 (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Asked at Commons:COM:VPC since I'm not sure about the copyright status. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Image DR
I made a comment here that you may wish to see about Denmark's copyright policies. Thank You. --Leoboudv (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: Hankyoreh

 * Moved back to User talk:Tyrannus Mundi. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Commons
Hello, you recommended that I load my images to Wikimedia Commons. I'd be happy to do this, and I'm sure it only takes a couple of key strokes to set it up, but I am not willing to waste my time reading a bunch of procedure pages that invariably leave me horribly confused. If you can provide me with a link where I can load my photos, then I will load them to Commons. Otherwise, I'll continue doing what I've been doing. Thanks.Sarnold17 (talk) 00:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Try using Commons:Special:UploadWizard or Commons:Special:Upload when uploading files. Hopefully, either of those pages is clear enough for you. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll give them a try; many thanks.Sarnold17 (talk) 16:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Equinox picture
HELP! You flagged this picture. File:Mount-Equinox-Viewer-Center-Construction-2012.jpg I have forwarded the email I received from Paul for use on the web. (Pointed to where I published it on my own personal website, along with the original email.) What do I need to do next? NECRAT Speak to me 08:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have sent permission to OTRS, you are supposed to add OTRS pending to the file to indicate this. I'm adding this tag now. If the photographer's permission only applies to the  domain name, then the permission is insufficient. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Tagging ICFR logo photo as possibly problematic
Hi Stefan2. I received your message on my talk page regarding the photo File:Israel Council on Foreign Relations (ICFR) logo.jpg, which you listed as a possibly unfree file. I have full permission of the creator of this work to distrubite it, so could you please explain to me why you placed it in that category and what I could do to further clarify the fact that it is a free file? Thank you. Intrepid Reporter (talk) 06:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Permission should be sent to OTRS. The file information contains no indication that permission has been sent to OTRS. For instructions on how to send things to OTRS, see WP:CONSENT. Once permission has been sent to OTRS, please tag the file with OTRS pending so that other people know that permission has been sent to OTRS.
 * Note that a permission which only allows you to distribute the image is insufficient. The permission must allow anyone to use the image for any purpose (including using the image commercially) and people must be allowed to modify the image. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Computer Lib cover by Ted Nelson 1974.png
I don't think this qualifies for reduction. It isn't a substitute for the original work, it isn't a high-resolution copy, and the words in the subtitle ("You can and must understand computers NOW") cannot be read at a lower resolution. Furthermore, this particular cover is considered iconic and historically important in the history of personal computing, and the size of the file is no different than any other average book cover on Wikipedia; comparing its size and resolution to featured articles, tells me there is nothing wrong with it, and if anything, it is of a lower quality than those found in featured book articles. Viriditas (talk) 13:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Nevermind. I uploaded a reduced image and it looks OK. Viriditas (talk) 13:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Jefferson Stamp
Message for you on. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Yeh hai Bombay meri jaan.ogg
Hi, i'm not getting reason you gave at place. "the song is not critically discussed in the Bombay article." What this means ? 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS (talk) 16:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi,i did the job like i was told. Please take a look over here. Best regards --25 CENTS VICTORIOUS (talk) 06:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Quinton.jpg
Thank you for bringing up the issue of the image with the nomination. I posted the source which dates the image 1911. Now, I think that it would be great if you looked into the image in "Commons" with the same file name. The image is found here: File:Quinton.jpg, of claims to have been self-taken which is highly unlikely. Thank you and take care. Tony the Marine (talk) 18:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I asked for a publication before 1923, but you only provided a publication in 2000. If a photo was taken in 1911 and first published in 2000, then it is still copyrighted. See Commons:COM:HIRTLE: if created before 1978 and first published between 1989 and 2002, then the copyright expires at the end of 2047 or 70 years after the death of the photographer, whichever is later. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The publication states thet the image was taken in 1911, therefore since copyright laws did not apply when the image was taken it is PD and the publication (a government publlication) and anyone else who may desire to publish it may do so. Such is the case for example when you come upon an image of Abraham Lincoln in a history book. Image of a historical person pre-1923. Tony the Marine (talk) 22:20, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Ross-castle-drawing.jpg
Not sure what you are looking for regarding permissions for this image. I sent and email to on June 11, 2012, stating the museum staff indicated the drawing on the wall was in the public domain and that I was the holder of the photo copyright. Can you be specific on what you would like me to provide? I'm a low time contributor and not exactly up on all the acronyms or procedures. Rackmount-guy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:James Hawkins Artist 2012.jpg
Hi Stefan Thank you for you message regarding the copyright of the images I have uploaded. I am new to editing on Wiki and this is my first article. The images are of my father so I have added OTRS pending and asked him to email his permission to permissions-enwikimedia.org Is there anything else i need to do at this stage? Thanks for you help LucindaCasual (talk) 23:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * All you need to do is to add OTRS pending and ask your father to send an e-mail to . I couldn't see any OTRS pending tag on one of them, so I added one there. Now we just need to wait until someone reads that e-mail. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: Non-free rationale for File:Sandman.jpg
In regards to File:Sandman.jpg I have never seen this image before and have not used it anywhere on Wikipedia. I think you have mistaken me for someone else. I only don't even know who Sandman is! Feathery Sunshine (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There were two files with the same name. Another user moved your file to File:Mr Sandman (Chordettes) .jpg and added a fair use rationale. I understand that this might be a bit confusing for you. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Soonchild Cover.jpg
Hello, Stefan2. What size would you recommend I reduce this image to? Just let me know what parameters would be acceptable and I'll be happy to oblige. (Or is this just a matter of waiting for an automatic process to take place? This is my first image upload, so feel free to clarify if I've misunderstood what happens next.) Greencoracle (talk) 21:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a bot which reduces images automatically. No need to do anything. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you! -- Greencoracle (talk) 21:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
You're welcome. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Good eye wrt the copyvio Guelph Transit images!
Cheers, JYolkowski // talk 01:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, just some quick googling. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

File: Theatrical Poster for The Secret Friend.jpg
Hi Stefan, how are you? I'm trying to understand why you called my poster (file: Theatrical Poster for The Secret Friend.jpg) a "dubious own work." I imagine I did not specify the correct permissions. I designed the poster for the film the Secret Friend myself and I hold complete copyright on the art work, which I am happy to be freely distributed via Wikipedia. I have already uploaded the poster to the film's official site for FREE download. I probably have done something wrong but I would be grateful if you could point me in the right direction so that I can give it the right permission. Thanks in advance for your help.

Best, --Michael Seto (talk) 03:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. Film posters are usually not uploaded by the people who designed them, so if someone uploads a poster and lists it as own work, this is a reason to be suspicious. However, if you are the designer of the poster, I don't think that there will be an issue. Please just follow the instructions at WP:CONSENT so that it is documented that you were the one who made the poster. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Stefan, Thanks for your help. I have just sent the permission email to wikipedia as you suggested but the poster still have the warning you placed. What should I do next?

Best, --Michael Seto (talk) 14:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I have added the template OTRS pending there to indicate that you have sent an e-mail. I am not sure if I should close the deletion discussion or not, so I will leave it open until an administrator decides what to do. Now we probably just need to wait until someone reads the e-mail you have sent. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

"Possibly unfree files" - AHJKL67435
Hello Stefan, you seemed to have tagged my images as not my own work. This is correct, however, I have explicit permission from the copyright holder (Helga Voci) to post the images. I have never once stated I am trying to pass them off as my own works. I am sandboxing an article on artist DIEGO Voci to post within the next week. If there is another sort of copyright tag I should put on the posts, let me know. Otherwise, I'd like to continue with my work. Thank you. Signed --Ian Paul (talk) 14:41, 18 June 2012
 * For works made by other people, make sure that you have an appropriate permission and then follow the instructions at WP:CONSENT. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I have written to permissions-commonswikimedia.org with a copy of this letter http://imgur.com/a/jHpPd from Helga Voci, who holds the copyrights for all images used on the page for Antonio Diego Voci. I would appreciate it if you would take them off the page for being suspicious pictures. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahjkl67435 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Buick
Hello, the picture of the Buick and the blog are my property. I run the blog, therefore I own the rights to the photo and shouldn't be put for PUF. Droodkin (talk) 12:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant to contact you about this, but you contacted me first. For photos appearing elsewhere on the Internet, I think that it is better if you send an e-mail to OTRS to prove ownership in order to avoid any future problems. See instructions at WP:CONSENT. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Done, hoping for the best. Thank you! Droodkin (talk) 13:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Clarion Alley Mural Project, Mission District.jpg
This image is free - I took the picture - this is clearly stated under the file description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ponderosa Templeton (talk • contribs) 22:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * See Possibly unfree files/2012 June 18: you are not allowed to take photos of copyrighted murals in the United States. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I have permission from the Clarion Alley Mural Project, who hold the rights to all of the murals in the photograph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ponderosa Templeton (talk • contribs) 23:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * In that case, make sure that the information is valid for an acceptable licence and then follow the instructions at WP:CONSENT. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

PUF of File:Theatrical Poster for The Secret Friend.jpg
Hi there, I've closed the discussion as keep. I handled an OTRS ticket today which confirms that the uploader owns the work. Regards, MacMedtalk stalk 02:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Nanotube(10,10)Armchair.png
Dear Stefan,

I add "self|" into "Licensing" section is it enough?P99am (talk) 09:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If you made the image yourself, then yes, it is enough. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Guelph Transit
Hi please do not remove the photos that were posted on the Guelph Transit part of Wiki. those photos are mine but i am also a member of www.cptdb.ca and an editor of the Wiki that is on there. I had posted my own photos on there as well so there is no copyright violations. My profile is on this link. user 04.501 at the CPTDB Wiki (8215Andrew · contribs) 11:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry about that. For photos which appear elsewhere on the Internet, you have to provide some evidence that the photos belong to you, for example by sending an e-mail to OTRS (see instructions at WP:CONSENT) or by including a link to a post by the CPTDB Wiki user on each file information page where the user confirms that both accounts belong to the same person. Otherwise, I think that we will have to assume that the Wikipedia account and the CPTDB Wiki accounts belong to different people. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Cf. thumb|80px|left.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 00:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ? --Stefan2 (talk) 00:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Per wp:FFD, the "reason" field supposed to be filled in w reference to an applicable policy. (Yours could have been left blank and gives no information other than a reference to the image's subject's gender and his relationship to the host article's subject, her gender mentioned as well).--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 21:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Australian $1 note paper back.jpg
there is already a different image (showing the obverse side of the note) which is sufficient to tell what this note looks like. Could you supply a link to that image please? Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It appears in the article, see File:Australian $1 note paper front.jpg. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't understand. Could you supply a link to that image please? Pdfpdf (talk) 15:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh! OK, now I understand what you're saying. Sorry! Pdfpdf (talk) 15:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * (However, I fail to see how an image of the front of the note in any way tells you what the back of the note looks like.)

A barnstar for you! II

 * You're welcome. But I just gave you a little information about copyrights. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It was important though and you helped. Pumpkin Sky   talk  15:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Photo Attribution
The Wikipedia page "User talk:Robertsonsyard" has been changed on 21 June 2012 by Stefan2, with the edit summary: Notification: tagging for deletion of File:Alexander Robertson.jpg. (TW)

Attribution for the digital photo has been corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertsonsyard (talk • contribs) 2012-06-21T05:18:43
 * I see that you have only changed the name of the photographer from one photographer to a different photographer. There is still no evidence of permission from either photographer. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I am the photographer. If you wish to send me your postal address and I'll send you a signed letter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertsonsyard (talk • contribs) 07:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The Dover Patrol
Thank you for your advice but I don't know enough about computers to follow it. I put the photos here https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:MyGallery&withJS=MediaWiki:JSONListUploads.js&gUser=Keith-264 Keith-264 (talk) 08:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What do I need to do to put this on? Thanks.Keith-264 (talk) 08:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * is only allowed on Wikipedia and not on Commons since Commons requires that files are free in the source country. If the Commons files you listed were created by some British person who died in 1947, I suppose that they should be deleted from Commons and moved here instead. For to be valid, you need to prove that the work was published (as opposed to just created) before 1923. If a work was created before 1923 but not published before 1923, then it may still be copyrighted in the United States, and this is particularly the case if the work is a British work which is still copyrighted in the United Kingdom. The Commons file information pages indicate that the photos were published in "The Dover Patrol" from 1915-1917, which looks sufficient to me. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And another thing: there is also Commons:User:Commons fair use upload bot which might be able to help you moving the images automatically. However, I'm not sure how to do that. Try asking at Commons:User talk:Dcoetzee. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks mate.Keith-264 (talk) 13:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Peter morrell/graffiti gallery
That page has a few graffiti photos on it from the UK. Would these fail Commons:FOP? If so, I'll nominate them for XfD, but I am still learning to understand FoP. -- Тимофей ЛееСуда . 13:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi! There are two things to consider here:
 * British law: According to Commons:COM:FOP, a lot of 2D things aren't covered by freedom of panorama. For example, it is assumed that murals or information boards aren't covered by freedom of panorama in the United Kingdom. For that reason, I would assume that photos of graffiti also violate British law. In other countries (such as Sweden), graffiti may be covered by freedom of panorama, and in the United States, pre-1978 graffiti counts as "published", so it would immediately enter the public domain if it was painted without a copyright notice.
 * Commons policy: According to Commons:COM:CB, Commons recognises graffiti but makes an exception from Commons:COM:PRP and normally allows these images even if they violate the copyright of graffiti artists if the graffiti, so there might not be any need to propose these images for deletion. Commons argues that it is normally impossible to identify the graffiti artist of anonymous works. Besides, the artist might face legal action for vandalism from the wall owner if the identity of the artist is revealed, so it may be unwise for a graffiti artist to tell people of his works. Note that the Commons policy only applies to graffiti painted illegally (as copyright holders to graffiti painted legally don't face any legal risks by suing someone over copyright violations) and that it presumably only applies to graffiti by anonymous, unidentified artists. See for example this blog post (in French) where User:Jean-no writes that he took a photo of some graffiti in Paris in the 1980s, uploaded it to Commons some 25 years later and then received a cease and desist letter from fr:Société des auteurs dans les arts graphiques et plastiques on behalf of the graffiti artist over alledged copyright violations. See also Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Miss tic enfile art mur jnl.jpg and fr:Wikipédia:Legifer/mars 2012 for related discussions. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your thorough response. After reading everything it seems to be one of those very grey areas in copyright law. I will leave them be for the time being. -- Тимофей ЛееСуда . 22:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is a very confusing part of copyright law and Commons policies. Usually, I try to stay away from this stuff altogether, since it seems easier. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Sergeant D E G Emery Photo
Hi Stefan, with regard to the above you have sent me a message saying 'there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license'. Please excuse my ignorance but I am not sure what you mean by 'the creator of the file'. The photo in question was taken in 1944 and was the property of Douglas E G Emery until he gave it to his granddaughter who is my wife. She has given me permission to use the photo which I scanned and uploaded. Would an email from my wife be proof enough? Ru32blue (talk) 18:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Permission should be sent to OTRS. See instructions at WP:CONSENT. The "creator of this file" is the person who took the photo. You need an e-mail from the photographer, or, if the photographer is dead, from the photographer's heir. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

As the photo was taken in Rome in 1944 and that Douglas passed away a few years ago, I doubt I will be able to find out who took the photo let alone his/her descendants. I assume from the above that the owner of a photo does not have ownership of it's copyright? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ru32blue (talk • contribs) 19:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Wartenberg Trust Collection - Photos of European Royalty

 * Dear Stefan - Thank you for your kind comment. I am sorry for the misunderstanding. The private photograph (original negative is the private collection of Wartenberg Trust), however the photograph was published in Germany (as a postcard) in the year of creation. Wartenberg Trust owns the largest collection of these photographs and original negatives. Copyright in the US expired and the image is free. Thank you!Mariaflores1955 (talk) 09:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If the photos have been published on postcards, please clearly indicate this as unpublished photos may be copyrighted in the United States. If the photos were first published outside the United States, you are supposed to use the template PD-US-1923-abroad instead of PD-US as the photos may remain copyrighted in the source country. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Please advice
Please advice: can I add fair-use images also to List of painters of Saint Petersburg Union of Artists, or in the artist biography only? Thank you! Leningradartist (talk) 16:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair use images are usually not allowed in tables or lists. See WP:NFTABLE for details. A similar case are discographies which are not allowed to contain photos of the discs listed there (see WP:NFC number 2 for details – the article The Beatles discography contain no images for exactly this reason). The article List of painters of Saint Petersburg Union of Artists looks like a similar kind of list, so I would say that it isn't allowed to contain fair use items either. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, Thank you! --Leningradartist (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Boojum tree ucr botanical garden.jpg
Just a heads up that I'm requesting a deletion review of the above file. The source shows "Apache::Gallery © 2001-2005 Michael Legart, Hest Design", but that's the copyright of Apache::Gallery, the gallery software I'm using. I actually own the copyright, and licensed it appropriately for use in wikipedia. Dondelelcaro (talk) 22:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Need help (copyright licensing)
Hey. You have started a deletion discussion for an ununseptium decay chain pic. Want to ask you if the following images can be used in Wikipedia (the same article, ununseptium), and if so, how they should be licensed.


 * Want to steal a graph from here
 * And a couple of images from []

Also, could you have another look at the deletion discussion ?

Thanks--R8R Gtrs (talk) 20:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please keep the discussion at Files for deletion/2012 June 27. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Anna Wood (schoolgirl)
Hi I thought I was required to state it was fair use even though I took the photo? Because it's a publicly released and available image that is used everywhere, however I took the particular photo. I think the copyright status would belong to her parents, who have released the image to the public anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alishakitty (talk • contribs) 03:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It says that the photo has been published under the CC-BY-SA licence. However, it also seems that the image has been published elsewhere before being uploaded here. In order to prove that the CC-BY-SA licence is authentic, you need to follow the instructions at WP:CONSENT. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I just sent the email for the photos permission of use. Thanks for helping. Alishakitty (talk) 14:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Picture of Namgyal Rinpoche
Stefan2 — Thank you for your concerns about the picture of Namgyal Rinpoche. I understand Wikipedia's concerns about uploading unauthorized pictures, but I find myself baffled by the legal terminologies. It's a dense mesh and frankly find it difficult to navigate your quite complex requirements. I scanned a print given to me (and many others) by the photographer Peter Deutsch (now deceased) shortly after it was taken in the fall of 1970 or early 1971. This picture has been used again and again, but very rarely for publication. To the best of the knowledge of any of his students it has never been protected. It would be characteristic of the man, both the subject and the photographer (both now deceased) to let it be used freely without restrictions. Nevertheless I have initiated enquiries within the spiritual community he established. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morels (talk • contribs) 19:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Why exactly wouldn't it be protected by copyright? Who released it to the public domain and when? You need to send evidence to OTRS (see WP:CONSENT) which proves that the image is in the public domain in at least the United States. If it is a Canadian photo taken in 1946 or later, then it is not in the public domain in the United States, so you need to obtain permission from the copyright holder, and send that permission to OTRS (see WP:CONSENT). --Stefan2 (talk) 09:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Fluxus images
Could you please direct me to the page that states what size picture is acceptable for upload on pages about visual art?? Best, Franciselliott (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No Reply?? I'd like to point you toward this;

As a general rule of thumb, images where one dimension exceeds 1,000 pixels, or where the image size approaches 1.0 megapixels or more, will likely require a closer review to assure that the image needs that level of resolution. This is not a discouragement to use such images, but editors should assure that rationales fully explain the need for such level of detail. Often, one may encounter an original, high resolution image that can be reasonably scaled down to maintain the overall artistic and critical details, but would otherwise lose sufficient resolution for some text elements on the image. In such cases, it is recommended that these text elements be duplicated on the image description page to allow users to read these while maintaining low resolution. Note that care should be given to the recreation of copywritten text: such duplication would be appropriate for the bylines on a movie poster as factual data, but would not be appropriate for an original poem embedded within an image. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Policy) These criteria clearly do not apply to my uploads. Either discuss your reasoning in the relevant talk, or stop adding unnecessary citations please. Best, Franciselliott (talk) 09:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Why don't you just wait until the bot fixes them automatically instead of complaining? Anyway, for size limits, check Category:Rescaled fairuse files more than 7 days old:

"Raster images should generally be around 0.1 megapixels. The largest dimension should be at most around 300–400px. The resolution should approximately fit the intended use in the article."


 * Since you forgot to tell which images you are talking about, there is no way to check if the said images comply with the above limits. Stefan2 (talk) 09:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Two images on the Fluxus page, as mentioned in the headline. They are; File:DeRidder'sFluxMailOrder.jpg and File:CutPieceOno.jpeg, both of which you tagged twice in the last fortnight. Franciselliott (talk) 10:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope, the headline only says "Fluxus images" without telling what a "Fluxus image" is. And check the Fluxus article: File:DeRidder'sFluxMailOrder.jpg is 349 × 526 pixels but the Fluxus article only uses 280 × 422 pixels. What are those extra pixels meant for? The purpose is to display the image in the article, not to display it on the file information page. This resolution difference is even more noticeable for the other image. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I've re-uploaded "Artist Cygnus high.jpg"
Please do not delete images without discussion. There is no PD-USGov-NASA equivalent.--Craigboy (talk) 21:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you are talking about. There was a discussion (see Files for deletion/2012 June 25), but you failed to participate in it, so the image was deleted after a week. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I was unaware of such a discussion and it appears that no other editor was aware either. Why did you not place a warning on the article or its talk page as recommended by the Instructions for listing files for deletion?--Craigboy (talk) 22:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The deletion request was made using Twinkle which leaves a notice at the original uploader's talk page (see here). It seems that you were not the original uploader, so it seems that no notice was placed on your talk page. According to the instructions, it is not mandatory to use the ifdc template, and Twinkle doesn't do this. It would be better if Twinkle could be designed to provide better warnings. For example, deletion scripts on Commons notify all uploaders (not just the first one). --Stefan2 (talk) 23:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Don delillo nyc.jpg
Hi,

You flagged the photo I took of Don DeLillo for deletion due to "uncertain" copyright status. It has since been deleted, which I just discovered. My intention was that the photo be CC-BY-SA here. Please let me know what I need to do to restore this photo. Thanks. Thousandrobots (talk) 04:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi! Based on the discussion, the file was listed as CC-BY-NC-SA 2.0 on Flickr, and it is not possible to prove whether you are the same person as the Flickr user or not. Wikipedia considers CC-BY-NC-SA as a non-free licence and images under that licence are not allowed here. Try changing the licence to CC-BY-SA on Flickr and then ask if the deleting administrator, User:Explicit, would be willing to undelete the image. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Disagree, have you read the article?
Hi, you have just listed File:Society Hill (Body of Proof).jpg for deletion. However, have you read the text? The image is not trying to tell the reader that two people are standing there, but to allow the reader to know what the clothes are like for the character, as a critic has commented on it. If the image was not there, you would not understand the hype of the clothes. It passes NFCC. So, could you please delete it from the FFD, as the image plays an important part in allowing the reader to understand the dress sense of the character. — M.Mario  (T/C) 19:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Progressive Librarian cover
Thank you for you oversight. I uploaded one of the old covers from the Progressive Librarian. I am a 10 year member of the editorial board. Our work is shared via Creative Commons and we have a Creative Commons logo on the lower right of our page here: http://libr.org/pl/index.html If this isn't enough documentation people can go the website to see them. The editorial board thought it would be a way to enhance our Wikipedia page, but our own website provides additional a data.Gracetupelo (talk) 12:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about File:Sample cover of Progressive Librarian journal.jpg? There is no way to prove that you have permission to publish the file under a Creative Commons licence. Could you either send an e-mail to OTRS (see instructions at WP:CONSENT) or add a statement at http://libr.org/plg/content/about.shtml proving that your account is legitimate? --Stefan2 (talk) 16:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Watson Jeopardy.jpg
Is there a particular reason you escalated from "needs to be a smaller image" to "delete" in reply to someone's protest that using a reduced image would make it less usable? I find this particularly disconcerting given that the notice on my talk page directly above the one you just added triggered you and I having a conversation about you simply dropping proposals for deletion on this image without any effort to remedy the situation. Darker Dreams (talk) 16:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * When an IP address deleted the non-free reduce template, I found another error with the file (incorrect FUR), so I tagged it for that error. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment by User:Jkidner
Hi Stefan, In response to your feedback comment. I have had my account up and running for sometime now about 2 months. In terms of editing. I am in no way qualified to edit other people's wikipedias I am just coming to grips with most of the technical issues myself. I have never done anything like this before. I have a limited amount of time to work on this article as it is. I would appreciate help on this front. It seems that a great number of obstacle are put in the way of people getting something up an running which is a shame as I know that many artists and students would benefit from having this article I am doing on wikipedia(Jkidner (talk) 09:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC))
 * Are you talking about File:Michael Kidner in his studio.jpg? It says that someone called "Flowers gallery" took the photo and that this person or organisation has released the photo to the public domain. However, there is no way to prove that this is true, so you need to send confirmation of this to OTRS. See WP:CONSENT for details. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I now have a letter for all the images and references I will use from the owner, but I have tried to send it to the permissions address you gave on my talk page but it says non deliverable can you help please. The other question I have is do I have to reapply for permission every time I change an image on this article or will this letter cover providing I am using the images they gave me permission for?Jkidner (talk)]]
 * Have you checked that you have quoted the address exactly as written on that page? In particular, did you include the @ sign? Some web browsers seem to skip the @ sign when copying and pasting the address from that page.
 * The permission only applies to other images if the permission says so. If not, it only applies to this image. If you are uncertain, try asking at WP:OTRS/N after they have read your e-mail. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment on Permission by User: Tlschulz
Stefanz - re the John O'M. Bockris page. This figure is fron one of his most important works/discoveries. Full permission has been granted by the Proceedings of the Royal Society. I can upload email if you let me know what I should do or if I should resubmit it. Bockris gave me this. PRO. ROY. SOC. permission stated that authors can use their own work as they wish as long as they cite the source, which I have done. Tell me what else I need to do. I am new to editing Wikipedia and I am learning as I go. John Bockris page will undergo periodic editing by me as I see things that need changing etc. (Tlschulz (talk) 16:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC))
 * As I wrote, e-mails should be sent to OTRS, not uploaded to the Wikipedia. See WP:CONSENT for instructions. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:VPP
I have started discussing this matter about fictional elements and images of them. You may join in because you seem to be interested on Getty Images. --George Ho (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

File:IUPAC example Single-Strand Inorganic Polymer.png
Dear Stefan2, many thanks for tagging up this image and checking on copyright issues. Much appreciated. I'd very much appreciate some advice on how to best go on with this one please. I drew the image (and the other small chemical images for the sand-box that I am working on) based on an image that is was used for an IUPAC publication. But specifically for this image (and the other chemical images that I am putting up), I've modified the originals for submission to Wikipedia (putting in transparent background and changing the definition levels) so I suppose it could be argued that it is a different image. Would that be reasonable? However, I am concerned by a remark that it might not be possible for Wiki to accept this image. I'll be happy to take it down if required: this is my first time so I'd really appreciate getting this right. If required I can modify the image again so that it fits the need of copyright - i.e. completely re-author the image (again!) then that would be fine. Of course, I should also say (and sorry!) I am a novice, so I could be simply pressing the wrong copyright button for the image. Many thanks for any help - all much appreciated! Best regards, Rogerchiorns (talk) 19:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The image is presumably not eligible for copyright, but consider participating in the discussion at Possibly unfree files/2012 July 16. A user is questioning whether the image is useful. Note that chemistry images such as this one preferably should be made in SVG format instead of PNG. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Dear Stefan2, many thanks for your helpful guidance. I'll put them into SVG format in due course. Also thank you for your heads-up with regards the discussion. I'll check that. Thank you again, best wishes, Rogerchiorns (talk) 15:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Frasiercast.jpg
Can you nominate this image, as well? This is seen in NBCU Photobank and Getty Images. --George Ho (talk) 21:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ See Files for deletion/2012 July 17. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment by User:Pravance
Hi Stefan, In response to the deletion of theatrical poster of adhisaya ulagam.Please let me know what is the copy rights information I should include in the uploaded file.Please the do not delete the image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pravance (talk • contribs) 09:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you are talking about File:Theatrical poster of Adhisaya Ulagam 3D.jpg, then it seems that someone else already has fixed it, so there is nothing more to do. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment by User:TRANSASIA
I am not able to send permission email on this email id from gmail;  permissions-enwikimedia.org It shows this message- The address "permissions-enwikimedia.org" in the "To" field was not recognized. Please make sure that all addresses are properly formed...pls guide

TRANSASIA (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems that you have dropped the @ sign from the e-mail address. Make sure that you type in the address as with an @ sign. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Tartu Art School
I'm working on the copyright issue of the school picture in my article friend, please be patient! I'm a complete novice trying to do a good deed. Not even sure if I'm writing this in the correct place... All the best, - kunstnikmiljonärKunstnikmiljonär (talk) 21:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What you need to do is basically to get the copyright holder (presumably either the school or the photographer) to send permission to OTRS. There are instructions for this at WP:CONSENT. If no permission is sent to OTRS, then the images will be deleted. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Image copyright
hey Stefan2 I am writing regarding your comment on the picture i've uploaded. I have sent an email to permissions@wiki... should be ok now but just wanted to confirm with you that i'm in the right direction. any other comment is highly appreciated! thanks Giulialap —Preceding undated comment added 07:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. Just one thing: when you send something to that e-mail address, please also tag the files with OTRS pending. Otherwise, the images might end up being deleted after a week, which would be unfortunate. I have tagged your file with that template now. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Stephan, I appreciate it. --Giulialap (talk) 01:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Lois Phillips Hudson
Hello, Stefan.

I'm very new at this and trying to learn. I sent the following to permissions-en@wikipedia.org, and hope it is enough. I do have an email from Mary Snow that confirms the following, but I had no idea how to effectively send it along.

Thanks.

[E-mail body removed. Can be read at Special:PermanentLink/503006351.]

July 18, 2012'' — Preceding unsigned comment added by RuralLitRALLY (talk • contribs) 19:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is the correct e-mail address. I assume that an OTRS member will take a look at the e-mail soon. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Category:Public domain files ineligible for copyright and unused files
Hi. It seems that many of the files in this category is unused and probably not usable. And some of the files probably have a bad license. It is boring to check all the files alone but perhaps you want to help check a few files from time to time? Like in nominate all bad files for deletion and mark the good ones with a Mtc-review and make sure that the "free in US only" have a suitable license? --MGA73 (talk) 12:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that looks like a good idea. I went through the PD-because category a few days ago and found that most images in the category didn't have any compelling PD reasons, so a lot of files are now up for deletion. I wish that people could use redirects for the bad file name cases instead of duplicating images. The category is full of those images, so it takes more time to go through the category. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah that is annoying... We need to file a bug somewhere to eliminate the dupes I think because if there is only a redirect any file on Commons with the same name will "win".
 * I "found" this discussion again. I think the reason to keep is wrong. If we can't prove a file is free we should not keep it. Anyway is all the files in PD-because now checked? Any files that should be transferred to Commons? --MGA73 (talk) 12:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I checked the PD-because category a few days ago, proposed many files for deletion and moved some to Commons. I think I checked all files. There were probably more files which can be moved to Commons, but if you want to check the category again, it would be easier to wait until the deletion requests have been expired and closed. Signatures are fine in the United States so they can be kept on English Wikipedia but can not always be moved to Commons. I'd suggest that we tag them as PD-ineligible-USonly. Of course, if they are unused, they might be useless and then proposed for deletion for that reason. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes PD-ineligible-USonly would be much better because that way we tell users it is not free in India and it makes it easier to work on MtC-drives etc :-) --MGA73 (talk) 13:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh... And I can make my bot skip all files with a Ffd, Puf, Nsd etc. so it will only transfer the once you checked and found ok. --MGA73 (talk) 13:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well. Perhaps it was better to add PD-old to files like File:AriusIcon1.gif. --MGA73 (talk) 14:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. Many files in that category may need a "better" PD reason, and I would really like to have a better source for that one. And there could possibly be some errors I didn't notice. For example, I just found File:KavaB.jpg which is Not-PD-US-URAA if the PD-because claim is correct. I think that it would be better to do a new check of that category once all deletion requests have expired. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah good idea... There are plenty of other files to check :-) I had hoped that more users would put files in Category:Copy to Wikimedia Commons reviewed by a human but I guess that most of the "good users" copy the files to Commons if they check the file. --MGA73 (talk) 16:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Association for the Protection of the Lebanese Heritage.gif
Dear Stefan I will be sending the mail to wiki about the logo in the very near future as Joseph Haddad the artist himself will be sending to me the written authorization from their main email. Thanking you in advance for your understanding please do not hesitate to get back to me if more is needed from my end. --Iucncanada (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)