User talk:Stefan2/Archive 3

Yeah a blank page to write on :-)
I was checking Category:Copy to Wikimedia Commons reviewed by a human when I found File:Spyder logo.svg and some other logos. It seems that the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ is mentioned on the page but does that apply to the logo? If I look at Spyder (software) it says License MIT. What do you think? --MGA73 (talk) 11:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice... Just found Category:Obsolete images. Guess we could delete many of those. --MGA73 (talk) 11:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what to do with File:Spyder logo.svg. CC-BY 3.0 is obviously mentioned in the source code but it isn't possible to tell why the licence is mentioned there. MIT probably applies, but logos are sometimes special cases. MIT and CC-BY are supposed to be similar licences but designed for different purposes, so it doesn't look strange to see a CC-BY licence used in connection to MIT-licensed software. Category:Obsolete images looks like a useful category. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Well the idea is probably that Cc is for images and MIT is for software so that is not good for images so that is why the logo has that license. --MGA73 (talk) 18:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Image problem
You seem to be an image expert. I contacted the uploader to let them know there is a problem with this image, but I don't have any specific advice. Do you know what the problem is? (When I click on it, I do not see the image, but I do if I click a second time.)

File:Official Guide of British Hotels 1974.png-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  12:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't tell what's wrong. The fullsize image doesn't display at all for me, but thumbnails work and I see the image when I use it on this talk page (see right). --Stefan2 (talk) 15:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking. I left a note for the uploader, but they may ask me what is wrong, so I thought I would check. I will urge them to try a new upload, in case there was simply a glitch in the original upload.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  17:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Old files
Hi! I have been moving a lot of files uploaded by Special:ListFiles/Swampyank and now a lot of oldies are left. I think most of them look ok but perhaps you could have a look once you can find some time? --MGA73 (talk) 08:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama
Are you well  versed in  English  law? I am curious as to how you would interpret this when applied to photos uploaded to Wikipedia or Commons. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry for my very late answer. I have been away a lot lately and got a lot behind with my activities on English Wikipedia. Are you asking for an introduction about freedom of panorama or are you interested in some specific aspect of it?
 * If you wish to take a photo of a building or a statue or some other item, you may sometimes find that you are not allowed to take a photo of it (or upload it here) because it is protected by copyright. If the object has entered the public domain, there are no restrictions on photography. Some countries provide so-called freedom of panorama, which means that you may ignore the copyright status of the object you are taking a photo of. If freedom of panorama doesn't apply, and if the object isn't in the public domain, then it is not possible to upload a photo of it to Wikipedia or Commons, unless the file complies with WP:NFCC or if you have permission from the copyright holder of the item you're taking a photo of. Commons has a guideline, Commons:COM:FOP, which explains how freedom of panorama works in different countries and when it does (or doesn't) apply.
 * You may wish to read about Atomium (a big monument in Belgium): SABAM, a Belgian organisation for copyright holders, has frequently had people pay fines because of photos of Atomium. Belgium doesn't offer any freedom of panorama at all, so if you are in Belgium and try to use a photo of a recent building or a recent statue, then you may end up in trouble. Quite unsurprisingly, Wikipedia's photo of Atomium, File:Atomium FlickR ctsnow.jpg, is only kept under a fair use claim.
 * Wikipedia only requires that a file is free in the United States. On the other hand, Wikimedia Commons also requires that the image is free in the source country. Thus, there are some photos which can be kept on Wikipedia but which can't be kept on Commons.
 * In the United States, buildings are in the public domain if they were completed before 1 December 1990 (see Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act for details). Thus, the United States have no restrictions on photos of buildings if they were completed before that date. More recent buildings are normally copyrighted, but according to 17 USC 120(a), you may nevertheless take photos of buildings if the buildings are visible from a public place (for example from an ordinary street). Some other countries, such as Belgium above, do not provide any freedom of panorama for buildings, so you may not upload photos of Belgian images to Commons unless the architect who designed the building died at least 70 years ago. It may often be hard to identify the architect or his date of death. It is disputed whether photos of Belgian buildings are free in the United States (and thus sufficiently free for Wikipedia), so there is currently an ongoing request for comments on the matter at Template talk:FoP-USonly.
 * In the United States, there is no freedom of panorama for other objects such as statues. Thus, you may not upload a photo of a statue located in the United States unless you can prove that it is in the public domain for some reason. Statues erected before 1978 normally count as "published" at the moment when they were erected, and statues "published" (erected) before 1923 are thus in the public domain. The copyright terms in the United States are extremely complex, and there are lots of cases in which a statue may be in the public domain if it was first erected in the 1923-1977 era. Similarly, Belgium has no freedom of panorama for statues either, so you may not upload a photo of a Belgian statue unless it is in the public domain. The United States and Belgium use different copyright terms, and if you find that a statue is in the public domain in the United States but not in Belgium, then the photo is allowed on Wikipedia. However, the photo isn't allowed on Commons unless the statue is in the public domain in both countries. Some other countries, such as the United Kingdom, do have freedom of panorama for statues. Thus, if you take a photo of a statue in the United Kingdom, then the image is fine in the United Kingdom (but not necessarily elsewhere). It is disputed whether such images are allowed in the United States, but the current practice is to accept the images on Commons. The articles Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc. and de:Hundertwasserentscheidung have been brought up in discussions about this matter. The first case concluded that the United States copyright holder of a non-US work is to be determined by the copyright law of the source country (which suggests that the United States offers freedom of panorama for British works), whereas in the second case, Germany rejected Austrian freedom of panorama for a work located in Austria (which suggests that the United States doesn't offer freedom of panorama for British works).
 * If you wish to read any specific deletion discussions related to freedom of panorama, you might wish to take a look at Commons:Category:FOP-related deletion requests where lots of discussions have been categorised. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you enormously for this detailed explanation Stephan. To complete my education, could you let me have your take on  on these specific photos and the licencing  that  has been claimed:
 * File:Hump traffic sign, Gibraltar.jpg (Gibraltar)
 * File:Fingerpost at Chawton.jpg (England)
 * File:A5-llwybrhanesyddol.JPG (Wales)
 * Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Without any indication of the opposite, I would assume that Gibraltar uses the same copyright law as the United Kingdom. British law makes a difference between "works of artistic craftsmanship" and "graphic works", and freedom of panorama only applies to works of artistic craftsmanship. Court cases have indicated that a 2D work usually isn't a work of artistic craftsmanship (see Commons:COM:FOP). I do not think that these signs are covered by freedom of panorama, so it is necessary to determine if they are protected by copyright. Photos of British information boards and plaques are frequently deleted from Commons because of freedom of panorama concerns.


 * Very simple objects are not protected by copyright, but the term "simple" differs from country to country. You can see Commons:COM:TOO for some examples of simple works from different countries. The British definition is very strict, and it is assumed that very few works are too simple to be protected by copyright. For example, the logo of the British magazine Edge (see the image to the right) was found to be protected by copyright by a British court last year. See Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Two British logos for the relevant Commons discussion with links to a newspaper article and to the court decision. The Edge logo is nevertheless not copyrightable in the United States, so the logo is allowed here on English Wikipedia, even without a fair use claim. Because of the Edge ruling, I am not sure if it would be correct to assume that any of the objects on the photos are sufficiently simple, but this is a matter of debate. I do not think that there would be consensus on Commons to declare the first two signs as copyrightable unless you can show a court ruling which says otherwise.
 * Another important aspect is the fact that the United Kingdom doesn't provide copyright to utilitarian objects such as fridges or kitchen sinks. See for example this article where Star Wars helmets are ruled as not copyrightable in the United Kingdom because of their utilitarian aspects. Similarly, I would guess that the first two signs would be ruled as utilitarian (by giving information to car drivers or pedestrians), and thus not copyrightable for that reason.
 * I am troubled by the carriage and the horses at File:A5-llwybrhanesyddol.JPG, so I have started a thread about this at Commons:COM:VPC because I want to hear the opinion of someone else. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you again Stephan for your detailed explanations. I  will  follow the thread carefully  on  Commons, because this is the one that interests me most. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of several files
Yo man, I'm not understanding what's going on... I uploaded the covers for articles of songs what are notable. Like, are on Billboard charts... So why you warn deletions of the files? -SrGangsta (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * File:50CentFloydMayweather.jpg is a copyright violation, taken from Getty Images.
 * A lot of your images are listed as unfree. Unfree images are required to have a fair use rationale, see WP:FUR and WP:NFCC. Many of your images don't have fair use rationales.
 * There are other restrictions on non-free images. Basically, they shouldn't be used if they can be avoided. Some of them seem to be excessive, superfluous or insignificant to the article, so I proposed some of them for deletion. You can discuss the nominations at Files for deletion/2012 August 11. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment by User:AruniRC
The creator of that file had been a family friend of the subject and is now deceased (please refer to the dates mentioned). The photograph was taken entirely on a personal basis. Please mention the procedures for obtaining copyright about such material when the creator is deceased and the next of kin are no longer in touch. Or kindly remove that picture from the "tagged to be deleted" list.

Thanking you

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AruniRC

AruniRC (talk) 02:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The copyright belongs to the photographer. You seem to be claiming that the photographer is dead. In that case, the copyright was transferred to the photographer's heirs. You should ask the heirs to send in permission. See WP:CONSENT for details. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Huh?
Sorry, you posted a very confusing thing about an image permission on my talk page. The artist uploaded the image herself. It is her image. She gave permission to upload it when we uploaded it. She is an artist. I just happened to be signed in at the time at her computer and was sitting next to her. Do you prefer that she reupload it when I am not signed in? She is 90 years old and if you actually need her to do something herself without me helping her you are going to need to explain to me how to do it since apparently the problem is that I was too involved the first time. Thanks, Sauda d e 7  03:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Harry Robinson
Have I done enough? Kittybrewster &#9742;  11:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about File:Harry Robertson.jpg? I'd say that it looks fine now.

Horatio Bottomley

 * I'm confused by File:Horatio Bottomley.jpg. It says that the file is in the public domain, but you are also claiming fair use. Where does the image come from? --Stefan2 (talk) 11:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * A book. Forgotten which. Trouble is the quality is rubbish. Historical picture of dead guy. Can we find another pic? I am not attachedo this one. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  11:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have uploaded a new photo of Horatio Bottomley (see right). The image quality is a bit bad, though. There is this one published in Australia, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility that the image might have been published in the United Kingdom at an earlier point in which case the image might be copyrighted in the United States. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * A bit bad is dead right. Kittybrewster &#9742;  12:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Curris picPyramid43 (talk) 01:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your help in getting this straightened out. I have sent the following letter to someone with access to the BOR website: http://www.murraystate.edu/boardofregents. Is that the appropriate thing to do?

The wiki entry is up at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_W._Curris There is a problem with the pic. I took it from the BOR website http://www.murraystate.edu/boardofregents

They need the pic to be released to wiki which I think means making it in the public domain. I thought the fact that it was on the MSU website meant that that had already happened.

Can you help me get the permission form filled out by someone from the BOR website? Permission form = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CONSENT Pyramid43 (talk) 05:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You are really supposed to obtain permission before uploading the image. Making something available under GFDL or CC-BY-SA 3.0 (as suggested at WP:CONSENT) is not the same thing as releasing it to the public domain, although the differences aren't that big. For random images from the Internet, see Commons:COM:CB. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

They have sent the permission statement. Is that sufficient?Pyramid43 (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, yes and no. There is some photo at File:Pic for Constantine W. Curris article.jpg, but it looks as if it was replaced by a different photo when your permission was accepted. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Stefan2 (talk) 09:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Yes the new one is smaller than the original. However, it is the same picture. Can I just reinsert the slightly larger one? Pyramid43 (talk) 18:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)Pyramid43 (talk) 18:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Probably not. The one who uploaded the smaller image gave the reason "uploading verifiably released image" for uploading the smaller image. Presumably, this means that the permission only covers the smaller image. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

File:School New Logo 1.png
Hi Sefan. Could you tzke a look  at this please. I'm convinced that  it cannot  be the uploader's own work, and that  as a a school  logo it  would be unfree and not  acceptable on  Commons, On  Wikipedia it would need a FUR for what  is fairly  obviously  a derivative work if not  the original  itself. I have no  idea how to  tag it  for incorrect  licencing  or deletion (is there a Twinkle script for files?). Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have proposed it for deletion on Commons: Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:School New Logo 1.png. Twinkle is not used on Commons. There should be an option to the left in the toolbox which says "Nominate for deletion". If you wish to tag files for "no source" or "no permission" or similar, you might wish to go to Commons:Special:Preferences and enable the gadget "Quick Delete" which adds a few extra buttons in the toolbox. --Stefan2 (talk) 08:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've done that now. I'll see if it works next  time. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

ubc Image
Ok, Thanks for letting me know. Feel free to delete it because I don't have time to deal with this now. CanadaRed (talk) 01:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:3rd All-Africa Games logo.png
Hi, thank you for your message. Yes right it's a mistake for me, I will change that immediatly. Thank you for warring me. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 13:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, finaly i maked an other mistake, I think I'm tired today . In fact I want to delete this file because I created another one today, However I can't do that because I'm not an admin. Hope that u delete this file. Greetings. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 13:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added a db-g7 tag which I assume will handle it. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:CymruMap2.PNG
Firstly, I did not create this file. Secondly, it is rubbish and I have always despised it. Thirdly, it is clearly not a "derivative work" as the WikiNewSpeak would describe it... unless an outline of a particular country, in this instance Wales, cane be described as "derivative" which surely any rational human being would reject. Sometimes I do wonder.Aetheling1125 17:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aetheling1125 (talk • contribs)
 * You used the template PD-self which indicates that you drew the map. Why did you use that template if you didn't draw the map?
 * It says that you drew this map based on some other map. That's why I tagged it as a derivative work. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:USM Bel-Abbes logo.png
Hi, thank you for warring me about the file. I changed license. Greetings. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 08:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks Stefan2 for taking me to the right way of uploading a file as I was giving wrong information. --Twiter is the best (talk) 09:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)LakshyaTwiter is the best  (talk) 09:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)--

OH GOD WHY :(
1.Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. This includes non-free promotional images.

Replacing an image of a military officers in Egypt is unlikely. Photographs of military officers are whether published by the Morale Affairs department which is a one in a life time portrait photograph (unless they're promoted) or taken by press under a permission by the Armed Forces. in case of the generals i uploaded their photos they are at the peak of their career and next step is retirement no further promotions.

thanks for notifying me, I'd like you to help me improve the tags and licences of the photos --Zo3a (talk) 10:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The simple answer is that it is possible to take more photos of people who are still alive. It is thus possible to create a free photo of them. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Katapult Image
I have not been able to find a free version of this specific thing. It is a ride but it only lasted a few years and there were little of this model made. There are very few pictures of this and this was the best I could find. If you please be kind enough to help (because I have searched but couldn't find others) to find other picture please thanks. Dplcrnj (talk) 16:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It says that it is a specific type of vehicle. Wouldn't you be able to find a copy of this type of vehicle somewhere of which you could take a photo? --Stefan2 (talk) 21:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

There are no more in the United States of America as it states here http://www.rcdb.com/r.htm?ot=2&mo=8237. All are out of the country.Dplcrnj (talk) 21:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, so according to you, there are some copies somewhere, although not in the United States. Just go to one of those copies and take a photo of it. At the same time, you could try going to North Korea to take a photo of Kim Jong-un. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Copyright for File permission
Copyright for File permission and problem with File:Abdul Ghafoor Khan Durrani.jpg, Mr. Abdul Ghafoor Khan Durrani is dead and this is his picture for public use released by his grand son Abdul Sattar Khan Durran,--(talk/ Baloch Baba) 23:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Evidence of permission needs to be sent to OTRS. Otherwise, there is no way to prove that permission has been given. See WP:CONSENT for instructions. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay
Thanks and I have contacted the owner of the Logo Mr. Mohammad Abubakar Durrani and he will send the permission via email to OTRS as soon as possible,--(talk/ Baloch Baba) 20:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Certificate of Confirmation
Hi Dear Stefan, The Owner of the, File:Abdul Ghafoor Khan Durrani.jpg, Mr. Abdul Sattar Khan durrani has been tried to send the permission to the OTRS on the following Emails but all emails are out of orders, permissions-commonswikimedia.org permissions-enwikimedia.org permissions-enwikimedia.org permissions-enwikimedia.org permissions-enwikimedia.org so I am pasting the Certificate of Permission received from the above owner here on your Talk Page for further Necessary action Please, sorry for trouble,

TOWHOM IT MAY CONCERN I Abdul Sattar Khan Durrani Son of Abdul Sattar Khan Durrani Grandson of Abdul Ghafoor Khan Durrani hereby affirms that I am the sole owner of the exclusive copyright of File:Abdul Ghafoor Khan Durrani.jpg, I agree to publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0" and GNU Free Documentation License by MR. Shanzeb Marri Baloch (Baloch Baba) Volunteer editor of Wikipedia for common use in Wikipedia. I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Abdul Sattar Khan Durrani Son of Abdul Salam Khan Durrani Additional Advocate General in Balochistan. Quetta. --(talk/ Baloch Baba) 22:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You need to include the @ sign in the e-mail address: permissions-en@wikimedia.org or permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. If you drop the @ sign, it won't work. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh Many Thanks,,--(talk/ Baloch Baba) 23:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Vblock 300 FX.jpg
Hi - The Vblock image in question is made available as Creative Commons Attribution, Share Alike license and, further, I am the creator of the image and my original publication is on Flickr at the following URL http://www.flickr.com/photos/jcuthrell/6341927952 which you can compare against my own user page and bio --Qthrul (talk) 10:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Frasier Crane Diane Chambers.jpg
Maybe you can help me about this image? Right now, it is nominated for deletion. --George Ho (talk) 20:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:KosherRegisterLogo.jpg
Thanks for Informing me on this.. Im new here so I still dont know how to go about this stuff.. If you are in charge of the deletion of my image, please give me more time to come up with the permission- I still have to ask the owner to make the permission letter- will have to contact him soon,, thank you stefan Kosheryankel (talk) 03:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It says that Kosher Register has released this file to the public domain. You need to tell Kosher Register to send a confirmation of this to OTRS. See instructions at WP:CONSENT. --Stefan2 (talk) 08:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, is my image fine now? The owner has sent an email for the permission. thanks ! Kosheryankel (talk) 05:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Someone added a PermissionOTRS, which suggests that everything is fine. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * thank you!Kosheryankel (talk) 15:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Jobin What's up?  03:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Opel-Adam 3trims 279642.jpg
The file is published under a Creative-Commons Share-Alike licence. All information is on the image page. The only restriction is that it may not be used for commercial purposes. That is why this image is on en.wikipedia.org, and not on commons.wikimedia.org. Unfortunately, Wikipedia does not provide a template, which could simplify the uploading and administration immensely. All GM images are now released licenced by CC-BY-NC-3.0. --L.Willms (talk) 06:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * CC-BY-NC-3.0 is an unfree licence since it doesn't allow you to use the image commercially. The fair use rationale didn't specify that the model doesn't exist yet (or at least isn't available to the public). In that case, I agree that the image is irreplaceable for the moment being, although it still needs to be deleted in early 2013. --Stefan2 (talk) 08:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

File:South African Army Badge.png and File:SA Navy Badge.png
I have solved the "Possibly unfree files" issue of File:South African Army Badge.png and File:SA Navy Badge.png by replacing the incorrect licencing templates with the correct template applicable to military badges and symbols. I'm not sure what needs to be done to close the issue so could you please see to it. Roger (talk) 07:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The images also need fair use rationales for all articles in which they are used. --Stefan2 (talk) 08:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Quite simply I don't understand the whole "fair use" fetish - why WP makes such a huge issue out of it. Once it is explained that "this is the official logo of the organisation" that should the end of it - there is nothing else that can or needs to be said about it. Using the official logo of an organisation in the article about the organisation is inherently fair use - even a semi-comatose lawyer should be able to understand that.
 * No organisation ever objects to their logo being used in articles about them - the opposite is in fact true. The help desk regularly gets requests from organisation representatives asking for their logo to be added to "their" article - or for their "new improved" logo to replace to old one.
 * Instead of harrassing inexperienced article writers about this issue why don't wikilawyers write a proper fair use template to fully cover such a simple explanation. The fair use rationale for an official logo is always the same - there should be a "rubber stamp" for it. Roger (talk) 09:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If you wish to change the policy, try asking at WP:VPP or WT:NFC. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not about changing the policy, it's about the way it is applied. It's about accepting that an organisation's official logo is "by definition" fair use in articles about the organisation. I'll raise the matter at WT:NFC. I really find this to be the most frustrating aspect of wikiediting. Thanks for your patience. Roger (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of image
Hello. You just marked my image for deletion and I can't work out how to contest this. Within minutes, it had already gone. I thought I had provided (quite a lot) of information about the copyright. Where can I contest this decision now? MP at HCNM (talk) 14:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If I remember correctly, you wrote that the image had some Creative Commons licence with the "ND" element. The "ND" element makes the licence unfree and thus unacceptable. If you disagree, I believe that the correct venue for appealing is WP:DRV. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the reply. I believe the ND just limits what you can do with it (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/), but I guess the place to debate this is where you sent me, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MP at HCNM (talk • contribs) 14:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ND means that you can't modify the image. According to the definition Wikipedia uses to determine if something is free to use, works are not free to use if you can't modify them. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I have more images that have no status as yet and I'll make one of those free. Thanks for your help.MP at HCNM (talk) 07:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Libera christmas deluxe.jpg
Fails WP:NFCC since there already is a different image: File:Basic album cover 275 275 80 c1.jpg. Stefan2 (talk) 14:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC). I suggest Keep. this is the cover for a new (repackaged) version of the same album. 21 August 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hitori12 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

HI
Dear Stephan, The photos I uploaded for Mariah Carey are permissible for the free use for public !! And they are uploaded for Mariah Carey's article since I am an auto confirmed USER @

THANK YOU --Fidelove (talk) 18:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It says that File:Mariah Carey at Dorchestor Hotel.jpg is used under a fair use claim. Mariah Carey is a person who is still alive, so it is possible to create a replacement photo by taking a photo of her. For that reason, fair use claims are deemed as unacceptable.
 * It says that File:Opening of Good Will Hunting.jpg and File:Mariah Carey at Fresh Air Fund Benefit Concert.jpg were taken from the www.mariahjournal.com website and that they are licensed under certain licences. However, the web site shows no evidence of this. There is also a claim which says that Mariah Daily Journal is an unofficial fansite, so maybe the images originally have been taken from elsewhere. You need to ask the photographers to send evidence of the licence claim to OTRS. See WP:CONSENT for instructions. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Warsow Screenshot
The file File:Warsow Screenshot.jpg originally was just a screenshot from an open source game. I saw you want to use an updated version. Go for it. What's the deal with all this copyright abuse report for an open source game's screen shot that was already replaced by one from the official site?

Your version is better and newer. You replaced mine. Move on.

Wow, deleting an elderly woman's family photos and an artist's original work. Why don't you try to add something original to Wikipedia instead of trying to delete everything in sight? It's people like you that are causing people to leave Wikipedia in droves. [Wikipedia losing volunteers] People like you are the problem. Slacka123 (talk) 20:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

May I suggest you download, English Wikipedia (All Articles) 2012. From that you can delete articles and images all day long. This will load faster and you will not waste people's time with pathetic cry for help...I mean deletion nominations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slacka123 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The screenshots taken from http://www.warsow.net/media are licensed under are licensed under a [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. ] . You can verifity this from the footer of the page they were taken from. Now can you please drop dead and remove the listing from the Removal Requst Page? Preferably, not in that order. Slacka123 (talk) 04:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Per: "Note: Files can be unlisted immediately if they are indisputably in the public domain or verifiably licensed under an indisputably free license (CC-BY-SA)" FILE WAS REMOVED Slacka123 (talk) 06:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Coat of Arms of Nigeria
Seriously? We can't use it in the template? ༆ (talk) 03:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Non-free files can't be used in templates. See WP:NFCC. --Stefan2 (talk) 03:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So we can only use it in the article? If so, why is the coat of arms of Nigeria so unique? ༆ (talk) 03:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Moving Burma to Myanmar - ongoing poll
This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. I know this happened just recently but no administrator would close these frequent rm's down, so here we go again. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for notification
Hi stefan thanks for notifying me on the picutre dispute Shrikanthv (talk) 12:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

HI
DUNNO HOW TO CHANGE THE UPLOADED PHOTO CATEGORY :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fidelove (talk • contribs) 13:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What are you trying to change and why? --Stefan2 (talk) 15:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Mariah Carey ;s article Main Picture and two other pictures (Mariah Carey at Air Fund Concert) and at the (opening of Good Will hunting). and the reason why I added these two photos to Carey's article just to add some vision to her 2 - decade plus career article alongside the text for the readers NOT to FACE boredom from the long ARTICLE! While the reason behind changing the box picture is because the previous one was so outdated since 2008. --Fidelove (Fidelove) 18:34, 22 August 2012 (BET)

How to prove copywrite permission
Clownfart is a professional warsow player. His videos are all over youtube. So his claim that he has been contacted by the developers and been given permission to use the material in the Press Pack to promote the game is very plausable. How would one prove this to wikipedia? NeedCokeNow (talk) 15:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Eric Harris
I've answered to your request. Besides, I sent an email to the Jefferson County Sheriff Department asking for information on the picture. Nienk (talk) 12:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Frasier Lilith Cheers.jpg and File:Frasier Lilith Room Service.jpg
What about these images that I have uploaded? If a photo of two characters is unnecessary, are these other two unnecessary, as well? If so, what about adding free photos of Kelsey Grammer into Lilith Sternin and Bebe Neuwirth into Frasier Crane as substitutes for non-free images? Would that be fine?

If you plan on nominating for deletion, please tag them with db-g7 rather than use FFD. If you do the "db-g7", let me know, so I'll replace them with free images. --George Ho (talk) 04:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it seems that I missed this. It says that the files have been deleted, so was everything sorted out? --Stefan2 (talk) 14:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As it turns out, illustrating two characters in one photo is unnecessary, unless a relationship between two is notable enough as a stand-alone article. Well, there is no need to reply, as I can guess. --George Ho (talk) 14:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Account creation
Hi Stefan, In case you  hadn't  noticed, this account has possibly not been created with good faith intentions.. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for telling. I realise that I need to put my own user page on my watchlist to find out about these things, since I do otherwise only get notices about comments to my user talk page. I thank User:George Ho for quickly reverting the changes and I also thank User:JohnCD for quickly deleting some things per WP:CSD. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Nivedita Tiwari 2012.jpg
Uploader sent a revised permission with the correct license. Thanks for your eagle eye.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  12:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Mad Oak Studios Logo.gif
Hi Stefan2, thanks for your input and your help. I'm a bit confused now, though. While in the process of getting the email from the owner of the coypright of the logo, I noticed that the logo's site (File:Mad_Oak_Studios_Logo.gif). It is now listed as non-free media? I don't know who did this change but do I still need to send the 'contract/permission' you pointed me towards to Wikipedia? Thanks again and have a great day! Rchirinosl (talk) 21:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Someone changed it to fair use, which is enough I suppose. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Ricky Kej Musician India.jpg
Hi Stefan2, thanks for pointing the problem with the permissions. I guess you can delete the file. I have uploaded a new version of the file and put it up on the page with what I feel is the right license for the file. Can you please verify ?

The page : User:Prashanthraghubangalore/sandbox — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prashanthraghubangalore (talk • contribs) 11:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi! You need permission from the copyright holder (which is normally the photographer) and you need to send the permission to OTRS. See instructions at WP:CONSENT. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Finished with my ex
Hello there stefan! I received your message because of the image I uploaded, I really don't know what I can do about it... I believe it was released to public domain, since I got the image from the band's official Facebook page... Please help me! Thank You, Salgado96... (This is the image: File:Finished With My Ex band performing on radio showcase.jpg ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salgado96 (talk • contribs) 2012-08-29T20:27:04
 * If you get something from the band's official Facebook page, it does not mean that it has been released to the public domain. Someone, presumably the photographer, is the copyright holder of that photo. The copyright holder needs to agree to publish the image under a free licence, or else it will be deleted. See WP:CONSENT for instructions. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

There are no information about who is the photographer... perhaps, its not even a real photographer, but just someone who "toke a photo"... please help me please. Thank you very much. Salgado96 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salgado96 (talk • contribs) 2012-08-29T22:06:17
 * The photographer needs to send permission according to the instructions at WP:CONSENT. If you can't identify the photographer, the image can probably not be kept. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, i personally know the bands members... I just asked them who toke it... it was Cris, the bands guitarrist who toke the photo... i guess its band's property and being band's property, it was released under commons like they usually do... not to mention the the image was already available for digital download along with others, when the band released a demo a few months ago, which already doesn't exist... the demo and the images were released under the license. User:Salgado96


 * Then locate a statement from the band where it says that the image has been published under the specified licence, or ask the photographer to send permission per the instructions at WP:CONSENT. --Stefan2 (talk) 08:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello stefan! Well, i asked them if they could put the license which their material is released visible on their website. if you enter it, you will see a text saying "are you ready to let go?" and you click it and it will lead you to the website where, in the bottom, says "All imagery and content is released under a Creative Commons License (BY-NC-SA)"... the image that is for deletion can be found in "OUVIR" which, in portuguese, means "Listen". Thank You, Salgado96. User:Salgado96


 * You will probably not like this, but not all Creative Commons licences are accepted here. Creative Commons licences containing the "NonCommercial" (NC) and "NoDerivs" (ND) attributes are considered unfree, and this licence contains an NC. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I will talk to them if they can change the license for the images, separated from the music licenses... Well, i bet they will, since they asked me if i could help them in wiki.Thank You, Salgado96. User:Salgado96


 * Strictly speaking, they only need to change the licence of this image (and any other images which they might want to add to Wikipedia). If there are other images which they don't want on Wikipedia, they could publish those images under any licence they want. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * They decided: images (CC BY-SA) and music (BY-NC-SA), they told me they might want other images on wiki later. Now, does this means the image can be kept? Thank You :) User:Salgado96


 * It looks fine now, I think. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:42, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey stefan, can I just remove the deletion template in the image please? (don't know if it can be deleted...) User:Salgado96

Chief Flying Hawk
The image of Chief Flying Hawk (Chief Flying Hawk, Buffalo Bill'd Wild West, Cast Card.jpg) is part of a set of 16 postcards sold by the American Museum of Natural History, N.Y. The cards are not dated, but likely late 20's or early 30's.  The series was numbered "Post Card Series No. X", Indians of North America. The original photograph is Mathers Museum Wanamaker Gallery. Although the postcard is the same picture as the photograph, it does not show the pipe in Flying Hawk's hand and is cropped. The postcard is printed much lighter and shows more detail. I hope that this information is helpful.Richlevine00 (talk) 20:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably. A postcard from that time had to contain a copyright notice, which had to contain a year. If no year is indicated on the postcard, I would guess that the postcard is in the public domain due to a faulty copyright notice. Please participate in the discussion at Possibly unfree files/2012 August 28. --Stefan2 (talk) 08:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The photograph is from the Wanamaker Collection, a set of 8,000 pictures taken between 1908 and 1923 by Joseph K. Dixon. Public domain says (in part) that proof of publication is mandatory; uploaders making a "public domain" claim on a reproduction of an artwork are required to prove with verifiable details that the work was first published before 1923. That has not been done, so it has to be deleted. -- Dianna (talk) 23:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Map of the Gjesværstappan islands
I don't understand how to add the fact that I created the map of the Gjesværstappan islands myself. It is much easier to do this on Wikimedia than in Wikipedia. But I created the map whose page you edited myself, using a program called Serif PhotoPlusX2.User:MartinCollin
 * It says that the map has been moved to Commons, so I assume that everything is fine now. --Stefan2 (talk) 08:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Planning Wikimedia Ghana Logo
Hi, I may need your help here. Planning Wikimedia Ghana has the license to use WMF loos for our outreach program. We are working towards a chapter in our country. I affixed the type on the image with photoshop but the logo obviously belongs to WMF. What kind of license should I use then?

Sandister Tei (talk) 01:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What image are you talking about? Wikimedia logos are usually under the Copyright by Wikimedia licence, if that helps. --Stefan2 (talk) 08:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Otero pics
just curious why the otero pics 1-5 are up for deletion? if it's bc they are in a gallery I have no problem taking them out, didn't realize we couldn't. is that the only reason they are though? if i do that can they be un-nomiated? :) just wondering. thanks xx Lady Lotus (talk) 11:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You normally can't use images in galleries, per WP:NFG. This comes from WP:NFCC and WP:NFCC which together say that you shouldn't use too many images unless they are needed. I think that it would be fine to keep one image in the article to show an example of her work, but not all of the images.
 * Currently (Special:PermanentLink/509928350), you use a photo of her for the purpose of telling what she looks like. This is a problem because WP:NFC §1 (based on WP:NFCC) says that you can't use non-free images to describe what a living person looks like, except in exceptional situations. See the countless discussions at Talk:Kim Jong-un for an example of where people are disagreeing on whether a situation is exceptional or not. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I get that and the gallery thing I'm fine without it, but most of her work is self-portraits so...lol aren't I limited in that regard? If I removed it from her infobox and put it the in main article, would that work? Lady Lotus (talk) 12:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: File:Sledge Hockey Quarter2.png listed for deletion
Thanks for the warning. However, the only reason I uploaded this image was because I kicked it off Commons. I didn't want to be responsible for a used image being deleted just because someone transferred to to commons when it should have stayed Wikipedia. So I could care less if it is deleted. However, again, thanks for the warning.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 12:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, at least we avoid complaints from people who don't like Commons if it is deleted by User:ImageRemovalBot instead of User:CommonsDelinker. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Non-free media resolution
Hi,

I notice you reduced the resolution on a file I recently uploaded (File:Live at Edu Screenshot.png). I think you've reduced the resolution far beyond anything reasonable/sensible - all that exists now is a vague yellow blob. I was wondering if you could re-upload it with a slightly higher resolution or if you'd be happy for me to? (I'm not too familiar with Wikipedia's policies on screenshots but I'm fairly sure the original image satisfied the guidlines found in NFCC? (Also reducing the resolution of screenshots renders text unreadable (or fugly at best) rendering the screenshots uselesss... anyway that's kind of irrelevant to this...))

Thanks!

GoddersUK (talk) 00:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It says in the fair use rationale that the purpose is to display the image in the article Live@edu. I just reduced it to the maximum size that you can get in that article, and if you use the default settings, it is even smaller than that. As you can see, the reduction doesn't affect the way the article looks, so I'm not sure what the problem is. The purpose of the image is not to display a big image on the file information page. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Because clearly displaying images at full size in the article would be silly. That doesn't mean someone reading the article won't want to see a useable sized image (I for one almost always click the thumbnails on Wikipedia pages when I'm browsing). (A bit like reading a book that has all the images on a few central pages rather than in the text as you read.) The full size image isn't displayed on the info page anyway - MediaWiki automatically scales it down but the full size is there for those that wish to see it. Even if you think the original doesn't match Wikipedia's fair use policies on the issue turning it into a postage stamp is massively OTT... This (Live at Edu light Screenshot.png) is far more sensible as an absolute minimum size. The purpose of the image is to "illustrate and identify the product" (from the fair use rationale). That postage stamp may just about help identify but it certainly doesn't illustrate it...


 * GoddersUK (talk) 00:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The fair use rationale begins with the words "Non-free media information and use rationale for Live@edu". This tells that the rationale exclusively refers to the copy of the image which is used in the article Live@edu. That is, the fair use rationale tells that the purpose of the image, in the form it is used in the article, is to illustrate and identify the product. When I look at the article, I see this image. Thus, the fair use rationale tells that this image is used to illustrate the article and identify the product. The fair use rationale doesn't say anything about other images. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Regard speedy deletion
I upload this file File:Gajar(carrot) grated.jpg again because there is a problem with my Internet connection. I upload them one time and then after some time because I think it is not properly uploaded. Sorry for that, How can I upload it again.--Arun sharma 101 (talk) 15:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The file is a copyright violation from this blog. You can't upload the image at all. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:26, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * can I use low resolution image of it?-- ARUN SHARMA 101Talk  |'''  Email 13:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope, sorry. See WP:NFCC. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:25, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Ljn series 2.jpg and other files in Wrestling Superstars
I think we need a better license for this file and the other files in the article. Any idea which one to choose? Non-free character?--MGA73 (talk) 20:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Possibly, or maybe (cf. File:MattelBarbieno1br.jpg), although the 3D art licence mainly seems to be intended for statues and similar things in countries without FOP. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I took the first one... Now everyone can see it is unfree. --MGA73 (talk) 21:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that Photo of art needs a non-free licence as argument three. I added Non-free character to all of them. I thought that argument two was supposed to be the photographer, but you listed the toy manufacturer instead. Argument 2 seems to be a bit unclear. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Krishnath College School.jpg
Dear Stefan, Of course, the building has not changed much and looks the same till its construction. But, now if there is a problem, please suggest a suitable license. Thanks with regards. User:B. Mandal — Preceding undated comment added 2012-09-02T20:45:59‎
 * Photos of existing buildings have to be kept under a free licence such as GFDL or CC-BY-SA. This was listed as a fair use image, which isn't acceptable. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Fahd Jassem al-freij.jpg
Thank you for message regarding this image. Have advised image is being used under fair use - image is part of an article on a individual of significant importance based on current events. Kindly advise of any further information your required, regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zombiecapper (talk • contribs) 06:58, 3 September 2012
 * You need permission from the copyright holder, who is normally the photographer, and the copyright holder needs to choose a free licence such as GFDL or CC-BY-SA. See WP:CONSENT for instructions. This is a photo of a person who is still alive, so fair use isn't applicable per WP:NFCC. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

File:The-beastie-boys-drummer-alfredo-ortiz.jpg
Hello Stefan2, this photo was given to Alfredo Ortiz by the photographer (Dave Hingerty) to freely use. The original is on Dave Hingerty's website (http://www.irishdrumacademy.ie/online_lessons.html) and on Alfredo Ortiz's Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=74785894466&set=a.460207039466.268674.741909466&type=3) used with permission. The copyright violation you linked (http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://ue-support.logitech.com/uploads/assets/testimonials/alfredo-ortiz.jpg&imgrefurl=http://ue-support.logitech.com/zh-tw/support/find-your-audiologist&h=180&w=180&sz=19&tbnid=TVJ6Z94ArixGGM&tbnh=144&tbnw=144&zoom=1&usg=__cxXACn3unlAUPIlDazFZOKNKwS8=&sa=X&ei=AglFUP3dKMTb4QSNsIDQDQ&ved=0CD4Q8g0) is actually a copy. Rosemccbe (talk) 20:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please don't fork discussions. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I am new to this and you are obviously an expert, so your help and guidance would be appreciated. --Rosemccbe (talk) 21:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I might also have been a bit grumpy when I wrote the above... --14:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The Declaration of Consent has been forwarded to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and is awaiting attention. Rosemccbe (talk) 21:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Good! --Stefan2 (talk) 14:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "". Thank you! EarwigBot  operator /  talk  07:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Hello and thanks for pointing out the violation of various photos of mine by the Sarhad Conservation Network! In fact, these people accompanied me at a time for some photo shoots and (a) we took similar photos from our cameras and (b) also shared some photos-- I shall try to resolve this matter and let you know asap as to the status.AsadUK200 (talk) 07:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)AsadUK200

Hello, again. I believe someone has already removed the said/concerned photo, without a chance of my justifying or resolving this matter/issue-- but thats ok, I shall take another new photo when i next go up to Abbottabad and post. Thanks for your attention AsadUK200 (talk) 08:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)AsadUK200


 * Are you talking about File:Abbottabad cemetry.jpg? It says that the file was deleted as a copyright violation, so I assume that I was able to find the file somewhere on the Internet. In that case, you have to ask the photographer to send permission to OTRS to prove that the use on Wikipedia is legit. See WP:IOWN and WP:CONSENT for details. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry didnt get to see your message before. Its ok, i have asked my grandson to go to Abbottabad (30 mins drive from here) and get a new photo for me. Sorry for all the bother AsadUK200 (talk) 08:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)AsadUK200

SA Ranks and WP:NFG
Hi. I believe that I/we have a fair case to make an exception to WP:NFG. As I cannot find a place to find a 3rd opinion on this I am trying the dispute resolution process. It may be the wrong process but maybe fresh eyes will confirm if I'm wrong or not. Gbawden (talk) 07:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned image
Its all well and good, but I had explicitly stated in the file information that it would be used in my sandbox until the improved version of the article i'm developing is ready to go live here Cycling in Copenhagen. Is that really against the rules? - Sertmann (talk) 17:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, WP:NFCC says that non-free images have to be used in at least one article. A sandbox is not an article since it is not in the article namespace. Also, WP:NFCC says that you can't use non-free images in the User namespace (where your sandbox is). --Stefan2 (talk) 19:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, I don't think that the image meets WP:NFCC since you don't need a picture of the bicycle strategy in order to tell that the city has a bicycle strategy. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi again, would you mind taking a look here: File talk:Copenhagen Bicycle Strategy Cover.jpg - Sertmann (talk) 09:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned free files
I just noticed that you commented on this old discussion so perhaps this could interesst you. The idea is/was that if we could get rid of 100 files in one DR then we could reduce the mtc-backlog fast. --MGA73 (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Commented there. Currently I'm concentrating on finding orphaned unfree files, though. The WP:NFCC bots don't seem to detect all WP:NFCC violations, so I'm searching for the missing ones and tagging those. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Help With Photo
File:FieldStationDinosaursTREXLogo.gif Hey, I saw you made an adjustment to the logo for an article I'm looking to put up. I'm working with the park to get the page up and running, but I must admit that even after reading through everything I'm still quite a novice at this. I am not sure what else I need to provide in order to host the logo I'm trying to use. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMagrini (talk • contribs) 16:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the image isn't used in an article. A personal sandbox is not an article. All non-free images have to be used in at least one article, and you can't use them in a personal sandbox. See WP:NFCC and WP:NFCC. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification. I will also be reviewing the other photos I uploaded, as I was not sure of the proper licensing that goes along with them. --AMagrini (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Hoffmann photo archive
Hello! Hope all is well and thanks for the message. Please see here. I do not want to repeat what is already sated there, but if you have additional questions, do not hesitate to contact me. best regards!! Mariaflores1955 (talk) 15:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * STEFAN... Can I ask you what are you doing? You have been placing images on the NON FREE list all afternoon! They are all free images as mentioned before. All were verified and determined as FREE in the past. I do not have any idea what are you up to! But I am certain that this is not helpful to the quality of Wikipedia at all! Mariaflores1955 (talk) 18:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * As I have explained to you, photos by H. Hoffmann are only free if they are seized Nazi property. As explained in the PD-HHOFFMANN template, you need to provide a link to the United States National Archives. This evening, I've found out that some of your uploads do not contain a link to the United States National Archives, so I have reported them as possibly unfree. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Reed the first post and the comments on that link! You are wrong about the Hoffman photos and the US National Archives collection. There is a nice overview of the legal ruling Price v. United States right here on Wikipedia. As you can see the Photographic archive (includes photographs from the WWII and pre-WWII period) and also the Carlisle archive are INCLUDED as FREE of copyright. Also, majority of the Hoffmann images are available as free via the Bundesarchive.Mariaflores1955 (talk) 18:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not an expert on the matter but somewhere else I read that also the UK archive needs to be considered. Is this true? MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, and others are wrong branding these images as unfree. In fact the PD-HHOFFMANN template is not at all accurate. I would suggest that the people who created this template review the facts of the Price v. United States ruling. All the photos posted by myself on Wikipedia come from negatives owned by Wartenberg Trust and its foundations and yes, these are ALL part of the NARA Hoffmann works (because Wartenberg Trust gave copies of all their photos to NARA). There are no links to the individual images at this time! Also, many more photos, not at NARA, are part of the Carlisle Archive, which is also covered by the Price v. United States ruling. Unfortunately the poorly made and deceiving PD-HHOFFMANN template does not show this at all. In conclusion, nearly 100% of all Hoffmann photographs (created between 1933-1945) are protected as FREE by the above mentioned legal decision. It is absolutely frustrating that administrators such as  make these incredibly poor decisions based on conjecture rather than facts. Before he nominated these images for deletion, he should have talked with the uploaders and others (who actually understand the legal matter) to resolve this issue.Mariaflores1955 (talk) 12:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll answer at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you Stefan2 (sorry for calling you an administrator). As I said before the entire collection (currently at NARA) is FREE of copyright. Wartenberg Trust donated all the images in their collection attributed to Hoffmann to NARA after the WWII (in 1950s or 60s). It was not until 1995 that the Price v. United States ruling came into effect. At that point the images and negatives were long part of the NARA collection, thus were directly affected by the decision, in addition to those photos taken from Hoffmann studios in Munich and elsewhere (including the offices of SIgnal). Also, the the Carlisle Archive is covered by this! No one is seem to mention this!! Please note that the Alien Property Custodian issue is irrelevant here. The ONLY legal ruling that affects H. Hoffmann works is Price v. United States. Also note that nearly all the Hoffmann images are available via the Bundesarchiv and free of copyright!! Thank you!Mariaflores1955 (talk) 18:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Image tag incivility
The particular template you chose to place on my talk page was unnecessarily confrontational (for example: "blatant copyright infringement" and threatening a block from editing). There are other templates that are less, shall we say, threatening. The only real conclusion that I can come to is that you must think that I am a regular violator of copyrights. Sure, I have some previous tags on my talk page, but those were from when I started about two years ago, and they have since been remedied, and in my time here, I have learned the proper copyright procedures (I mostly upload album covers).

In any case, I would prefer that you avoid my talk page in the future. --L1A1 FAL (talk) 16:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The template is a standard template placed on any talk page after reporting a copyright violation. If feel that the template can be improved, feel free to make db-imgcopyvio-notice better.
 * You didn't have any time to react because the file was tagged as a copyright violation. Copyright violations are typically deleted very quickly. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Based on the timing, I can't help feeling like tagging this is meant more as a shot at me (since I uploaded it - legitimately, I might add) because I dared to questioned you.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 22:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Furthermore I might as well ask what copyright did I violate exactly on the first item I brought into question. It was a geometric shape which was created in a country that ceased to exist over 30 years ago. Who holds this alleged copyright? I have to assume you would know, as otherwise, you could not have called it out.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 22:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The file has been deleted, so I am no longer able to tell why I found that the image violates copyright. You wrote that the file "was created in a country that ceased to exist over 30 years ago". I take it that this means that it is an old object which is at least 30 years old. Presumably, I found some evidence that the file had been uploaded elsewhere on the Internet before it was uploaded here. If you are arguing that the file is in the public domain because of age, you need to prove this. In most cases, this means that you have to prove that the work has been published somewhere before 1923. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I perhaps should have been a bit clearer with that. As the country ceased to exist over 30 years ago, it's government is now irrelevant. In case you were not aware, the image in question was a camouflage pattern, items which are generally, though not exclusively, developed by government/military agencies (and thus a government work). Aside from Multicam (a privately-developed pattern), and several commercial hunting camouflage patterns in the United States, I am unaware of camouflage patterns being subject to copyright


 * The particular image was from elsewhere as I recall, however. Due to it being nothing more than a reproduction of a geometric pattern (the original camouflage pattern) however, no copyright claim should be valid on the (now deleted) file in question. That is my understanding (which may be mistaken, but nevertheless, that is my understanding) of the copyright issue here.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 00:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * A country ceasing to exist does not affect the copyright status of a work. In some countries, works made for the government are copyrighted by the individual authors. In those countries, nothing changes at all: the person who was the copyright holder before the political change remains the copyright holder after the change. In other countries, the copyright lies with the government. When the country ceases to exist, some other country or region takes over the former country's properties, including copyrights. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Hoffmann images
Please note that every image I uploaded was under the free use rationale. Some of these images have been overwritten with PD Hoffmann rationale applied. I am not an expert on this matter and would follow guidance by those more knowledgeable on the topic. I think it would be better if you take up your concerns with those Users who applied the Hoffmann rationale. Can you point me to the source for your reasoning? Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As a general comment, it would have been best if you had bundled all these nominations in some way, as it's really hard for other editors to comment on what's basically a group nomination given the way you've done this. Is there some way to centralise this discussion? Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I posted a question here. MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll answer at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Joppen1907India1805a.jpg
For some reason I am no longer being credited in the Commons version of File:Joppen1907India1805a.jpg. Could you remedy this? Thanks. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  03:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, Never mind.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * For your information: The user who copied the file to Commons has nominated it for deletion at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Joppen1907India1805a.jpg. You might wish to comment there. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Invitation for Rahmatullah Durrani for Quaid-e-Azam Civic address.jpeg
and File:Invitation for Rehmatullah Durrani for Duaid-e-Azam Civic address 15-6-1948.jpg, and File:Invitation to Rehmatullah Durrani for Quaid-e-Azam Civic address 15-6-1948.jpg , Hi Stefan, the owner of the work is not alive, and there are more then fifty years has been past about the creation of this work, therefore as per policy and rules of Wikipedia the said file can be aired, --Jogazai 00:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia uses United States copyright law. Under United States copyright law, a photo taken in 1948 normally enters the public domain 95 years after it was published. It does not matter if the photographer is alive or not. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Your notifications.
You are giving me speedy deletion notifications of images I did not upload.—cyberpower ChatOnline 15:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Your bot has been creating the pages. Ryan Vesey 15:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Crap. I keep forgetting about that badinage task.  I think an exception should be installed in twinkle to prevent me from getting spammed for every bad image that is deleted.—cyberpower  Chat<font color=olive face=arnprior>Online 16:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way, there seems to be a bug in your bot. I tagged all of the pages for F2 yesterday, but today I saw that your bot had recreated the pages, so I tagged them again. It seems that you only check MediaWiki:Bad image list, but you should probably also check that the image really exists before adding badimage. MediaWiki:Bad image list doesn't always seem to be up-to-date with the latest file deletions. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The bot assumes it exists if it is on the list. It needs to be removed from the list.  I don't have access to my computer now and won't have access for a while, so I can't do much.—<font color=green face=Neuropol>cyberpower  <font color=olive face=arnprior>Chat<sub style="margin-left:-3.7ex"><font color=olive face=arnprior>Online 16:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The bot should probably be blocked until you have access then. The bot should not be creating pages.  Would it be feasible for the bot to remove images that don't exist from the list?  Or create another list asking admins to remove those images from the list? Ryan Vesey 16:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The list at MediaWiki:Bad image list is supposed to be maintained by User:ListManBot. However, that bot doesn't seem to be running. Commons:File:Erect small5.jpg was deleted from Commons on 22 August but is still present at MediaWiki:Bad image list. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Seganomad.jpg
Exactly what's wrong with converting the edit summary information into the information template? -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 10:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have replied at File talk:Seganomad.jpg. --13:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Policy for second album cover
Hello. At, the image has been deleted, and the discussion has been closed. Here is the discussion that took place:

Invalid FUR--substantially similar to main album cover —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep – This is the album cover image for the bonus disc, not for the main album, and both the bonus disc and the main album are covered by the article. Just as the main album cover uniquely identifies the main album, this image uniquely identifies the bonus disc, and, like any other album cover, is critical to the readers' understanding of the subject.  Whether or not it's substantially similar to the main album cover (and it's not) is therefore not relevant here.  To have two, and only two, album cover images in this article does not violate fair use, and substantially increases the value of the article for the reader. — Mudwater (Talk) 11:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete The bonus disc and the main album have almost identical covers. Besides, the bonus disc isn't discussed critically. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply – This is the article about the album, which includes both the main album and the bonus disc. So the album has two covers, the one for the main album and the one for the bonus disc.  Critical discussion of the bonus disc album cover is therefore not needed to qualify for fair use in this article --  see my "keep" comment above.  For these same reasons, it doesn't matter if the two album covers are completely different or somewhat similar, or even "almost identical", as you think this one is and I don't. — Mudwater (Talk) 21:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Um, no. Critical commentary is not needed to include one cover. However, in this case, you are including two covers, which is a different thing. Critical commentary is needed for supporting the use of multiple covers. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you please provide a link to the guideline that says that? It seems to me that this is similar to, but not exactly the same as, the case of an album with an alternate cover.  In this case, the article is about two very strongly associated albums, the main one and the bonus disc, that each have their own cover.  In the other case, alternate covers, which are widely accepted on Wikipedia for use in album articles, one album is known by two (or possibly even more than two) different covers.  So I believe that in both cases, including this one, critical commentary on the second cover is not required, because the second cover, like the first, uniquely identifies the album, is extremely useful to the reader, and is not replaceable by text or by a free image.  That's definitely fair use, but if there's a Wikipedia guideline against it, I'd like to see it.  Thanks. — Mudwater (Talk) 00:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

If you could provide a link to the guideline, I'd appreciate it. As someone who edits album articles, I'd like to be aware of the Wikipedia standards in this area. Thanks. (If you reply here, I will see what you say.) — Mudwater (Talk) 11:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Logos
Since you are deleting every Olympic bid logo file, and they cannot be displayed in tables, I would like to ask you to delete the past logos of Microsoft. They are ineligible for non-free media criteria, under the same circumstances you presented to delete the Olympic bid logos. Regards; <b style="font-size:small; font-family:vivaldi; color:black;">Felipe Menegaz</b> 15:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi! I suggest that you read the article Threshold of originality and look at the examples at Commons:COM:TOO. The Microsoft logos are just text typeset in a standard font, so they don't attract any copyright protection. The first logo, File:Microsoft Logo Historical.svg, is debatable, but it is an American logo and was published as part of this advertisement without a copyright notice before 1989, so it is in the public domain anyway. Most US pre-1989 logos are in the public domain because they have usually been published in advertisements, on products or elsewhere without a copyright notice. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Nice catch
I just wanted to drop a note that this was a nice catch. There was barely any history there so I didn't think to check before tagging it. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  00:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that was rejected citing WP:PV. A bit hard to see at first. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh well. I moved that history to Nintendo game cube to preserve it, and retagged the redirect with db-move, and it looks like someone already moved it. Thanks again for even noticing that there was relevant history there. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  19:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Dean hall game designer at gamescom Aug 2012.jpg
Hi there, You posted a note about the photo that I uploaded. I copied and pasted the template from other photos, I don't know what the reference to the site is. The photo is a custom one taken at the conference, so i am not sure of next steps? Canwin87 (talk) 21:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The image appears elsewhere on the Internet, credited to Audun Rodem. If you are Audun Rodem, please prove this by following the instructions at WP:IOWN. If you are not Audun Rodem, please ask him to give permission using the instructions at WP:CONSENT. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Darwin's Soldiers image.jpg
This image was deleted because I need further permission. Here is a thread where I will be gaining permission shortly: http://gangoffive.net/index.php?showtopic=11484&st=0#entry22008712

(I am LettuceBacon&Tomato; I previously had gotten permission from Serris via PM, which I understand I can not prove right now. That's why I'm getting this in a public thread.)

Once those two post their permission in this thread (which I know they will) will that be enough to have the picture restored? --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 02:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Files need to be available under a licence which allows you to do almost anything with the image. Basically, it needs to comply with the definition at Definition. Normally, this is handled by making the image available under a specific free licence such as the GNU Free Documentation Licence or the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike licence, which fulfil all of the requirements in the definition.
 * "Mumbling" wrote: "You have our permission to use Gang of Five posts, so long they are not harmful in any way." Many people regard JSLint as having a too restricted licence because the software licence states that the software only may be used for good but not for evil, and the part about "harmful" things looks restricted in the same way.
 * Other people simply wrote that they give permission. What do they give permission to? Using the image under the licence specified by the uploader, or only for hosting it on Wikipedia? (Hint: The former is what is needed.) --Stefan2 (talk) 22:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have posted a request for more specific permission from those in the thread, and when the image is restored (or I have to reupload it) I plan to do so under the GNU Free Documentation License. Once they follow the instructions in my latest post, will that be enough to get the image restored? --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 00:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The relevant users have re-posted their specific approval in the thread link already provided. I plan to reupload the image tonight under the GNU Free Documentation License. Are there any problems that still need to be dealt with? --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 21:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: File:Grave plaque Finch Hatton.jpg
Hello Stefan2. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of File:Grave plaque Finch Hatton.jpg, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not the same image. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Argh, sorry. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Image rationales
Hey Stefan2,

I've provided better sourcing for the two images I uploaded. Wanted to see if I've now sourced them correctly: Gestation Stall Image and Finishing Farm. Thanks, Kkirkham (talk) 13:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The images are now in use, so it is obvious that they should be deleted as replaceable. Anyone could visit one of those farms and take a photo of them. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you meant to say the images are "not" in use. I'm currently trying to get them added to the Smithfield Foods article, but as an employee I didn't want to add them myself, so we are discussing it on the talk page first. That's why they are currently not used in any articles. Also, someone could drive by the farm and take a photo of the outside, but the farms are private property and are not open to the public, so these shots could not be garnered that way. Kkirkham (talk) 14:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Clark Brands
I have no problems with the deletion of File:Clark Brands (original logo).jpg (which is not marked for deletion) and File:Clark Brands logo (1987).jpg (which is marked), as I have replaced both of them with identical SVG images (which resize easily as opposed to JPG images that don't). Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 22:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

BAGBot: Your bot request Stefan2bot
Someone has marked Bots/Requests for approval/Stefan2bot as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC) <small style="color:gray">To opt out of these notifications, place  anywhere on this page.

User:Diannaa/Problematic images
Hi, Stefan2! Thanks so much for your help setting up the investigation into the problematic uploads by Mariaflores et al. I have added some introductory information to the sub-page I created. If you have time, I was wondering if you could look it over and see if I made any mistakes on the sequence of events or left out any important facts? Thanks. -- Dianna (talk) 19:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It said that you should check Flickr, but there was no link to the Flickr account, so I added one. The Flickr account only seems to be useful for photos of royalty and not for photos of Nazis or military.
 * According to this discussion, User:CommonsDelinker is buggy. It seems that that CommonsDelinker will delink File:Adalbertprinceofbavaria.jpg from English Wikipedia articles upon deletion from Commons even though there is a local copy of the image. We need to watch those articles and revert CommonsDelinker if necessary. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay. I have also been inserting the names of various Nazis into the search field on Flickr in hopes of getting hits on copies of Nazi postcards. No hits yet. By the way, I was browsing through the talk pages of the three accounts, and couldn't help but notice that they have received literally hundreds of notifications over the years that their uploads were problematic. Yet they chose to ignore the warnings, and continued to upload images in violation of Wikipedia policy and copyright law. If they turn up again with a new sock, I will be asking for a formal ban. Thanks again for helping, and for all your good work helping to maintain and monitor our image collections. -- Dianna (talk) 20:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Stefan. I have received an email from the OTRS team, who had received an email from the Wartenburg Trust. They say that absolutely none of the Nazi images are in their collection; they don't own any such images whatsoever. The only ones of theirs that this user uploaded were the old postcards of royalty. They claim them all to be in the public domain, as all were published as postcards prior to 1923. I just thought you would find this news interesting. -- Dianna (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's interesting. It seems that the user was inventing a lot of information; the user wrote in one of the other discussions that all images came from there. Do you know if all photos of royalty by this user come from Wartenberg Trust, or if some might have come from a different place? --Stefan2 (talk) 00:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The email says that "Essentially every file uploaded by Bolekpolivka, Mariaflores1955 and Weissundblau flagged as before 1923 was clearly copied from our collection." They also assert that every item in their collection (some 67,000 items!) was published as a postcard or print in Europe prior to 1921. This means that their entire collection is public domain in the United States . The emails are clearly not from the same person or persons as uploaded the photos, so I believe the information is valid and will be acting accordingly. They have requested that the images be tagged as "Immediate source: Wartenburg Trust", so I will be adding that, along with other information, to each file in that subset. -- Dianna (talk) 14:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Request to review a recently uploaded image
Hello, I recently uploaded to Wikimedia commons, using information you provided me. I believe it is ready to go, but as it had been deleted once in the past due to insufficient source citations, I would just like verification that I have provided enough information so that it meets Wikipedia standards for inclusion. Thanks for your help. --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 05:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me from a copyright point of view, but this kind of images are better suited for PNG format. See the article Compression artefact for details. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * AS per your request, I have reuploaded it as a PNG (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Darwin%27s_Soldiers_image.png) Thank you! --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 00:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Request to review a recently uploaded image
Hello, I uploaded several images to the S-FRAME wikipedia page that are free to be used in any capacity by anyone anywhere, I may have mislabelled them when I uploaded them and that is why I believe you labelled them copyright. How do I get them back without re-uploading them and risk getting blocked? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N.Tagge (talk • contribs) 08:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't find any evidence that S-FRAME is free software. See Commons:COM:SS. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Hi Stefan

I see that you have requested for deletion of file Shell Helix under non-fair use policy. I wish to thank you and inform you that I am working in Shell Pakistan. Please be assured that the image used is in our Annual Report 2011 and since its a high resolution image only people in Corporate Affairs have access to it.

Thanks again for your concern

Hirah Javaid 10:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Engr hirah (talk • contribs) <br style="clear: both"/>
 * I think that you should send evidence of ownership to OTRS. See WP:IOWN for instructions. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

File:A View of Baramulla .JPG
Don't forget to file a Deletion Request at Commons. :) Thanks . Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I did of course also tag that copy with Commons:Template:Copyvio. ☺ --Stefan2 (talk) 14:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Permission For Vox logo
Hi Stefan2, thanks for pointing out that I did not provide permission evidence for the logo image usage of Vox. I am the original owner of this image and I have now included a description of usage by Creative Commons CC-BY-SA at the source of the image, see this link http://www.indiedb.com/games/vox/images/screenshot#imagebox and the left hand description for proof. Thanks Moondoggy (talk) 18:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems that this was sorted out with OTRS. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I am negotiating
with the folks who gave me the picture, File:Angel at the Exeter War Memorial.jpg, about copyrights, but I am glad that it stayed long enough to be included in today's DYK. Thanks for your patience, Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 02:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I got this done, sent it off to the wikipedia permission folks and posted a version minus Jon Angel's address & email at the picture. Life moves on. Carptrash (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Success Academy Charter Schools logo deletion proposal
I'm puzzled at the proposed deletion for reason of copyright. Since I'm proceeding under fair use, asking the schools organization seems inappropriate or unnecessary. Their home page does not display a copyright notice, but I presume they have the copyright and all other intellectual property interests. I stated the best information I have. While the notice discusses verifying the source, I just revisited the schools URL and it's still there. I guess that the fair use rationale is what you're specifically questioning. What is it that I should address? Thank you. Nick Levinson (talk) 21:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * See WP:NFCC. You need to pick an appropriate licence template from the list at WP:ICT/FU. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Solved (and if it's not, please let me know). Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 22:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow
So I just placed back the "copyright tag" and now you are trying to delete the picture.

I don't care if it doesn't hold up to your standards, I put those pictures so the articles will not be empty. --SuperHotWiki (talk) 18:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Joseph McElroy, Ancient History, cover.jpg: what is the problem?
You tagged this image, but as I explained on its talk page two days ago, the image seems to be within WP:FU guidelines. Clarification desired, preferably on the file's talk page.Choor monster (talk) 20:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Too many pixels. See Category:Rescaled fairuse files more than 7 days old. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, many thanks. I fixed the image, you replaced the template.  I intend to upload more covers as I create more articles.  They will of course all match this one in reduced size and quality.  Is there some template I should stick in, or should I let people like you do it?  A link to any got-it-right-the-first time book cover suffices.Choor monster (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Leave me alone
You're not a boss here. --SuperHotWiki (talk) 13:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm just reporting policy violations. See WP:NFCC. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Its not "just" you are reporting policy violations but you have a HOBBY here of deleting pictures that could help improve the articles! --SuperHotWiki (talk) 13:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Friendly request
Do NOT edit war with me. It is NOT a speedy deletion until consensus has been reached. I am going to undo your change, do not revert it or I will report your antagonistic behaviour. If you want to help, then answer in a less confrontational manner on the talk page. Please be constructive and not destructive in your time on wikipedia. Ruining other wikipedians work and wasting their time is neither big nor clever.

Py0alb (talk) 15:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It is a speedy deletion since it is such a blatant violation of WP:NFCC. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

If its so blatant, how come you can't come up with a coherent reason why on the talk page? I refuted all the spurious and innacurate reasons you suggested and you haven't even been polite enough to bother to respond. Py0alb (talk) 15:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Beltran Masses Photos
As I already clearly stated when uploading the images in the boxes provided, my gallery of which I am the owner), is the owner of the photographic images of the paintings, and the owner of the paintings, which I used in editing the entry on Beltran Masses. Because of the annoying questions that have arisen in the past when I have used images that belonged to me, I made this absolutely clear. Did you actually bother to read the messages I put in those boxes? Did you not read that I stated this very clearly? I have more or less given up correcting the vast quantities of false or inaccurate information on wikipedia because of the extra work this kind of complaint then leads to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GuyStairSainty (talk • contribs) 18:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Photos uploaded by me to the Beltran Masses entry.

As I stated when I did so, these photos and the paintings belong to me. The artist died in 1949. I can do what I like with these photos and I chose - I thought helpfully - to include them as they are famous examples of this artist's work in my expanded article on the artist.

These paintings are all right now in my London gallery, awaiting exhibition. GuyStairSainty (talk) 18:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The copyright to a painting belongs to the painter (or in this case his heirs), not to the one who happens to own the actual painting. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The painter has been dead for 63 years. That means it could not be in copyright n the US. surely you are aware of ths if you are gong round censorng photos. but ven if ths was not the case, he had no issue and His estate passed to his widow. He had no heirs after his widow. She bequeathed the paintings she inherited to friends who divided it The catalogue and rights are controlled by the Comité Beltran-Masses, of which I am co-dirctor. But apart from that, if you knew copyright law you would understand better that copyright dies not exist if th creator has no heirs. Furthermore, Wikipedia has 100s of images of works by artists who ate very definitely still in copyright everywhere - Picasso beng just one. Yet you are not cutting these images. I suggest you consult somene who actually knows someething about the subject. Levy-Dhurmer, on the other hand, had no heirs and there is no copyright. But why should you know that? GuyStairSainty (talk) 20:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * You seem to have misunderstood copyright law. In the United States, the rule is that the paintings are out of copyright if they were published before 1923. If they were not published before 1923, the paintings are copyrighted in the United States until 95 years after the paintings were first published. All paintings made in 1923 or later are still protected by copyright in the United States. Earlier paintings may be in the public domain if they have been published. If you are arguing that a painting was "published" because it was exhibited at an art gallery or museum, you need to show that the exhibition was open to the general public and that there was no ban on photography at the exhibition, see American Tobacco Co. v. Werckmeister. I have no idea how to find out if a museum allowed photography or not a hundred years ago. In Spain, all of the paintings enter the public domain in 2030 (80 years after the death of the painter).
 * You are claiming that the copyright to the paintings was transferred between different people multiple times and that the copyright currently is held by a committee. If that is the case, you need to send written proof to OTRS that the committee is the current legal copyright holder and that you have the right to represent the committee. You also need to make sure that any paintings which were not published before 1923 have been licensed under a free licence. See WP:CONSENT for instructions. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
JetBlast (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Infantry Combat Badge
Im not sure how taking a picture of a badge with my ipod camera on a white piece of paper can contain a derivative work. Regards Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 13:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nford24 (talk • contribs)
 * You only took the photo of the badge but didn't make the badge yourself, right? The photo violates the copyright of the badge. See Commons:COM:DW. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Lakewood BlueClaws Logos
I've added more team logos to expand the history of the BlueClaws which I am a fan of the team. The logos listed are the same exact form as the team goes by. I even added reliable sources too. The Cape Fear Crocs logos were from the Cape Fear Crocs page which I redirected to the BlueClaws page because it is the same team/franchise. I didn't upload the Crocs logos. The Bull Durham poster is from the movie page and I didn't upload that either. If you delete the logos encluding the Cape Fear Crocs logos than you mind as well delete the Fayetteville Generals logos too. I am expanding the history of the team thats all. Silvercoindinerman (talk) 22:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you can't use non-free images in galleries. See WP:NFG. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Than how do you get permission. Silvercoindinerman (talk) 23:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * See WP:CONSENT. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * How about give me a summary because I don't have time to process the WP:CONSENT info right now and where do you post it at on the your own talk page. Silvercoindinerman (talk) 23:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You ask the person at the club who is responsible for intellectual property to send an e-mail to OTRS. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Just delete the logos already. You forgot to tag the Fayetteville Generals logos so I had to do it myself. Silvercoindinerman (talk) 19:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

NFUR review
Might prove useful, pages tagged with the Non-free use rationale(or the templates that call it) will be handled by a bot, but it's the NFUR's that aren't templated that need careful review. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That category contains about half of all non-free files, so it currently doesn't seem to be very useful. If a bot cleans it up, it might become more useful. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Question about deletion
Stefan, thank you for your help.

I have a question concerning a deletion. I followed your useful instructions and forwarded the emails to permissions-enwikimedia.org from the creator/owner of the photo within 2 days after receiving the email, well within the 7 day time limit.

[This message is about the info I received concerning the following notification.] :Notification: tagging for deletion of. (TW)"

Because I forwarded the emails (that gave specific permission to use the photo and stated public domain) to the correct address, as instructed, I don't understand why the photo was deleted.

What do you suggest that I now do so the photo appears on the page and not be deleted?

Should I upload the photo again and again send the letter of permission to the wiki permission email?

Or should I walk the owner of the photo through the process (which may be a challenge for them to learn) and have them send their own permission to put the photo into public domain?

Thanks again for your assistance.

Sbjohnson (talk) 18:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you sure that you sent the e-mail to  as indicated in the instructions? In the message above, there is a typo in the e-mail address: you forgot the @undefined sign! --Stefan2 (talk) 17:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Stefan,

I sent the email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. (This address here is copied directly from the actual sent message.) The address I sent the emails to, match what you state above.

(And yes, I made a typo in my question above. Sorry about that.)

My guess is that since the photo was deleted, it needs to be uploaded again, with the permissions sent again. Is that correct? If I take the effort to upload the photo again and send the permissions letter again, how do we keep the photo from being deleted?

Thanks, Sbjohnson (talk) 19:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I have asked about this at WP:OTRS/N. In the future, also add the OTRS pending template to the file information page if you send in any permission. In that case, the image typically remains for at least a month before being deleted, whereas it is otherwise be deleted after only a week. People are sometimes a bit behind with handling permission e-mails. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Stefan.

This is super helpful.

I'll email the copyright holder of the photo again and work on getting the photo added. I'll also make sure that the permission is resent, and insure that the OTRS pending template is also added to the file information page.

Thanks again for all your time, assistance, and insights! Sbjohnson (talk) 16:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * -- SPhilbrick (Talk)  17:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Photo marked for deletion
I uploaded a photo titled Freck Langsam DVD Cover, which you marked for deletion because it is not in use in an article. It was uploaded for the article Freck Langsam, which is waiting to be reviewed. If you would please not delete it, it will be in use shortly. Ducksfan0807 (talk) 21:42, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The rule is that non-free image have to be used in at least one article, see WP:NFCC, and your article submission is not yet an article, so it isn't allowed there. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Logo-for-wiki.png
Thanks for the notice to include a non-free rationale. I have edited the file description page. Hopefully it fulfils the critieria now. The image will be uploaded on the Bridge Alliance page shortly. Please do not delete it, thanks. Brand&#38;comms (talk) 03:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This appears to have moved to WP:FFD and WP:MCQ. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey
The picture I've uploaded is from my own personal collection,thus the high resolution, and it has nothing to with the United States Copy Right Policy. Danger^Mouse (talk) 17:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Which picture are you talking about? --Stefan2 (talk) 13:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Songs for Young Lovers & Swing Easy! photo
I would argue that the photo showing the final cover of the double album is necessary to illustrate how the albums were combined. That the original cover was modified to show both albums were present and to show the cover blurb that says "two complete albums," even tho I didn't mention it. Wis2fan (talk) 19:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Please keep the discussion at Files for deletion/2012 October 1. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Tagging images for NowCommons
Hi Stefan. While I appreciate that you're tagging images as Nowcommons, I would appreciate more if you could transfer over any other version before tagging them. For example File:Tsarevitch Alexander later Alexander III 1865 by Sergei Levitsky.jpg; this image had a new version on English Wikipedia, and I will have to go through the work of transferring over the new version, then removing the duplicate upload log. This is adding an extraordinary amount of time to the work I'm doing, greatly adding to the likelihood that I just give up because of the tedium, and another administrator comes along and just flat out deletes the image without the improved versions. Thanks. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 22:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * In this case, I wasn't sure if the improved version would qualify for F8 or not, so I decided not to upload it. Commons also has another version of the photo (File:1865. Цесаревич Александр Александрович.jpg) and I thought that Commons might not want both files under the same name but that it might be preferable to have the two files under different names. I prefer to skip uploading old versions if there is a risk that some version might be too different. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Might it then be better to upload the other version under a different name? Magog the Ogre (t • c) 22:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Image Tag
File:WCAT1390-062006.jpg

I used the image at my site, and uploaded it here. Somehow I must have filled out the Copywrite form incorrectly. I have sent an email from the address listed on the website's copywrite page. I hope this is sufficient to close this issue. Wikipedia really needs to go back over their copywrite policy and make it less complex than it is. You need to be a lawyer to understand it all. I have also tagged the file description with the proper OTRS tag. NECRAT <font color="Green">Plates On 05:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * All Set. NECRAT <font color="Green">Plates On 04:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This seems to have been solved. The problem was that it appeared outside Wikipedia before it appeared here, and there was no evidence that the website belongs to you. See WP:IOWN. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Offer suggestions instead of immediately changing or moving for deletion.
Please, instead of changing images or putting them up for deletion, why don't you offer suggestions to the users first? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.194.121.122 (talk) 16:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Which deletion nomination(s) are you talking about? --Stefan2 (talk) 12:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
<font face="Impact">TBrandley 20:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

ShadowCommons
Thanks for having your bot tag ShadowCommons issues (I didn't realize there were so many!). Is there any way your bot could also remove the tag from images that no longer shadow a Commons file, through a page move or a Commons deletion? ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  20:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I only tagged a small part of them: there are more to come. I stopped the bot after tagging some files, partially because I want to see if anyone comes with any bug reports (so that I can fix any bugs before the rest of the images are tagged), and partially because I want to make sure that old versions of images and full-size images are uploaded to Commons before the images are listed too publicly to other people (see section above).
 * The BRFA was only for adding ShadowsCommons, so I assume that removal of the tag would have to go through a separate BRFA. I'm not sure if it would be worth it; there can't be too many files which have been deleted on Commons. Was the ShadowsCommons tag added before the file was deleted on Commons? Otherwise, there is a bug in the bot code. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, there were several that nominated for deletion by people working on ShadowCommons (or so I assume by the timeframe), though I don't remember which files. Also there were several that users had moved, but forgot to remove the ShadowCommons template (including a few I missed). Mostly I was hoping for an excuse to be lazy time-efficient. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  21:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Azomite mineral ore.jpg
Hi Stefan2 Thank you for your message. I have submitted my letter to permissions. Will you please tell me if I installed the OTRS pending in the right place in the File:Azomite mineral ore.jpg description? I want it to be seen to avoid deletion. Thank you in advance. Victoriasays (talk) 16:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have changed the syntax a bit. You only included a link to the OTRS pending template, but not the template itself. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much - really appreciate! Bon weekend - Victoriasays (talk) 22:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Chief Iron Tail
Hi Stefan. I uploaded the companion photograph for the other Kasebier image.

I am interested in creating and editing Native American biographies and histories.

I am wet behind the ears, and for me tagging historic images of Native Americans is challenging and fearsome.

I would like to be put in your "adoption pool" and hope someone will adopt me.

Also, I would like to make some new friends on Wikipedia.

Thank you Richlevine00 (talk) 01:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Malala image
did you check the disclaimer to the Indus asia online journal that I provided. Moshewarsaw (talk) 20:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)moshewarsawMoshewarsaw (talk) 20:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't find any licensing information at all on that page. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure the disclaimer on the right hand side allows permission, did you read the disclaimer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moshewarsaw (talk • contribs) 2012-10-10T20:22:40
 * I don't see any disclaimer on the right hand side which grants any kind of permission whatsoever. Additionally, a large portion of the photo is used for a photo of Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky. It is unlikely that the blogger took that photo. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

What next?
Hi. Is this a real problem, or the problem is me ?(huh?). Why didn't you ever go to guardian: File:Guardianscreenshot.png. Thanks. Arantz (talk) 14:25, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Non-free files should have a low resolution, see Category:Rescaled fairuse files more than 7 days old and WP:NFCC. There is a bot which fixes this automatically, so you don't need to do anything. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:32, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

How far do we agree?
Hi, Stefan2

Sorry to bother you but I am calling in reference to. I think it is important to know if we are on the same page. After all, I do not want to cause any discomfort for anyone over an old dispute. So, did discussion convince you or are you still unconvinced?

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Argh, sorry, I forgot about that. I'll try to remember to look into it later today. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh! Okay, no problems. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:21, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello again, Stefan2. Any chance we could attend to this case? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

File:WJVR-FM 2012.jpg‎
Just wanted to let you know that I have removed the Opaque template from File:WJVR-FM 2012.jpg. The reason is there aren't any PNG or SVG versions of this image available. The JPG version is the only one I can find and it was taken from a Facebook page (the station doesn't have a website yet). I will keep an eye out for a PNG or SVG version of the image, but I think the JPG version is the best we can do at the moment. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 17:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Things like this shouldn't really be in JPEG in the first place. I've added BadJPG and Overcompressed JPEG to the file. Hopefully, someone will be able to produce a better image. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I know, I like to use PNG images cause they are "crisper" and "cleaner", but in this case, it's all I can find. I am actively looking around the web, but at present have only found that image which is from their Facebook page. :S  For what it's worth, the imperfections that are seen in the full-size view of the image aren't seen in the 150px version on the WJVR page, so the everyday reader won't see them. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 22:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * On a hunch, I did a WhoIs search for a website for WJVR and I'll be darned if they didn't have one. I have found a better, cleaner image and am uploading it now.  It is PNG, so everyone will be happy.  I will nom the JPG one for deletion per db-author. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 22:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Procedure of obtaining permission from the copyright-holder
Dear Stefan2,

I have a question. Lets take the following scenario as an example. Person A is a celebrity who is still alive. Person B takes his photo and put it in his website. Now person C, who is a Wikipedian, wants to use that photo in Wikipedia. So, person C asks person B for the permission to use the photo taken by him. Person B (the copyright-holder) have no objection with this.

Now, what procedure person C should follow in order to use that file in Wikipedia? Is there any kind of sample format of permission/agreement that the both party have to sign. How can we send the copy of the permission agreement paper to WikiMedia?

Waiting for your reply, Suniltheblue (talk) 17:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If the permission only is for Wikipedia, then it isn't enough, see db-f3. If the permission is for any given free licence, such as GFDL or CC-BY-SA, then person C should ask person B to follow the instructions at WP:CONSENT. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Malala photo
The new malala photo has been put forward for speedy deletion, I was wondering if you could reinstate it, I recieved copyright permission from the owner as long as I link it to the source which I did. I sent the email permission to the wikipedia permissions and recieved a ticket number and thank you, so I don't understand why it has been deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moshewarsaw (talk • contribs) 00:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If you mean File:Malala social activist.jpg, the problem is that the licence on the file information page indicates that you can't use the image commercially and that you can't modify it. See db-f3. Images have to comply with the requirements given at Definition. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

When I asked the guys who hold the copyright that I'm going to use it on wiki they told me to use the specific licence and that all I have to make sure is that it links to them. Would it be commercial if I used it on wikipedia, I never modified it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moshewarsaw (talk • contribs) 00:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It has to be a specific free licence. CC-BY-NC-ND is not a free licence. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:47, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

the licence I specified was Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported license under other section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moshewarsaw (talk • contribs) 01:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly, and that's not a free licence due to the non-commercial and no-derivs parts. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

sorry this is confusing me now, so the fact that they gave me permission does not mean anything, is there any other way I can get it reinstated.Moshewarsaw (talk) 01:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)moshewarsawMoshewarsaw (talk) 01:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You need to obtain permission for a free licence. The current licence is an unfree licence. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Priboj City Stadium 2.jpg
Would you please retag this image? The URL you placed in the copyvio template sent me simply to http://www.google.com/imghp instead of to a page that displays this image. Nyttend (talk) 03:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't remember where I found it at that time, but the image appears ||priboj*net|images|mapa_priboja*gif/ here. Click on the "640 x 480" link below the image to get the resolution on Wikipedia: --Stefan2 (talk) 20:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Deleted.  Nyttend (talk) 05:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Automatic notices
Stefan, I don't need the automated notices that tell me that you've nominated an image redirect for deletion. Can you exempt me from that process? Thanks. DS (talk) 12:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hm, Twinkle leaves warnings to everyone, and there doesn't seem to be any individual opt-out setting. On the other hand, I'm not sure if anyone needs notifications about those redirects, so maybe it's better to skip notifications for everyone. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

File:UniversityOfNatal CoatOfArms.jpg
Hi Stefan

I uploaded the file File:UniversityOfNatal CoatOfArms.jpg earlier today and you flagged it with,.

In order to removed confusion, I have changed the text describing the source of the image from "Copied from a degree certificate issued by the university" to "Scanned from a degree certificate issued by the university". Since it was scanned, it was a photographic reproduction - the word "copied" might have caused some confusion as copying can be done by hand.

Would you please removed the banners from this article as they are inappropriate.

Regards Martinvl (talk) 13:28, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I deleted the opaque tag since I suppose that the image should show the background colour of the certificate. However, it still looks unsuitable for JPG in my opinion. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion of images
Dear Stefan, I see that the images I uploaded were tagged for deletion. I the uploader, Arthur Muradyan, am the copyright owner of these images. It is available on my gallery website, mooradiangallery.com. In the about section column, my name is available under the gallery director. Please let me know. Best Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amuradyan12 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Could you please let me know if I am allowed to remove the tag? Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amuradyan12 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It says that the images come from the www.mooradiangallery.com website. Since the images appeared outside Wikipedia before they were uploaded here, you need to send an e-mail to OTRS. See WP:IOWN for instructions. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I sent them an email a couple days ago but they are yet to respond. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amuradyan12 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Just want to say a thank you for fixing the images that I have been uploaded recently. :) — M.Mario  (T/C) 21:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Remember that Flickr always uses version 2.0 of Creative Commons licences: cc-by-2.0 and cc-by-sa-2.0. I noticed that you accidentally listed version 1.0 for some files. Also, I think that it is usually more convenient to use ~bryan/flickr/upload or ~magnus/flickr2commons.php for uploading Flickr files, but you can of course upload them using any method you want. The bot tools save a bit time since you won't need to fill in all information yourself. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:59, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's really useful! I wondered if there was a bot which did this, but was not sure. I have been contacting quite a few Flickr users to get images, and have managed to get quite a lot of images! Thanks for the help! — M.Mario  (T/C) 22:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Ride Screenshot.jpg
Hi there! Do you have sysop tools? I reduced the image size of File:Ride Screenshot.JPG now. By the way, would you happen to know why File:BornToDieParadise.jpeg has been deleted? I believe someone might have mistaken it for File:Paradise EP.jpeg, (looks like this has tons of old revisions that need deletion also) when the two are different (albeit they appear slightly similar at first glance). Any illumination you could shed on this situation would be much appreciated. Thanks. :) --Thevampireashlee (talk) 22:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have sysop tools. Someone will delete the extra image at File:Ride Screenshot.JPG later, usually after about 7 days. You seem to have found out why the other image was deleted. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:52, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Duplicate Prairie Farms Dairy logo
Hi Stefan. Just wanted to say thanks for cleaning up my mess (duplicate logos). Not quite sure how it happened, maybe server lag. I'd uploaded the first one but when I searched for it & tried to add to the Prairie Farms Dairy wiki it couldn't be found, so I tried again. I'd not had a moment yet to find out how to tag it for deletion (even though I've been around here 3+ years I still get confused by some things..oh and shiny objects too LOL). Anyhoo, thanks again for the assist and have a great Wiki kinda day! Sector001 (talk) 15:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

About those two RD1s you recently nominated...
About those two RD1 nominations that you made recently, I just thought I'd let you know that, since the copyright violation starts at the first revision, I just outright speedy-deleted them as G12. When it starts all the way at the beginning like that, the entire article is considered tainted, and so it's better to just tag as G12 and have it blown off the map and started fresh. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Stormbirds
WP:PROD? Seriously? The article is for an album by a band that has no problems with WP:notability. The article could use some more sources, but it has a link to a music review of a reputable website, the album was released by a notable record company - RfD, out of all tags, is VERY excessive to say the least. Danteferno (talk) 02:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The band may or may not be notable, but this is an article about an album, not about a band. See WP:NALBUMS: an album is not necessarily famous only because the band is notable. I'm sorry for missing the Allmusic reference. However, I still don't think that the article contains any evidence that the album is notable. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "However, I still don't think that the article contains any evidence that the album is notable. " Nuclear Blast Records is not a notable music label? It's not notable that a German classical ensemble who collaborated with Therion appeared on the album? I'm not quite sure I understand your reasoning. And out of the thousands of other album articles that have the same background info (or less), what makes this one stand out? --Danteferno (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The article is about the album Stormbirds, not about the company Nuclear Blast Records. It is thus irrelevant if the company is notable; it's only important to know whether the music album is notable or not. Lots of notable companies publish lots of non-notable products. Each week, I receive advertisements from my local supermarket. The supermarket chain is notable, but the individual advertisements are not. See WP:GNG: a subject is notable if it has received significant coverage from independent sources.
 * The article only links to one source: Allmusic. However, the guideline says "sources" in plural, so you need multiple sources. Also, Allmusic links to music streaming services and possibly earns money by offering those links. If a shop is selling a product, it is obvious that the shop will try to advertise the product. However, this doesn't make the shop an independent source: the shop is dependent on good sales, since this is how the shop earns its money. I would say that the article currently doesn't seem to list any independent sources at all. However, I might have misunderstood how the Allmusic website works. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Non free image size
Hi there,

I don't usually upload non-free images, and concentrate my time on free ones, and you've tagged a couple that I did just upload for size reduction.

Is there a rough rule of thumb for the size? They are currently 600x400, which i thought would be sufficiently low res. I am happy to make them smaller as required, but not sure what to aim for? OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 09:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a bot, User:DASHBot, which occasionally reduces files automatically, although this has happened very rarely recently. A simple solution is to just skip the reduction request and let the bot handle it the next time it runs. For specific recommendations, there is one recommendation here, but the bot uses a slightly different variant, and I think that there might be a third variant somewhere else. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Tagged files
Hi Stefan2, I'm under the impression that those uploads of mine get deleted if I don't contest them. Correct? Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 10:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Correct. See Possibly unfree files/2012 October 13 for the discussion. The problem is that you can't take photos of certain things since the underlying works are copyrighted by someone else. In the United Kingdom, it is possible to take photos of any buildings or statues, but you can't take photos of text or most 2D things (such as signs) unless the one who wrote the text or designed the sign has been dead for at least 70 years. In other countries, such as France, you can't even take photos of buildings or sculptures; you have to wait until the architect/sculptor has been dead for at least 70 years. If you argue that the signs are anonymous, the copyright expires 70 years after the signs were set up, but it still takes an awful lot of time for the copyright to expire. There is a page, Commons:COM:FOP, which describes what you may take photos of in which countries. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's ok, i read through the link you posted and i've abandoned them for deletion. It's a shame but unavaoidable. Now if only i could find a free image repository for my project User:Jenova20/Resident Evil Creatures. Know any way i could get such images? even low quality or screenshots as free? Thanks and have a nice evening ツ Je no va  20  (email) 21:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that game characters like this always are unfree. If you take a look at the pages in Category:Lists of video game characters, you will find that the character images always are unfree. Also, per WP:NFLISTS, you can't include images of all of the characters either. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well that allows for some images at least. With the article growing and the variants so massive for some entries i'll have to be very cautious over what gets a picture and what doesn't. Thanks again Stefan ツ Je no va  20  (email) 22:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, another thing: the page User:Jenova20/Resident Evil Creatures is currently in your userspace. You can't use non-free files in your userspace (see WP:NFCC). However, if you move the page out of your userspace and turn it into a real article, I suppose that a small number of images could be added. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I realise that. It's an article in progress at the moment with no need for images. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 08:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Delete file
Stefan2, the image of Saulius Kuzminskas is under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license. If you have trust issues, then check here: (lt:Vaizdas:Saulius Kuzminskas.jpg). I understand that I can "copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation", except that I must attribute the work to the author (which I did by writing the author's name on the tag). Henkt (talk) 17:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that was my fault: the image is indeed freely licensed, and it should not have been tagged. The problem was that you listed the image as fair use (although it was in fact freely licensed), and I guess I didn't check enough. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I need your help please
Hello there Stefan! You know, someone tagged Finished With My Ex's page with a deletion template, but it was someone who is not registered and I heard that unregistered users don't have such permission to do that, and the person did not even present a reason for it to be deleted. I was reading Wikipedia's deletion policy and I believe there's nothing wrong for the article to be deleted, I think it is fine.

I'm requesting your help for this problem, since you previously helped me with the images' license issues. Thank you once again Salgado96. 14 October, 2012.
 * Unregistered users are allowed to nominate a page for deletion. WP:AFDHOWTO even has instructions telling you how to do this. However, if you wish to nominate an article for deletion, you need to tell why you think that the article should be deleted. The nominator forgot to follow steps 2 and 3 in the instructions. Since the nominator didn't specify any reason, and since no one else seemed to support deletion, I have simply speedily closed the discussion. In fact, the nominator didn't even create the deletion discussion page (you did that). I hope that this was non-controversial. If anyone who reads this thinks that the article should be deleted, feel free to re-nominate the page, or just revert my closure. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Be more Careful
Before slapping CSD templates on pictures, you should actually look at the history and see who uploaded it first. Your careless actions nearly resulted in the deletion of a file that I uploaded in 2004, with a statement that I created it, as "no source". This was pure laziness, as the original uploader and statement of creation can be found with ONE CLICK. God knows how many other pictures have been deleted due to this kind of action. pschemp | talk 03:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * You know, it is very easy to be confused when it looks as if the earliest copy of the file is listed as having a different uploader (Commons:User:Elinnea). Why is the original version missing, anyway? [ The log] suggests that only two versions have been uploaded, but there are currently two versions listed and one revision has been deleted. Consider making the upload history less confusing in the future. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Ernest Pike Pictures tagged for speedy deletion.
Stefan, You have tagged 4 pictures of Ernest Pike for speedy deletion. The reason that there are four is because of a known issue with the uploader wizard which does not inform the user of a successful upload.

One of these pictures is required for a revised Ernest Pike article which I shall be releasing in the next 2 days. The following picture is currently being accessed in my sandbox: "Ernest Pike standing by a Sheraton gramophone.jpg". This picture needs to be kept please - its link is:-File:Ernest Pike standing by a Sheraton gramophone.jpg

The others can be deleted. I know that the names are similar and that it is confusing.

With regard to copyright license (if this is an issue) I have discussed this with Piotrus (senior editor) and he says that it should be licensed as commons:pd:-UK-Unknown. If I have not set this correctly (and I am relatively new to Wikipedia) I could use some help with how to do this.

The files to delete are:
 * File:Ernest Pike standing in front of a Sheraton_gramophone.jpg
 * File:Ernest Pike standing by a G&
 * File:Ernest Pike standing in front of a G&

Richard J Myers (talk) 14:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * One copy will of course be kept, but there's no point in keeping lots of different copies. I nominated all but one of them for deletion. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Chemotaxis
Dear Stefan2, I have received a message from wiki that an image made and uploaded by me was selected to be deleted. It is not totally clear to me why? Is the reason that it is stored in different databases? I would be very grateful if you guide me to understand the problem. Thanks for your help in advance. Regards from Kohlasz (talk) 08:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * File:Chtx-wikifr-3.png prevents you from seeing Commons:File:Chtx-wikifr-3.png. Both files are almost identical, so there's no point in keeping both. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Dear Stefan2, Thanks for the rapid reply and giving the reason of the delete. I was only frustrated about the demoval that I was not sure whether the article will still keep the figure. But I can see it will be there after removal - so it is OK. Thanks for the message and the kind help around the figures. Best regrds from Kohlasz (talk) 15:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

pic edits
Hi

[]

I have asked the user a question on his talkpage - You  really  can  18:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Tagged "no permission" now. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
simply going to delete my Wikipedia entry, the photos you tagged for deletion were fine, had been up since 2007, nobody has a problem with permissions except you Stephan. Good find on your part!

Hjroberts (talk) 21:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC) <br style="clear: both;"/>
 * It's very simple: If an image comes from an external website, then you have to show evidence of permission. You wrote that no one has had problems with permissions before. If that is the case, then how do you explain the many notices on your talk page? --Stefan2 (talk) 22:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Whatever. Nice job Stephan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hjroberts (talk • contribs) 14:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Reduction of File:Metropolitan Police ransomware scam.jpg
Well, nice jobnow I can barely read the text of it. The reduction has essentially made the image useless. ViperSnake151  Talk  13:44, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the purpose of the image is to display it in the article Ransomware (malware). I can't read the text on the image in the article, so obviously the purpose of the image isn't to provide a readable copy of the text, so I don't see what the problem is. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Tagging
Does mean i uploaded a duplicate? And if so can you point me to it and tell me how to avoid this thing in future? Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 20:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It means that I moved that file (and two other files) to Commons. See File:Queens Tavern, Essex Street, Birmingham.jpg. File names are usually updated on Wikipedia pages by a bot, so there is typically no need to change things yourself.
 * When uploading Flickr files, make sure that you get the highest possible resolution from Flickr. In three of the cases, you had uploaded smaller copies of the images. Also make sure that you get the licence right: Flickr always uses version 2.0 of the Creative Commons licences, but you listed 1.0. A good solution is to use ~bryan/flickr/upload which handles most things automatically. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll try and be more careful then. Can you tell me the commons file names before you have them speedy deleted? (as that will break a couple links to an article in progress)
 * Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 21:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * See [] for a list of new file names. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. Have a nice day/evening Stefan2 ツ Je no va  20  (email) 22:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't suppose you can also set up Commons categories? Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 23:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What category are you trying to set up? --Stefan2 (talk) 01:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to link up a lot of files to the Birmingham Gay Village and create a category under that name as these are all directly part of that area. I've received differing and quite confusing advice. I have a list of them on my to do list. I'll post a link up here to them. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 13:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Here - check out number 9 ツ Je no va  20  (email) 13:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The article Birmingham Gay Village tells that the place is right next to the Chinese Quarter, Birmingham. Commons:Category:Chinese Quarter, Birmingham is placed directly in Commons:Category:Birmingham, so I created a Commons:Category:Birmingham Gay Village subcategory to the general Birmingham category. I also placed it in Commons:Category:LGBT places in the United Kingdom since it seems to fit. I added a lot of the images in User:Jenova20/Birmingham Gay Village and Birmingham Gay Village. Consider checking that there were no mistakes. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! I'm under the impression that if i tag new uploads under a category it works that way. So if i tagged a few as Category:Birmingham Pride 2011 + Category:Birmingham Pride 2012 that will link them right? Or does this have to be done at the Commons?
 * Thanks again for your hard work ツ Je no va  20  (email) 08:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Nemo Submarine Voyage.png
Hi, I got the file from wikimapia on the article about the attraction. I don't know where the person who uploaded it on that website got it from. I'm sorry if it is copyrighted.--BeasttoBeast 00:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeasttoBeast (talk • contribs)
 * The licence you specified is only for very simple images such as the one you see to the right. It can't be used for photos. It is not clear where it comes from, so it isn't possible to tell if the copyright holder has chosen a free licence or not. It exists on Flickr under an unfree licence. If that Flickr user is the copyright holder, then the image can't be used on Wikipedia. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Walter Salas-Humara 1.jpg
You flagged this image for deletion an hour after I posted it, effective in one week's time. It may take me longer than that to figure this out. I've created several pages before but never dealt with images. The user page tutorials are making my brain freeze. I believe I have copyright info for this and five subsequent images, but it's hard to tell. Images are to accompany a new page I've created but not activated yet, plus one existing page with related content but currently no photos. Any help you could spare would be appreciated. 00:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)Paulcullum00:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulcullum (talk • contribs)
 * It is not clear where the photo comes from. Did you take it yourself, or did someone else take the photo? If someone else took the photo, you probably have to wait until the photographer has been dead for at least 70 years before you can use the photo. If you took it yourself, you need to state so and provide a licence. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:51, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about?
All of those images that I have uploaded to Wikipedia have a valid copyright license and you can see that on the links provided under the "some rights reserved" on their respective Flickr pages. They are all licensed for re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0. Just like this image among many others on Wikipedia. Rfkzsaok7 (talk) 00:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Most of the Flickr files you've uploaded have non-free licences on Flickr, for example Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0. There is no evidence that the Flickr users have licensed them under a free licence. File:Melbourne Central Coops Shot Tower.jpg, on the other hand, lists Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 on Flickr, which is a free licence. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, my mistake, I thought they were all Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0. The Bolte Bridge photo I think is listed under this (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en) Could you put a temporary pending notice on each of the photos while I get permission from the authors? Rfkzsaok7 (talk) 02:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, I was wondering how I upload an image when I have permission from the photographer via email? How do I go about licensing it? Also, the user who uploaded on Flickr recently changed the license to CC Attribution Share Alike 2.0, so can you remove that for the deletion candidates? You can see the link here. Rfkzsaok7 (talk) 02:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I see that you managed to get some Flickr users to change the licence on Flickr. Those images should be fine, and I think that all of the "no permission" templates have been removed from those files. If permission is granted by e-mail, this will have to be handled through OTRS. I suggest that you take a look at WP:CONSENT for instructions. It must be possible to verify that the permission comes from the Flickr user. I'm not sure how that is done; I suggest that you ask OTRS about it. If you manage to get permission for an image, just remember to add OTRS pending so that the image doesn't get deleted before someone has read the permission e-mail. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

2012-13 OHL season
Hello, I'm just trying to understand the reasoning of the tag you added to the 2012-13 OHL season page. Is it too many logos? I got the idea off of the German version of wikipedia where the person looking after the OHL season over there had logos beside the team names. I thought it looked good and identified the teams better for a casual hockey fan who might not know too much about junior hockey, however, they could be familiar with some of the logos. Thanks. Frontsfan2005 (talk) 03:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * See WP:NFTABLE. You may not use non-free images in a table. However, there are lots of non-free images in tables in the "Regular Season Standings" section. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

File800,...QBEX images
Hi there Stefan2. I note your request to delete several files that seem to be duplicated and your suggestion to delete those files with annotations. The non-annotated files were uploaded first by accident, more than design, but the annotated files relate to information on the page that the files are used on. I would not want the annotated files to be deleted amd am not aware that an image should not have a watermark. Currently the page that these images relates to is in my sandbox and it being edited by colleagues, or they are sending me edits for me to incorperate (not everyone wants to be a wikipedia editor). Please keep me updated with your thoughts. Regards Gurnard (talk) 15:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC).
 * Images should not have annotations like that. The annotations can't be accessed by screen readers for blind people, and it prevents the images from being used in other contexts. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Stefan2. Many thanks for your comments, but please can you point to a policy document that states that images cannot have annotations as I have not seen anything to that effect. Whether or not they can be read by screen readers is also a mute point I would have thought as the images also cannot be read by a screen reader. Users using a screen reader would get the caption, though. Furthermore there is no restriction in users using said images for other purposes however, you will note that some of these were not uploaded through the Commons are are linked to the specific page. If I was to upload a picture of a particular animal or plant I would like to include that specie's name and adding an annotation would not hinder this, nor restrict the pictures use, but ensure (in that case) that it was not mistakenly identified elsewhere. I do not yet consider this matter to be closed and would welcome wider comments on annotations. Regards Gurnard (talk) 10:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * For watermarks, see WP:WATERMARK and imagewatermark. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. That's a page that has a lot of very useful content. Isn't it amazing that there is never time to get things quite right first time. Nevertheless, the contested images are uploaded as Fair Use not free. The originator of said images is now in Africa for a month and will not be able to make amendments while away to change copyright status of additional images I would upload. The watermarking or non-free (Fair Use) seems not to be a problem. What's your suggestion? Gurnard (talk) 18:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Stop deleting my uploaded pictures! File:Over view of Badhan town in October 2012.jpg
Please stop being hooligan and deleting my uploaded images, I have already declared the images was mine and uploaded to various site on the net, please stop doing I consider disrespectful and lacks taste — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdirisak (talk • contribs) 18:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Again, Please stop deleting my uploaded

You have also selected another image[University Logo] I uploaded to wiki for delete, Again, the logo belongs to university in Somalia and the entity is public institution in which all its logo is widely available through the net, So I dont understand were you coming from, is a LOGO not a PHOTO! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdirisak (talk • contribs) 18:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * File:Over view of Badhan town in October 2012.jpg was deleted as a copyright violation. Presumably, this means that it appeared elsewhere on the Internet without any evidence that you are the photographer. If you did, in fact, take the picture, please send evidence to OTRS. See WP:IOWN and WP:CONSENT for instructions.
 * File:Maakhir University Logo.jpg was listed as having no evidence of permission because you wrote that Maakhir University has released the image to the public domain, without providing any evidence of this claim. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you participating in this?
Are you the user who is participating in the discussion involving this file; File:Rachel Bright at the 2012 Inside Soap Awards.JPG? If you are, is it a good file or not? I just wondering whether to ue the file or not, and whether or not it should be deleted. Thanks! — M.Mario  (T/C) 20:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I was the one who nominated the file for deletion. I think that we need verification that Commons:User:Famefad really does represent the http://famefad.com/ website. I've placed a reminder on the user's talk page now. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! — M.Mario  (T/C) 11:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Message
12:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Doubts about File:Gabbar singh cd cover.jpg, File:Rebel cd cover.jpg, File:Daruvu cd cover.jpg
How to add a link to the top of the page in this case. Can you guide me to any tutorial (or) please show me an example because i don't know how to do it.

(or)

Can updating one of the images in these three articles can solve the problem? Raghusri (talk) Raghusri 14:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * All you need to do is to add a simple sentence: "The cover looks similar to the other image elsewhere in the article." Also see WP:NFCR about two of the other images you've uploaded. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

For the three images File:Gabbar singh cd cover.jpg, File:Rebel cd cover.jpg, File:Daruvu cd cover.jpg how can i add this : "The cover looks similar to the other image elsewhere in the article." Because all the opponent three "Film poster" versions in those particular article's were updated and deleted the old revisions. Still you have stated that "Still delete" in "Ffd". After this how is it possible to delete the above three images man. Because significant versions existed in those articles only and i have updated them and older revisions were deleted by admin also. And also Endukante premanta poster was also updated so significance problem gone there also. But a significant this version exists in somewhere wikipedia as per you here Where can i found this article. Please give that article name and i will add that articl'es reference in this "File:Endukante premanta cd cover.jpg". By this, this poster's problem will be solved. "File talk:Endukante premanta cd cover.jpg" will be deleted. I will accept this one. Remaining are all corrected.Raghusri (talk) Raghusri 19:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Non-free content review

 * File:Windows 8 start screen.png This was the original image reported to NFCR for review. This should be deleted as it has been replaced by #2.
 * File:Windows 8 Start Screen.png New image updated with name that complies with Microsoft's guideline on trademark use. Please read NFCR discussion for reasons. This image should be kept.

Hi Stefan,

I'm a bit confused that you replaced the attached image in the discussion with "non-free image removed".

Please take note of two separate versions of the images. The differences in both images are in the name, with the second one having capslocked Start Screen instead of the first, which is just start screen. I uploaded File:Windows 8 Start Screen.png because I wanted the name to comply with Microsoft's guideline on trademark usage.

I feel that it is appropriate to replace back File:Windows 8 Start Screen.png on the non-free content review page as this is the one which should be kept, as it complies with the low resolution version.

Also, please delete File:Windows 8 Start Screen.png as it contains a name which in my opinion does not agree with Microsoft's guideline for trademark use, and it also contains high-resolution versions of the image which is not compliant with fair-use on Wikipedia.

Please take note of the difference in names. Optakeover (Talk)   19:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) You may not use non-free files at WP:NFCR. See WP:NFCC.
 * 2) You may not use non-free files on a talk page. See WP:NFCC.
 * 3) Files can only be deleted by an administrator. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, firstly I realised that. Secondly, I thought you were an admin. Thirdly, I feel it is unfair and that that article should be given an exemption, especially when it was important to make it clear to users on the files that should be kept or not. Yes I know that you can't give any exemption but I feel that there should be. And I would appreciate if you had notified me on my talk page first. Optakeover  (Talk)   07:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Philip.Taron.Portrait.in.System.Shock.2.manner.by.KGT.jpg
Yep, this needs to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philip Taron (talk • contribs) 02:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

edit conflict
I'm making my way through image reduce - I upload a reduced image version, then edit the (usually wrong) rationale parameters, AND Non-free reduced. No need to ec me. --Lexein (talk) 01:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Weird example
Photo of sculpture File:Cupid& was currently 5k px wide. I think 600x380 is justifiable, since it renders the ad illegible, but still allows some inspection of the arrow feathers. Discuss? --Lexein (talk) 03:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a smooth, almost featureless sculpture, so high res is not needed at all.
 * There's an ad for Banana Republic clearly visible at high resolution.
 * WP:NFCC tells that you should only use a small part of a non-free work. For a photo of an artwork, this can be interpreted in multiple ways:
 * A photo of an artwork generally shows some nature around the artwork. The parts of the photo which show the nature are fully free, so one interpretation is that the pixels used for the nature are irrelevant: there may be unlimited amounts of pixels of the nature, and only the pixels showing the artwork are relevant. In this case, there are very few pixels showing parts of the artwork. There is an advertisement consisting of a photo of a man and a woman. Is this the Banana Republic advertisement you talked about? The advertisement is clearly irrelevant to the image; it would work just as well without the advertisement. Per Commons:COM:DM, the presence of this advertisement is irrelevant.
 * A non-free image shouldn't be larger than needed for the article. The articles only use ("need") 140x75 pixels, so the rest of the pixels are "unneeded" and should be removed.
 * User:DASHBot resizes images which are larger than 160,000 pixels, so one interpretation is that images larger than that are "too large".
 * I don't know if there's an official policy on which interpretation to use, but this is probably too complex for a user talk page discussion. If there are disagreements, it probably needs to be sorted out in an RfC. In this case, option 1 would allow a lot of pixels, option 3 almost no pixels and option 2 something in between. More importantly:
 * The image fails WP:NFCC in the article Coosje van Bruggen.
 * The image appears to fail WP:NFCC in both articles. The articles need some example(s) of their work, but not necessarily these particular sculptures. Some sculptures are presumably in the public domain (erected in the United States before 1978 without a copyright notice, or before 1964 without a copyright renewal). Also, some sculptures are in countries which provide freedom of panorama. The non-free images in the articles Claes Oldenburg and Coosje van Bruggen can be replaced by photos of PD works and works in countries offering freedom of panorama. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Per NFCC#3b, minimality, I resized per the bot pixel count limit. Per NFCC#10c, I added NFUR for use in Coosje's article, since she's a co-sculptor. Per NFCC#1, this is especially claimed "fair use" for copyrighted artworks in the rationale, for educational use. Should now be in non-free fair use compliance. --Lexein (talk) 13:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:NFCC is still unassessed. The FUR doesn't explain why this wouldn't be replaceable by a different artwork which is either in the public domain because of age or is located in a country which offers freedom of panorama. I'll take some images from those articles to FFD. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That interpretation is, I think, far, far too extreme - this is one of her works, and it is unique. It does not exist in any other country. In this country, its rationale combined with the extended rationale, covers it. Are you concluding that no U.S. copyrighted artworks in public can be shown under fair use in Wikipedia?  "I'll take some images from those articles to FFD" - what, are you angry about this?  Is that the reason for the very long answer to my question from nine days ago? Are you offended? I wish you had been forthcoming with that information, I would never have asked you anything. --Lexein (talk) 14:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The reply took some time because I have been busy (for example with the things indicated at the top of the page). There is no justification as to why this particular image has to be used. If any other image serves the same purpose, and is freely licensed, then that image should be used instead. In this case, the image is replaceable by images taken in Germany, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. Besides, the image fails WP:NFG. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Other stuff exists: it's good to be busy. I replied promptly to each of your points, and made unappreciated improvements to do so. For you to say "No justification" is blankly dismissive of a valid justification offered. Excluding all U.S.-located works from two prominent, notable artists' articles is not an appropriate action to take at Wikipedia, and smacks of bias. It would be helpful if you would take a step back from this, especially since you have chosen not to deny that you're actually angry about this. I plan to resist the rampant removal of validly "fair use" and irreplaceable rationalized images, because I support compliance with U.S. law, and the WMF's advice, and Wikipedia's implementation of policy and guideline to that effect. Your plan to delete valid fair-use content does not.
 * In this particular discussion, I sense that you have leaned back and crossed your arms in terms of contributing, but have leaned forward to push a point. I didn't really notice the NFG issue, but I see you not offering to fix it by editing the article. Take a wikibreak. And stop talkbacking me. I use watchlists. --Lexein (talk) 14:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, WP:NFCC is fairly simple: if there is a different work which is freely licensed, then that work should be used instead. In some cases, it means that works from one country are usable while works from other works aren't usable. Compare with the articles Elizabeth II, Kim Jong-il and The Beatles which have works from the United States and Russia in the infobox since those countries have more permissive copyright rules. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Please restore picture
Hey Stefan2, Please restore my image that I uploaded on Ischiopagus article page. I am new to wikipedia and am doing this project under the supervision of Dr. Susan Chapman at Clemson University. The picture you deleted (File:Ischiopagus Tripus conjoined twins.jpg) was taken from the source Khan YA. Ischiopagus tripus conjoined twins. APSP J Case Rep 2011; 2:5 and upon the article the copyright lisence said and I quote, " Copyright © 2011 Khan YA. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited." If you deleted it because you thought it was disputed could you tell me how to properly site it, because I put in all the information I thought I needed to site it. I will also list the URL of the website I got it from. Website where I found the article: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3418005/ Website where article is originally found: http://www.apspjcaserep.com/documents/2011-2/html/ajcr-2011-2-4.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawojacobs (talk • contribs) 02:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The page was reported as possibly unfree at Possibly unfree files/2012 October 24. The discussion received no further comments, so the file was deleted after a week. This page mentions Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (not Creative Commons Attribution as you wrote). I don't know if that link was available on the file information page when the file was nominated as possibly unfree or if I overlooked the link. The text in the article seems to be available under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike, but are you sure that the photos were taken by the same people as the ones who wrote the article? The copyright laws of many countries allow you to use copyrighted works as fair use for the purpose of scientific research, and this document is clearly scientific research, so the images would probably be permitted in the article even if they weren't taken by the authors. It says that the twins "were brought to our hospital", but the photos may have been taken by someone else at the hospital. Also, in some countries (such as the United States and the United Kingdom), the copyright to a photo taken as part of your work belongs to your employer. In other countries (such as Sweden and Germany), the copyright to a photo taken as part of your work belongs to the photographer. The photos appear to have been taken in Pakistan, and I don't know what the copyright law of Pakistan says about works for hire, but even if the photos were taken by the article authors, there's a possibility that the copyright holders are not the photographers as the photos presumably are works for hire. The authors are only allowed to publish a work under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike licence if they themselves are the copyright holders. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The PDF of the article from the original journal's website specifically states a CC Attribution 3.0 Unported - CC-BY 3.0 - license for reuse. There is no separate statement about the images which would be required if they had any different license.  There is thus good faith assumption that the images are under the CC-BY 3.0 license as well.  --M ASEM  (t) 13:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Deborah-raffin.jpg
Dear Stefan,

If you think this non-free image is OK and the rationale is OK, then please ignore my message. I was just checking an article on this recently deceased person and noticed the image resolution is a bit high. But if you can reduce the image resolution...then feel free to go ahead. I'm afraid I don't contribute much on wikipedia right now--mostly to Wikicommons--but thanks for your response to my question to MGA73's talkpage there on a certain image. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Formalities: I don't agree that the image is a unique historic image. For example, ru:Файл:Deborah Raffin.jpg has a different image in the history. However, I'm not sure what copyright tag to use instead.
 * Other things:
 * Non-free images are not allowed if free replacements exist or can be created. The person is dead, so it is assumed that free replacements can't be created. If someone is able to prove that a free replacement exists, the image would normally be deleted per WP:NFCC. Until such proof has been provided, the article would normally be allowed to have a non-free photo of her.
 * It is not clear when or why the photo was taken. If it was taken by an image agency, such as Getty Images, it would normally be deleted per WP:NFCC. I did a Google search, but couldn't find any clarification on who the photographer might be. Since it doesn't seem to be used in hundreds of newspaper articles, I would assume that WP:NFCC isn't a problem.
 * The image resolution is indeed way too high, so I've tagged the image for reduction, and it is now listed together with 833 other images in Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * OK. Thanks for your response here on the image. I saw an LA Times article on her, I believe. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Adminship at wts.wikivoyage
http://wts.wikivoyage-old.org/wiki/Wikivoyage:Pub_(temporary_refuge)#Admin_access_for_several_trusted_users_from_other_projects. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Files that needs to be fixed
Hi.


 * File:Makatisscrapersnight.jpg
 * File:Monastiri kipoi.jpg
 * File:Nelsondockyard.JPG
 * File:Paros-Church.jpg
 * File:Rigachurches.jpg
 * File:Arsip1.jpg

Should have been copied from here instead of from shared. I fixed some but now the toolserver seems to be down.

Can you fix them or do you also get an error message? --MGA73 (talk) 09:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you. :-) We should perhaps tag the files with an ignore on WTS and Shared if they are supposed to be copied from somewhere else. That way we should avoid to move files by a mistake. --MGA73 (talk) 09:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. I've tagged files on WTS with ignore in a few cases if they should be copied from English Wikivoyage instead. We should definitely do the same with Wikipedia files. But maybe your bot can try to skip files mentioning "Wikipedia", "Commons" or "Flickr" by default? This would skip files mentioning "Creative Commons", but they could be copied during a second run when it has been confirmed that there are no dupes left.
 * I've checked almost all files on Shared mentioning "Wikipedia", "Commons" or "Flickr", but I still have to check the ones with file names starting with S or T. After that, I'll continue with checking files on language versions. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Problems with Touchdown (Beyoncé Knowles album) and user:Milkstracciacow
I have nominated this page for speedy delation since it is not verifiable and it appears to be a hoax. I noticed on the user talk page for Milkstracciacow that in October, you recommended a page with the same name for deletion. The current page shows that it was created December 7, 2012, so I believe that the page you commented on was deleted, and the current page is a re-creation by the same user, intended to get around the earlier deletion of the page. I note on Milkstracciacow's talk page at User talk:Milkastracciacow that this user has other speedy deletion notes, as well as an editing ban in August. I'm not sure how to start such a thing, but perhaps this user needs to be investigated if they are consistently disrupted. If there is anything else I should do, I would appreciate your advice. Thank you. Gsshatan (talk) 19:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You can find some information [ in the log]. It says that the article was deleted on 25 October for this reason: "Expired PROD, concern was: The article lacks contents. No text, no sources, nothing. Image just deleted on Commons as a copyright violation." If I remember correctly, I was looking at some image category at Commons and found a cover image for this album. Album covers are almost never permitted on Commons, so if I find any, I immediately tag them as copyright violations. You can see that the uploader was notified because of this at his Commons talk page. For some reason, I also looked at the article where the image was used, and found that there was essentially no information there: the album cover image was essentially the only contents. Empty articles are useless and besides it's not possible to tell whether the article meets the Wikipedia notability policy, so I nominated the page for deletion through the proposed deletion process, and the article was subsequently deleted because of this. I didn't check whether the album exists or not, but there was definitely a cover image in the article. I can't remember what the cover image looked like or whether it might have been a fake cover. The article is currently unreferenced and isn't mentioned in the discography at Beyoncé Knowles discography which suggests that something might not be correct, but I'm no expert on the subject.
 * I'm more into image issues and not much into disputes or hoax articles, so I'm not sure exactly how the process works. If I notice disruptive behaviour, I usually locate a suitable template from Category:Standardised user warning templates and place it at the user's talk page. If a user gets too many template notifications in too short time, the idea is that the user should be blocked. For example, if you look at the section from August, you can see that the user got a few templates and that he was later blocked for a period of 31 hours. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. I put a notification on the user's talk page with an appropriate notification.  It looks like the album page has now been deleted. -- Gsshatan (talk) 16:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review/Log/2012 November 25
I disagree with your assessment about the image. Nevertheless, for your benefit, I added an image of David Hyde Pierce in Brother from Another Series. When you see an image, Cecil is drawn to resemble Sideshow Bob. Also, this image is of an episode. --George Ho (talk) 03:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Jason Quinn (talk) 03:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Peetambar flower which was uploaded by me
I uploaded this file at picasa before wikipedia. I have lots of file uploaded on net in various places. First upload on wiki It is not necessary. Tell me which evidence you want about my image of peetambar flower File:Peetambar heavenly flower.jpg. while a user User:Katimawan2005 stolen my image and uploaded on wikipedia File:Peetambar heavenly flower.jpg. What are you about this type of copyright violation on wikipedia. check it * Krishna Kumar Mishra (talk) 08:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi! If a file appeared outside Wikipedia before it appeared on Wikipedia, then you need to provide evidence of ownership by contacting OTRS. See WP:IOWN for details. Alternatively, if the Picasa account belongs to you, then you could change to a free licence on Picasa. Currently, it seems that the file on Picasa is available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 3.0 licence, which is not accepted by Wikipedia, see db-f3. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok you have deleted my file next time I will think thousands of time before uploading image on wikipedia. why you do not delete the my image which is uploaded by User:Katimawan2005 * It is copyright violation. I will complaint to Wikipedia and serve a notice of copyright infringement by wiki user. Krishna Kumar Mishra (talk) 08:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That is an image on Kapampangan Wikipedia. I don't know how the deletion process works on that project, so I don't know how to nominate files for deletion there. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Logo upload
I revised the licensing info per your comment for the logo upload: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_upload#EdgeCast_Networks_logo.png

Not sure what the next steps are.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbkavh (talk • contribs) 12:12, 21 December 2012‎

Season's tidings!
To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for catching my misspelling on the Theater for a New City image, and correcting it. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, it was someone else who found it: --Stefan2 (talk) 00:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Got it. If I had seen that before you did I would have fixed it myself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Churchill College coat of arms
Hi,

You have twice reverted my attempts to display the Churchill College coat of arms in Template:User Churchillian, on the basis that File:Churchill College Crest - flat.png is non-free. I understand that now, and thank you for drawing it to my attention.

Do you know if I would be allowed to create and upload a similar-looking graphic under a free license and link to that? Or, would the fact that it "looks like" a proprietary logo prohibit that? Would the College itself have to release the graphic under a free license, so as to remove any proprietary taint?

Apologies for asking, but I don't know copyright law, or Wikipedia policy on UK vs. US laws, etc., well enough to find the answer easily myself. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

South Carolina Supreme Court Seal
I am aware that the image is not in article space yet. If you looked at the rationale, it clearly shows that it is being used to create an article in userspace, which will then be moved to article space.

I've created quite a few court case articles, with one FA, one A-class, and several GA class. I know the process for creating articles and for image use. While you are certainly free to continue with the deletion action, all it will do is create extra work for me, as I will have to re-upload the seal image after the article has been moved to article space.

I would appreciate it if you would consider withdrawing the deletion template until I get the article completed. Regards, GregJackP   Boomer!   18:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the rule is simple: the logo may not be used outside article space and must be used somewhere. It fails WP:NFCC in articles about individual court cases anyway. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Source
How can I add source for the uploaded image? -- SMS <span style="color:#FFA500	;">Let's talk   14:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I see that you have now indicated who the photographer is. That is all which was needed. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you -- SMS <span style="color:#FFA500	;">Let's talk   14:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

License Plate Images
I don't know which copyright tag to use for license plate images. These are images of license plates I scanned or took photos of. Would you be able to help me find the right tag? –BuickCenturyDriver 15:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The copyright to the licence plates belongs to the one who made the plates (either New York (state) or New York, New York). I don't think that the files would meet the non-free content criteria, so if you want the images to stay, then I think that you need to obtain permission from the one who made the plates. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If that's the case then all license plate images would have to be taken off. Isn't there a tag for non-free images such as license plates?  –BuickCenturyDriver 12:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Many of the licence plates are in the public domain because they were "published" on cars without a copyright notice before 1 March 1989. See PD-US-no notice and PD-US-1989. Since 1 March 1989, no copyright notice is needed, so more recent licence plates are protected by copyright for 95 years.
 * Many of the licence plates are in the public domain because they are too simple to be protected by copyright. For example, File:New York 1962 Sample.jpg just has some simple text in a standard font and is for that reason too simple to be protected by copyright. You can compare with the examples at Commons:COM:TOO.
 * These licence plates seem to be recent and there is complex art on them, so they are clearly protected by copyright. They also violate the non-free content criteria, and in particular WP:NFCC, WP:NFCC and WP:NFG. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

No-FoP situations for buildings issue
Hi, A month ago you said at my commons discussion(http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2012/12#A_Opposition_of_attempt_to_strengthen_Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people_enforcement), "English Wikipedia may choose to host images which aren't acceptable on Commons and still refer to the images as "free". For example, English Wikipedia has templates such as en:Template:PD-US-1923-abroad, en:Template:PD-ineligible-USonly and en:Template:FoP-USonly which are used for images which are very often not acceptable on Commons." If Template:FoP-USonly is a vaild license tag, Could we suggest image uploaders upload no-FoP building photos to English Wikipedia instead? also I think our Fair use policy page and file upload wizard page need to clearly state about No-FoP situations for buildings, but those pages do currently not. (see the first statement of WP:NFC.) --Puramyun31 (talk) 13:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There is WP:NOTIMAGE which says that Wikipedia isn't an image repository, so people may object if you upload lots of unused images to Wikipedia. If the images are needed for Wikipedia articles, then yes, uploading them here is probably the best thing you can do (unless you can get OTRS permission from the architect). Wikipedias in other languages might also accept the images, especially if they are in use there. Also, note that there are some cases where statues may be uploaded to Wikipedia although they aren't allowed on Commons. For example, File:The Little Mermaid statue.jpg was erected in 1913 (before 1923), so it can be uploaded here despite not being in the public domain in the source country. I'm not sure exactly how the upload wizard works, but the one on this project was mainly written by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, so I suggest that you ask him about any changes to the upload wizard. If you mean the upload wizard on Commons, then I'm not sure where to ask. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help. however, as I know the objection of unused images only applies to fair use images (WP:NFCC), am I wrong? does the objection apply to any kind of images uploaded to Wikipedia? --Puramyun31 (talk) 14:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:NFCC only applies to non-free files (and non-free files are automatically tagged for deletion by a bot if they are unused), but if you upload lots of unused images, then you would probably get complaints per WP:NOTIMAGE. If the images can't be on Commons, it may be better to upload them to Flickr or some other website instead. Lack of freedom of panorama is no fun, but what can you do when you have court rulings like this or this? In the first case, architect Cini Boeri received 6000 euros in compensation for copyright violations of a house in Sardinia, and in the second case, architect Min Kyu-am received 10,000,000 won in compensation for copyright violations of a house in Kyŏnggi. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * At international point of view, You're right. but here is the English Wikipedia which primarily follows US FoP standard like other US copyright rules such as Template:PD-US-1923-abroad, Template:PD-ineligible-USonly (as you mentioned at commons discussion), and WP:Fair use. So I think that although there are restrictions like WP:NOTIMAGE, it's OK to upload (without mass uploading of unused images) and use FoP-USonly images If they are allowed here at least for useful encyclopedic purposes. If you think that Commons and English Wikipedia should follow same copyright rules (uploaded files must be free in the source country and US) together, then I'm not sure what to answer. Puramyun31 (talk) 11:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Just leave it at this point
Hey, Stefan, the IP has stopped reposting the copyvio (in favor of whinging on Jimbo's talk page), so at this point, we can probably just leave them where they are, without a need for revdel. No need to get into an edit war with a bot over it. :) Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the historical versions of the page still violate copyright, so they need to be deleted per WP:RD1. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's an option to revdel them, but it's not actually required. As long as the copyvio isn't in the current version of the page, it's okay.  Revdel is useful if someone keeps restoring the copyvio, but since the IP stopped, it's not a big deal, and doesn't require revdel. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 15:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

wiki page Dimal
Hi Stefan

I got a notice that 2 pictures that I uploaded at wiki page Dimal has no copyrights

As I Told before the pictures were giving to me personally by the photographers

What should be done so the pics stay at wiki page (maybe they can send an email ? but what should they write in it ?) ? Thanks a lot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Promogang (talk • contribs) 16:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The photographers need to follow the instructions at WP:CONSENT. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Again Stefan

Ok 1 email from 1 photographer was sent just now ... can you check it in any way ? thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Promogang (talk • contribs) 21:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Only OTRS members can read the e-mail, and I am not an OTRS member. Just make sure that both photographers send in an e-mail and then someone will take care of it eventually. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

OK THEY SENT IT. NOW UNDER THE WARNING SIGN ITS WRITTEN THE PERMISSIONS FROM BOTH OF THEM BUT WHEN THE WARNING SIGN WILL DISSAPEAR ? THANKS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Promogang (talk • contribs) 20:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * One of the e-mails seems to have been read by an OTRS member, so that image is fine. Let's just wait until someone reads the second e-mail. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi again Stefan, so 1 pic was confirmed what is going on with 2nd pic ? whats has to be done now ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Promogang (talk • contribs) 22:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As I wrote, you have to wait until someone reads the e-mail. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Justin Bryant's photo...
Hi Stefan, Regarding the message you sent me about the file File:Justin Bryant in 1995.jpg - the photo came from Justin Bryant's blog, and his blog has a notice stating all images of him are fair use. The link is http://blamethekeeper.blogspot.com/p/about.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cadebryant (talk • contribs) 17:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Stefan, Regarding the message you sent me about the file File:Justin Bryant in 1995.jpg - the photo came from Justin Bryant's blog, and his blog has a notice stating all images of him are fair use. The link is http://blamethekeeper.blogspot.com/p/about.html

Sincerely, Cade Bryant — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cadebryant (talk • contribs) 17:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, so it is not in the public domain as you stated but fair use. Wikipedia normally doesn't allow fair use photos of people who are still alive (see WP:NFC §1), so I have tagged this as replaceable fair use, meaning that it will usually be deleted after two days. Additionally, it is up for deletion because there is no fair use rationale. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
IanMurrayWeb (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Missions prohibited sign.jpg
Hello Stefan, My friend Peter Duffy and I were "tour NCOs" with BRIXMIS way back in 1958-9, which – as you can no doubt calculate – means that we are no longer in the flush of youth. I do nevertheless manage to make contributions (mainly textual) to Wikipedia from time to time. In the course of updating and expanding the entry for BRIXMIS I added an image of the flash I had worn on my uniform at the time and mentioned to Peter what I had been doing. He told me that he had two souvenirs of BRIXMIS in his possession – a "Missions Prohibited" sign and a number plate – and asked if I would like pictures of them for the article, to which of course I answered yes. He therefore took photos of them and emailed them to me. After tidying them up a bit, I filed them with Wikipedia and used them both in the article. Neither of us is remotely interested in what use is made of them by anyone else. I think they improve it greatly, but if you want to delete them go right ahead. We have tried to help, but cannot really at our time of life be bothered with the complications of the licensing required for us to do so. I am certainly not about to ask him to email <permissions-en@wikimedia.org> after he has, despite a very dodgy hip, risked life and limb taking a photo of items apparently fixed on top of a 7ft bookcase! Peter Farey (talk) 13:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Without evidence of permission from the one who created the sign, this image will most likely be deleted. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The sign was created by some anonymous signwriter working for the Soviet Army in East Germany during the Cold War. Any suggestion as to just how one might obtain evidence of their permission will be gratefully received! Peter Farey (talk) 06:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If the photo was taken in East Germany, then it should be fine per Commons:Template:FoP-Germany. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No Stefan, as I thought I had explained above, the sign was created for the Soviet Army in East Germany some time in the 1950s. There were hundreds of such signs, some of which were removed as souvenirs, as the BRIXMIS article says. My friend, and former fellow-member of BRIXMIS, has one of them, and photographed the one in his possession specifically for use in the relevant Wikipedia article(s). This photo, slightly amended by me, is the one now appearing in the Military liaison missions and BRIXMIS articles. There is therefore no reason whatsoever for fearing that anybody will pop up claiming that there has been an infringement of their copyright. So what is the problem? Peter Farey (talk) 15:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Fair Use - WP:NFC#UUI §1.
Thanks, Stefan, for taking the time to deal with this. In fairness, WP:NFC#UUI §1 does state that it is "almost always" possible to replace the photo of a living person. In the interest of presenting a professional image that accurately reflects the content of the article, I believe that this photo is not currently replaceable and, under current circumstances, falls under the exceptions implied by the phase "almost always."

Is there an easy way to resolve this without removing the photo or unnecessarily taking more of your time with this issue?

Best, Harlan Hjb (talk) 19:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not allowed to use non-free images on user pages, so I converted the image above into a link. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Beyond My Ken! I tried follow the format of previous messages, but was unaware of this distinction/restriction.

Hjb (talk) 22:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Photos of living people are only considered as irreplaceable at very few occasions, usually if the person has gone missing or is in prison. People who are neither missing nor in prison do not get an image in their articles until a free one has been taken. For example, you might notice that the article Kim Jong-un currently is missing an image for the simple reason that no one has taken a free photo yet. All you need to do here is to take a photo of the person and license it under a free licence. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks Stefan. Final question: If I cannot produce a suitable replacement and I am willing to relinquish all control over the use of the image (which I believe means non-commercial *and* commercial use), can I change the terms of the license to "free"?

Hjb (talk) 02:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Only the photographer can relinquish all control over the use of the image. If you are the photographer, then see WP:CONSENT for instructions. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If they are the photographer and copyright holder, then they must release the image under a free license or we can't use it. See the first sentence of Image use policy. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Album art
Don't tell me you're going to delete certain images on Rio (film), now... Am I going to regret bringing that to your attention? >:( dogman15 (talk) 09:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Stefan2 (talk) 14:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep. I regret doing that. >:( Not too happy right now.... dogman15 (talk) 19:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Ahmad Rida.jpg
Hello,

The image was taken around 1920, when the subject of the image was in his late 40s. The image is used is many books and webpages about the subject, and the image itself is taken from a book cover. I suppose, and those who have been using the image have, that the copyright for this image has long expired.

Kindly advise as to how we can use this photograph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LebanonHistorian (talk • contribs) 13:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You have not provided enough information in order to determine the copyright status of the image. Who was the photographer? When did the photographer die? In which country was the photo first published? In which year was it first published? Without knowing the answer to those questions, the copyright status of the image can't be determined. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Image Help
I would like to upload a self portrait to David Gommon (English painter) wiki page. the image is a photograph of a self portrait. the self portrait or photograph have never currently been published and was sent to me directly, via email, by the artist son Peter Gommon with the wish of the image being placed on his Wikipedia page... as the image does not currently have any copyright attached to it and i have permission from the owner can you advice the correct licence for this to be uploaded?.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gommoart (talk • contribs) 2013-01-25T13:32:14‎
 * The licence you have chosen can only be used for paintings which have been published before 1923. There is no evidence that the painting was published before 1923, let alone painted before 1923. Unless you can show that the painting was published before 1923, you need to ask the copyright holder to send an e-mail to OTRS. See WP:CONSENT for instructions. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you kindly i'll forward the owner the link and get it sent over asap! cheers for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gommoart (talk • contribs) 16:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Stefan, thank you very much for your help with the David gommon image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:David_Gommon.jpg we now have the permissions etc in place. kind regards --Gommoart (talk) 12:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Viscount Soulbury
OK now? Kittybrewster <font color="0000FF">&#9742;  15:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If you mean File:Herwald Ramsbotham, 1st Viscount Soulbury.jpg and File:James Ramsbotham, 2nd Viscount Soulbury.jpg, then there will be someone reading the e-mail who can determine if it is OK or not. Until then, all we can do is to wait. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

hii
what is reason for deletion nomination of   Perumalism   Chat  04:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You can find the reason for the nomination by clicking on the link to the discussion in the deletion template. I have removed the image from this page since you aren't allowed to use non-free files on talk pages. See WP:NFCC. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Getting permission from deceased person!
Hi Stefan

File:Ivor and Janet Beddoes dancing.jpg

This image of my parents was taken by a family member in 1935 and was left to me on their death and therefore I have no written permission to use it.

On receiving your information I immediately sent a request for help to the media copyright questions page but so far haven't had any feedback. As time is running out do you have any ideas?

(Julia Dunn (talk) 16:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC))
 * The photographer should send permission to OTRS according to the instructions at WP:CONSENT. If the photographer is dead, the permission should come from the photographer's heirs. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Better source request for File:Jack Finch bluebird benefactor.png
✅ Done and many thanks for explaining clearly the what and why of the problem. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 22:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Omgpop - January 2013 Homepage.png
I reverted your tagging here - there's no hard-and-fast rule about the size of copyrighted screen-shots (that I can see anyways, happy to be proven wrong) and this is hardly large. I did actually try it with 500px on the largest edge and nothing was legible. <font color="MidnightBlue">Nik <font color="CornflowerBlue">the <font color="ForestGreen">stunned  15:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I restored that tag. See Category:Rescaled fairuse files more than 7 days old: "The largest dimension should be at most around 300–400px." The largest dimension is currently more than twice as big. Also, the purpose of the image is to display a 270x135 pixel image in an infobox. If you can't read the text in the infobox, then it is clear that the purpose of the image isn't to provide readable text. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I'll trust the Wikipedia content guideline more than some random intro text to a category. From the guideline, you will see it simply states "At the low pixel count ... no more than about 100,000 pixels (0.1 megapixels)" and "At the extreme high end of the range, non-free images where one dimension exceeds 1,000 pixels, or where the pixel count approaches 1 megapixel, will very likely require a close review". I will allow that the current size of approx 0.3MP is above the "low pixel count" indicator, but then it's a "low" count - surely some are larger? A 500 x 500 album cover wouldn't be reduced and that's 0.25MP. Fair point re: the infobox usage though, I'll agree my above statement is stupid on that point, but I still maintain your tagging is incorrect (feel free to update the policy first, I'm re-reverting you). Cheers, <font color="MidnightBlue">Nik <font color="CornflowerBlue">the <font color="ForestGreen">stunned  16:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 500x500 album covers are reduced all of the time (usually to 300x300). There is no explanation in the fair use rationale as to why it would be necessary to have so many pixels when they obviously aren't needed in the article since you can't see them there. Compare with the size changes for the files in Category:Rescaled fairuse files more than 7 days old. For example, File:Windows 3.1 (customized colour scheme).png changed from 640 × 481 to 374 × 281, and File:WWFRAW.png (video game advertisement - I couldn't find any album covers) was reduced from 320 × 498 to 260 × 405. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, reduced as this is silly. But I do think it was a waste of your time - no guideline says it should have been reduced and no one's getting harmed with it being 800 × 400... =/ <font color="MidnightBlue">Nik <font color="CornflowerBlue">the <font color="ForestGreen">stunned  19:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

File:VictoriaLeighSoto.jpg
Hello Stefan2 I noticed you added a second tag for a smaller image size so i ask you whats the Common image size that will comply with non-free-media? thanks --Fox2k11 (talk) 00:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Nevermind I saw the above section and reduced the image to 400x300 since the infobox image is also smaller! --Fox2k11 (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Copying files to commons without attribution
Hi. As I just wrote on commons, you copied the flickr file I uploaded today on en.wikipedia.org File:23&25-Brook-Street-London.jpg onto commons, copy-pasting my detailed description without attribution. You did that within a few hours of me finding and uploading the file. Please do not copy files over again without attributing who found them on flickr and provided a description. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 14:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please can you correct what shows up here: File:Beatrix-de-Provence-Millin-1808.jpeg. I have no idea what happens to images of books taken at an angle on wikipedia. I'd just ask you, as I have done in the past, to slow down on going through my contributions. Mathsci (talk) 15:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What is the error? The current revision of File:Beatrix-de-Provence-Millin-1808.jpeg is available on Commons under the same name and with the same description. The old revision of File:Beatrix-de-Provence-Millin-1808.jpeg is available on Commons as File:Berenguer-IV-Millin-1808.jpeg with a different description. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

File:DistrictBuilder Screenshot.jpg
The image File:DistrictBuilder Screenshot.jpg sir is a screenshot of an open-source software. According to the license from Commons, "This screenshot is of a program that has been released under a free software license. As a derivative work of that program, this screenshot falls under the same license."

So even if it was a work of a US University, the image is free. I think I may have mistakenly used a non-free template over a free template. I just couldn't find a one. And the image is licensed as free.-- A R E N Z O Y 1 6 A • t a l k  • 15:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Canadian Ramped Cargo Lighter.jpg‎
I saw you changed the license, I was not aware about the public domain situation in Canada, would you like me to re-upload it under the correct license?-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 23:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it seems that I somehow forgot to reply to this.
 * The photo is in the public domain in Canada because all photos taken before 1949 are in the public domain in Canada. Such photos were protected for at most 50 years after they were taken.
 * There are different copyright rules in the United States. If the author submitted a copyright renewal to the US authorities, then the photo is protected for 95 years since publication. If not, then the copyright expired 28 years after the book was published. I can't find any renewal for this particular book, but I saw that other books by the same author have had their copyrights renewed in the United States, so it is a bit scary: I might have missed a renewal somewhere. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

File:BPL 2013 Logo.jpg
Hi,

I don't want to go to an edit war with you. However the image is in used in the article 2013 Bangladesh Premier League, for which I added the image to Wikipedia.

Thanks!

Ahnaaf (talk) 04:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * No. That article uses a different image. There is a JPG file, File:BPL 2013 Logo.jpg, which is unused, and there is a PNG file, File:Bangladesh Premier League 2013 logo.png, which is in use. It might be a bit confusing since the two images are so similar. It is preferred to store logos in PNG format because of problems with JPEG compression for this kind of images. Besides, PNG support image transparency whereas JPG does not. See BadJPG and Opaque. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * My apologies and I stand corrected.--Ahnaaf (talk) 16:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

OTRS
OTRS is badly backlogged. Have you ever considered becoming an OTRS volunteer? You seem extremely knowledgeable about image issues, which is useful for permissions processing.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  15:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late reply. I've been a bit busy during the past few days, and I've been thinking a bit about this. It would probably be interesting, but I also think that it would be a bit scary to deal with confidential information, and I'm not sure if I would have time for more tasks than I'm already doing. On the other hand, it would help when people ask me about a "no permission" tag and want to know if what they have done is enough. I'll have to think about this a bit more first. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks a lot for checking on my last uploaded image! I followed your instructions and I hope it's ok now, please let me know if I need to delete the old version or maybe you can do this yourself? Vintagenie (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are talking about File:AramOfTheTwoRivers JonasHellborg AlbumCover.jpg, then it looks OK now. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

File:José Maria Nicolau.jpg
Hello. I've added the file to S.L. Benfica and I'm thinking of adding it to Nicolau article which is to be created later. Please remove the 'orphaned' state from the file. BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk) 17:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Now up for deletion at Files for deletion/2013 January 31 instead since it violates the non-free content criteria. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * First it wasn't up for deletion because it wasn't added to any article and now it is because I altered the image or because you consider that is not fair use? BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk) 18:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Ahmad Rida.jpg
Hello,

The file visibly dates from the early 1920s, when the subject was in his late 40s or early 50s (though I acknowledge that the white beard makes him look older). This photo, or variations of it, has been reproduced in several books and websites and nowhere is there any information on the copyright of this photo, so it is impossible to get any information on this subject.

This here is a photo taken later, where you can see that the subject of the photo has aged. One can compare it to the one I posted where he is visibly younger. http://ajdadalarab.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/d8a7d984d8b4d98ad8ae-d8a3d8add985d8af-d8b1d8b6d8a7-1872-1953.jpg

Surely there must be a way for the photo to be accepted here for documental purposes.

Thank you, LebanonHistorian (talk) 14:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It says that the photo is in the public domain because it was published before 1923. However, you have not presented any evidence that the photo was published before 1923. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Adding a photo that won't be deleted
Can you help me add a photo that won't be deleted? I've found what looks like an old publicity photo from his record label- wouldn't using that constitute 'fair use'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donald Andrew Agarrat (talk • contribs) 15:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Who is the person on the photo? When was it taken and when and where was it first published? Where and why should the image be used? --Stefan2 (talk) 16:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The person in the photo is Leroy "Sugarfoot" Bonner, frontman of Ohio Players. One of the architects of funk music, he recently passed away on January 26, 2013.  There was no specific article for him, so I created one.  This is a promotional photo - record companies give them out freely to press and media outlets for publicity - they don't publish these photos themselves.  I plan to use this photo only on the page I created because it shows him doing what made him famous - playing doubleneck guitar for the Ohio Players. -- Donald Andrew Agarrat (talk) 18:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I see that someone has uploaded the image now, so it is currently up for deletion at Possibly unfree files/2013 February 5. Sorry for the late reply; I've been busy during the past few days. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly how is that supposed to help me? That's the reason I added this section in the first place. -- Donald Andrew Agarrat (talk) 15:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Velology
Use of non-free media review suggested. :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Argh! This looks complex. First of all, all markers made in 1962 or earlier are in the public domain as PD-UKGov.
 * Things like File:Tax Disc (1987).jpg are clearly post-1962, but appear in a section called "1961 series". This suggests that the same layout was used since 1961 and that only changes were the choice of colours on the markers. I'd say that choosing to replace one colour with another colour is ineligible for copyright in the United States, so PD-UKGov+PD-ineligible-USonly might work. I'm not convinced that any of the images are protected by copyright in the United States. However, it may be better to discuss the matter somewhere else first. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Help needed
Hi, I just saw you added a tag to a logo which I uploaded. I'm having a bit of a problem. I want to delete the previous version and use the new one but I don't know how to do it. I have tried but couldn't find the solution. Can you help me? Looking forward to your response. Thanks. -- <font color="#B40404">Inland <font color="#088A08">mamba (fruitful thought) 16:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It says that the file has been deleted. Is there anything else which needs to be done? --Stefan2 (talk) 14:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey, actually when you didn't reply, I tagged it for deletion. The newer version didn't come up so I uploaded a new one separately. Thank you for taking a look at it. -- <font color="#B40404">Inland <font color="#088A08">mamba (fruitful thought) 07:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I was away during the weekend and didn't have the time to reply before I left on Friday. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Question by
Hi Stefan,

I apologize if this is not the appropriate place to contact you, but it's the only one I know about. I don't understand how to deal with copyright issues regarding a photo for the Jeff Antoniuk article. It's a copyrighted picture, but Jeff Antoniuk owns the copyright and approves its use there. How do I document that? Thanks.

Glenn (killersax) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Killersax (talk • contribs) 2013-02-08T15:49:36‎

Non-free images of living people
Hello, Stefan2.

One question: Which rules say that non-free images of living people are acceptable (under fair use) if their whereabouts are unknown or if they are imprisoned? I'm having some trouble keeping photos of imprisoned/fugitive drug lords. Thank you. ComputerJA (talk) 21:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've checked WP:NFC, and the only rule I can find is WP:NFC §1, which contains this text:

Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image.
 * The wording "almost always possible" implies that there are exceptions, i.e. that there are cases when a new photo can't be taken. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any note on when it would be considered impossible to take new photos.
 * I remember seeing non-free photos of building being closed as keep at FFD if access to the building is restricted to the military, and photos of people who are in prison are typically kept. Unfortunately, I'm having trouble finding any relevant deletion discussions.
 * There is Files for deletion/2012 May 9 where a photo of Anders Behring Breivik was deleted (because of an exceptional exemption to the usual ban on photography in Norwegian courts), and the request specifically discusses the rules for photography in the court, as opposed to simply declaring that Anders Behring Breivik is alive, and the file had already been there for some time before being nominated for deletion. I think that there was some earlier discussion about a photo of Anders Behring Breivik where an image was kept because he was in prison, but I can't find it.
 * There are multiple discussions about non-free images for Kim Jong-un, and the archives to the talk page contains some notes on when non-free images typically are allowed. For example, see Talk:Kim Jong-un/Archive 2: "We do make exceptions from time to time to allow non-free images when a person is imprisoned for life, on the run from the law, or a noted (by secondary sources) recluse." There are similar statements elsewhere in the talk archives for Kim Jong-un.
 * I assume that you mean the files in Category:Replaceable non-free use to be decided after 9 February 2013. I haven't checked all of them, but some of them seem to fit the exceptions listed on Kim Jong-un's talk page. For example:
 * File:Alberto-Espinoza-Barron.jpg: It says that he is "imprisoned at a maximum security prison". I would assume that the only way of meeting the guy would be to commit some very serious crime yourself and then have the "luck" of being imprisoned at the same prison, but even then, you would not be allowed to bring a camera to take a photo of him, or access the Internet to upload a photo of the man. Assuming that the claim about his imprisonment is correct, I would assume that the photo is irreplaceable. It seems to fit the exception about imprisoned people.
 * File:Gustavogonzalezcastro.jpg: It says that he is wanted by the police in both the United States and Mexico. Assuming that he is in either country (as opposed to living a normal life in a third country where the authorities don't want him arrested), I would assume that the image is irreplaceable. The US and Mexican police want to find him, but they have not yet succeeded in finding him. If the police can't find him, then I'm not sure how a mere Wikipedia photographer would be able to find him. It seems to fit the exception about people on the run from the law. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your thorough response. ComputerJA (talk) 18:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Regarding speedy deletion of an image
Hello, I'm new at this so please bear with me. I uploaded the image File:A screenshot of the options available in the Find My iPhone app.jpg today and it was nominated by you for speedy deletion, citing a duplicate. I have no idea how to find the original. If you could point me in the right direction that would be much appreciated. Giantdeathrobot (talk) 00:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The image is here: File:Find My iPhone application screenshot.jpg. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It occurs to me that I may have uploaded the wrong screenshot. Would there be any problem with using this one, from the info site for the app? http://a795.phobos.apple.com/us/r1000/077/Purple/v4/40/62/cd/4062cdad-1017-9963-ebef-ccf9029e591e/mzl.dpsahywl.320x480-75.jpg Giantdeathrobot (talk) 00:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know if one of the images would be superior to the other one. Either one is probably fine. However, I don't think that WP:NFCC would allow both of them. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I ended up just going with the existing image. Should be sufficient. Thanks for the guidance. Giantdeathrobot (talk) 02:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Cary Brothers' Under Control (album)
I see that you proposed the deletion of Cary Brothers' Under Control (album) article because there was no evidence that it was a notable album. I got the message late and the article was already deleted. I don't understand why his second album wouldn't be a notable album, when his first album is fine. Maybe there wasn't enough info there in my album article, I can see that. I would like the chance to redo that article again. The strange thing is that the album article now links back to Cary Brothers main page. Why is that...??? 1ragincajun (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It was not speedily deleted; it was nominated for deletion per WP:PROD. The administrator who handled the deletion nomination decided to redirect the article to the article about the singer. It was nominated for deletion because you hadn't provided any evidence that the album has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources, as required by WP:GNG.
 * If you dispute a WP:PROD deletion nomination, then all you need to do is to delete the deletion template, or, in this case, revert the action which turned the article into a redirect. However, if you do this, then you should be aware that there is a risk that the article might just be nominated for deletion per WP:AFD instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how to delete the deletion template or revert the action. Every time I try to edit or change the Under Control (album) article ... it goes to the main page for Cary Brothers, and that's not what I want to edit.  Any help would be appreciated. 1ragincajun (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
SrGangsta (talk) 15:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Djoliba AC (logo).jpg
Thank you for warring me. I answered in WP. Best regards. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 22:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Tyrice Thompson, Holiday Bowl 2007.jpg
Hi, Stefan2. So on the --could criterion 3b be solved by simply replacing the higher resolution file with a cropped, lower resolution one?

And on 10a, the file has been attributed to the photographer, Robert Kline, who specifically granted permission to use the photo (see http://www.cactusranch.com/devils/sdmainboard/187009.html). I also included the source URL of the image. I'm not sure what else to include there, so can you guide me on complying with that criterion?

Thanks for your help.

Justin Z (talk) 04:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:NFCC: The image needs a source so that it can be verified that it doesn't violate WP:NFCC or WP:NFCC. The link you gave gives a 403 Forbidden error message and doesn't contain the photo. I did a Google search but couldn't find the image anywhere else on the Internet. Thus, there is no way to verify that the image doesn't violate WP:NFCC or WP:NFCC. You claim that the photographer gave you permission to use the photo, but there is no way to verify this claim. If your permission claim is correct, then I would say that there is no issue with WP:NFCC or WP:NFCC.
 * WP:NFCC: Non-free files should have a low resolution, but this has a high resolution. Normally, big files are tagged with Non-free reduce and later reduced in resolution by someone, but since this image also has an issue with WP:NFCC, I combined the two problems into a single tag. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah, blast it. The website cactusranch.com runs a message board for fans of Arizona State University.  It still uses that old HTML threaded-style messaging system--you know, the kind that went out of vogue ten or twelve years ago.  The operator has done extensive IP banning because of the extreme limitations those old boards place on trying to control your user base.  So that explains why you're getting a 403--you happen to be within an IP range that the operator has banned en masse.  Aside from going through a proxy, I'm not sure how else to prove permission either, and I can see this being an issue if others come across the image in the future.  Do you have any ideas?  Thanks again.  Justin Z (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Justin. Your best plan is to get an OTRS ticket in place on the image. The copyright holder sends the OTRS Team an email granting permission to use the image and specifying the license they are releasing it under. There's instructions at OTRS. -- Dianna (talk) 00:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Additional notes: I am able to view the page at http://www.cactusranch.com/devils/sdmainboard/187009.html, but am unable to see where the copyright holder gave permission for us to use the photo. I am able to view the image at http://www.cactusranch.com/crgallery/main.php?g2_itemId=15184, and thus see no problem with converting the image to fair use. Except the website says, "These photos are copyright Robert Kline and Cactus Ranch.com and are intended only for the private non-commercial use of individuals. Any other use or reuse of these images is prohibited without the expressed consent of Cactus Ranch and Robert Kline." That looks problematic. -- Dianna (talk) 01:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The permission is not free. It says, " Not a problem. Prayers for Tyrice and his family. He was one of the players who was always nice to me and came across as a quality person.  Bob".   --B (talk) 20:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment on yours editing in ESET NOD32 article.
Hi, I have found that you have edited an article ESET NOD32 by replacing the new logo of the antivirus with the previous old logo. I have also seen that you have added a comment "PNG is better than those logos".

But that's not the present logo which is in "PNG". ESET has changed its antivirus logo with its new version i.e v6.

So, I request you please update the new logo which will fit the newly launched version. You may also edit my image and convert it to "PNG" (RECOMMENDED BY ME).

For any queries, message me on my talk page. Himanis Das (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Both File:ESET NOD32 AV6 LOGO.jpg and File:ESET NOD32 Antivirus logo.png look like the same logo. What's the difference? --Stefan2 (talk) 11:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Just look in File:ESET NOD32 Antivirus logo.png it has a light green coloured background in the middle and a dark green coloured background in the center (which is the previous version of ESET NOD32 antivirus ie v5) but in File:ESET NOD32 AV6 LOGO.jpg it has a light blue coloured background in the middle and a dark blue coloured background in the center (which is the new logo for ESET NOD32 antivirus v6). I cannot say that both look like same maybe my laptop is wrong. Himanis Das (talk) 11:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking at the history of the PNG image, I see that multiple versions have been uploaded, resembling an edit war with the exception that only one user has been involved: some revisions have a green eye and some have a blue eye. However, the current revision of both the JPG and the PNG images show a blue eye for me. Is there some bug so that different people see different images? --Stefan2 (talk) 12:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Talk page lurker...They are the same image to me as well. It seems like both images have gone through the same updates/reuploads (specifically the PNG and original JPG images). The third image File:ESET NOD32 AV6 LOGO.jpg is simply one revision of the current image. I recommend that Himanis Das refresh his pages and or clear the cache because sometimes that can cause a user to see an old revision. -- Тимофей ЛееСуда .  16:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Armagh GAA club logos
Thanks for your comments, have added verification contacts. However I'm not sure if I can covert the files, which came to me mostly as JPGs, to PNGs. Can you have a look, please, at and tell me if the new version that I have just uploaded is any better? Brocach (talk) 22:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

RE:File permission problem with File:Laguera view.jpg
Hello, the file in question has a license (see here, on top right, the photos also had the website on the bottom left), but I had not been able to add the proper license, dont know why. Any help? Regards, --HCPUNXKID (talk) 00:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Blær (Stúlka) Bjarkardóttir 2011 passport.png
Hi. I just wanted to be 100% sure that the [ copyright concerns] you noted regarding this image (which I uploaded last night) have been taken care of with the [ addition of the line confirming] the presence of a fair use rationale. Sorry if I created a fuss by inadvertently overlooking this step when I created the image. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

non free image
Please check the file .Also check the article Bangladesh Liberation War a Pakistani wikipedian has deleted the image i added on the article.Check last two edits by user:Faizan Al-Badri at the article.I think he is not doing it right. Ctg4Rahat (talk) 14:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

My Green Ranger Collection
You're not going to like me, but that's okay, because I already don't like you. I'm going to tell you this once and once only.

Fuck off.

Get away from MY images on MY userpage. The photos are owned by ME. They're mine. Taken by me, in MY house, with MY camera.

Good enough for you?

Now, go make yourself useful and stand perfectly still on some train tracks for a few hours and see what happens.

¬_¬

Russ Jericho (talk) 00:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The rules are simple:
 * You can't take photos of packaging because it violates the copyright of the packaging.
 * You can't take photos of toys because it violates the copyright of the toys. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't care for the rules. Stick them up your arse. Wanker. Russ Jericho (talk) 21:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

File:EmploymentAndUnemploymentInGreece.png
FYI:The version of this graph of mine that you've just moved to the commons seems not to be the latest one (the one I've uploaded today some time before your move).I don't know why, I don't know whether you've done it intentionally or it's because of some arcane WP technical issue but I'm imforming you that (especially) with this image I've been having issues for some time.Despite having updated it,i.e. uploaded a new version of it,the former version (<=>former data) kept being presented (after the former update and now after your move to the commons with this update though only there for now) in the articles it was used in and (less frequently) on its own page.The latest-newest image version was only finally shown only after ~5 or more F5s-ctrl+F5s;this doesn't seem to work at all at the commons(i.e. constantly showing the older version).Btw the resolution shown below of the image at the commons is of the latest version -as you can see for yourself at the upload log- despite the fact that the image shown is of the one before that. And no it wasn't a caching issue on my side(at least as far as I can reasonable tell);I had been trying again and again on 2 separate browsers, multiple browser cache deletions, multiple tries over a long period, etc.I've been meaning to report it somewhere but I kept postponing it.... You have a huge history of moving stuff to the commons;perhaps you know (and hence can inform me) why this is happening?!?!?!? EDIT-ADDENDUM: Checking again at the commons I now see that this only happens on the image preview.Once one goes to full resolution of the image (fullpage) it shows the latest version.Hmmmmm?!?!?Thanatos|talk 14:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * A thumbnail bug, maybe? There is a bug which sometimes produces wrong thumbnails. For example, check the photos of Zhang Zuolin in this section. According to the wiki code, both photos are supposed to be the same with just a minor and hardly noticeable difference in size. However, I see two very different photos, although both obviously show the same person. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how to avoid this. See Commons:COM:VP for a discussion about this.
 * Are you experiencing this problem with the unemployment map on Commons? I don't know what thumbnail sizes you see so I can't confirm this myself. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If by unemployment map you mean unemployment graph or chart then yes.
 * The preview of the aforementioned image here http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:EmploymentAndUnemploymentInGreece.png is in fact (a thumbnail) of this
 * "2013-01-30 19:06 Thanatos666 1204×451× (131938 bytes) Updated graph with new and latest data, id est up to October 2012. Note: ELSTAT has revised older data." version of the graph-file.
 * Clicking on the preview-thumbnail image on that page i.e. going full resolution, fullscreen i.e. going here http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/EmploymentAndUnemploymentInGreece.png shows on the other hand the correct version i.e. this one "2013-02-18 11:57 Thanatos666 1204×454× (132266 bytes) Updated graph with new and latest data, id est up to November 2012. Note: ELSTAT has revised older data.".
 * P.S.Btw you can easily tell the difference between the two versions by the max value of the x axis:
 * 10/12 on the former (thumbnail-preview), 12/12 on the latter (fullscreen, full resolution).
 * OFFTOPIC P.P.S. Egad, just looking at the Japanese script makes me dizzy!!! :D It's not just that I'm totally unfamiliar with the script (which indeed I am), it's that I really can't understand how can one read such script on a screen!!! The characters are tiny!! Same with arabic and some other scripts that pack a huge lot of differences inside "normal" charater-font space.So always wanted to ask: Do you people magnify the page in order to read it? :) /OFFTOPIC Thanatos|talk 19:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * FYI:Zhang Zuolin's photo thumbnails herein are now the same(at least to me);while my graph's thumbnail's still different from the latest update.Have you been informed what's happened or what's going on?? (cause I don't see anything new written here)Thanatos|talk 19:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:ALC-Uniform-CWS.PNG
I don't understand what you posted on my talk page regarding this image. I modified an existing image to update it for 2013 and uploaded it with the same disclaimers as the previous image, and all the images like this as seen on every sidebar on MLB. While attempting to understand what your requirements are, I noticed that the image itself was deleted from Wikipedia and is now on WikiCommons, uploaded by you(?). Is that why the disclaimer no longer works? I noticed the originator's talk page (Silent Winds of Doom) has many of these messages by you, as well. I really hope you're not planning to summarily delete these images after 48 hours, as they are used on all the sidebars for the MLB teams. What needs to be done to fix this? Kaiserthegreat (talk) 15:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It is a non-free drawing of public domain clothes. It can be replaced by a free drawing of the same clothes. In this case, I found out that the initial version of the file was licensed under a free licence (as indicated in the first revision of the file information page), so I moved that version to Commons.
 * The logos on many of the sports clothes are below the threshold of originality and are thus in the public domain. Compare with the logos at Commons:COM:TOO. This has been discussed at numerous places, for example at Non-free content review/Archive 18. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:AFCN-Uniform-CLE.PNG
Just so you know, I simply removed the border on the file. It had been added to Category:Images with borders so I removed the border. I don't care if the image is deleted or not. It would be best if the original uploader is told instead. Cheers.  Del <sub style="color:black;">♉ sion 23  (talk)  21:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Adding Fair use tag to Sergio Franchi image
Stephan2: Why have you added Fair-use tag to Sergio image just posted. I believe I have uploaded this image copyrighted to the Library of Congress with a complete fair-use rationale. I have only used 2 fair-use images (Does not violate excessive use) of this deceased person, and with correct rationale. Can you be more specific? Thanks.Cathlec (talk) 21:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There are a couple of non-free images at the end of the article, but I don't see any justification for those. There are apparently lots of public domain images of the person, so I'm not sure why the fair use images are needed. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * For your info, I have created all but one of the public domain images on Wikipedia Commons. The Playbill book cover was to depict an important event in the professional life of Sergio Franchi--Starring in the Broadway musical 'Nine." The articles, stock images about the Broadway musical 'Nine' do not properly depict Sergio Franchi's contributions to this event, so the image adds an immediacy to conveying his contributions to musical theater history. I believe I stated it properly in the Rational used for that image. Secondly, Sergio Franchi devoted much of his private life to collecting rare pewter and rare automobiles. It is my belief that avocations are important to conveying the essence of a persons life, and those activities were covered in press, but the photographs of Sergio Franchi engaging in those avocations add depth to the biographical profile in Wikipedia. I also believe I conveyed that information in the related Rationale, though in a briefer form. Also, the Library of Congress copyright transfer from Cowles holds these images suitable for educational fair-use purposes. I hope I have matched both the LOC and Wikipedia criteria. Thanks. Cathlec (talk) 00:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Stephan2: Please reply to this information and new posting on the Sergio Franchi tak page on..the Sergio Franchi talk page. Thanks Cathlec (talk) 18:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: File permission problem with File:Cover art for Juniper's Knot.png
Hello, I have recently updated the license for Juniper's Knot image. The previous license was a misunderstanding, I thought that I was merely using the license for the file, not publishing it. Regardless, would you mind peer reviewing the file for me?

Thank you Link from the Void 19:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Your notice to delete "File:Periodic Table of Elements.png"
Hi Setfan2,

This is in response to my first article on wiki - it is not even live yet. Please forgive me if I seem like a noob, I am.

I do not understand why you want to delete this image? The only "reason" I see is that you consider it "useless." I do not understand your thinking. Please do not delete it.

How can I resolve this with you?

Thank you Stephan2, Bmartinsen (talk) 20:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It is useless because it is a duplicate of a different image in a more suitable format. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * do you want me to link to the original image? I am not sure how to do this. Bmartinsen (talk) 21:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? The image File:Periodic Table of Elements.png is unused. It is also useless since it doesn't contain any information not already contained in File:Periodic table.svg. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Image attribution question
How do you credit an unpublished image that is generated from the U.S. Government institution files? These images are generated from my office, have not been published and are in the public domain as U.S. Federal Government work product. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alan.hawk (talk • contribs) 13:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It needs to be possible to verify that the image indeed was made by the US government. If there is only a statement that an image was made by the government, then there is no way to verify this. If you are having difficulties finding any other evidence, maybe you could try to send evidence to OTRS that the images were made by the government. See Commons:COM:OTRS in that case. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you stalking me?
Why immediately after I proposed here that the matter of additional covers should be discussed by Wikipedia commutity as a whole, you nominated a completely random album cover I uploaded? Sorry, but the timing looks suspicious to me. 14:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moscowconnection (talk • contribs)

Not so fast
Stefan, I'm considering taking this to ANI. You get accused of stalking, I got dragged to ANI immediately for having removed some covers from a few articles, and Moscowconnection (here, on Werieth's talk page, on my talk page, and in that deletion discussion) shows no sign of listening/understanding. Your thoughts are appreciated; I'm wondering if some sort of ban related to non-free images (using and uploading) shouldn't be in order. Drmies (talk) 05:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a very strange proposal. I have done nothing against the Wikipedia policies. The discussion about the cover is ongoing. --Moscow Connection (talk) 06:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You've accused me of vandalism and Stefan of stalking. I didn't call for a block but for a ban, to get you out of problematic areas where you obviously don't understand policy. Using non-free content properly is a big deal. Drmies (talk) 15:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Whitechapel
I responded to your deletion nomination for the re-release cover of The Somatic Defilement. XyphynX9 (talk) 16:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I extremely disagree with you.
So I argue your point on my file and now the other is also up for deletion. I read the 3a and OTHERTHINGSEXIST, and quite frankly, I feel like both my files are in good standing. An article should show the alternate art for an album. Call it OTHERTHINGSEXIST all you want, but the fact that you're choosing my files that I uploaded and I don't see any others challenged frustrates me. I really hope your proven wrong and the files stand. Just saying. Because it seems to me that you don't know anything about the guidelines that you're calling my files on. XyphynX9 (talk) 15:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Deleted image I had permission on without contacting me
I explicitly said in the image to contact me if you wanted proof. Instead, you put it up for 7 week speedy deletion which I of course missed. Thank you for wasting my time. Please pay more attention in the future, especially when Wikipedia keeps adding new verification processes, etc. How do you expect us to keep up? Netdragon (talk) 05:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not how it works. WP:CONSENT and WP:IOWN tell that you should contact OTRS, not that other people should contact you. If it took 7 weeks for you to even notice the di-no permission tag, then how long would it take for anyone contacting you to receive an answer? Also, a licence needs to be valid forever. What happens if you die or if you suddenly decide that you do not wish to offer the file under a free licence any longer and thus start giving different answers to any e-mails sent to you? --Stefan2 (talk) 10:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Notice of deletion
Stefan2!!!!! The action you intendng for deletion my pages is completely sabotage to the responsibility of promoting Wikimedia in Sub saharan Africa, since you know that am in the hard time of competing with London, UK, the fomer colon of some african countries as Tanzania included. All claims of vilotion of copyright is nonsence because the photo claims all belongs to the owner whom are responsible with Wikimania 2014 Bids, the more wonderies is on 1st of march where after our bid removed all key photo’s including the wikimania 2014 bids/Arusha logo which created with me was also deleted, even photo taken with me on the 1st of march 2013 through my own blackbery was deleted, what is that, if I could not difinate on point of sabotege what should I. It seems that you have already decided that the next wikimania host is london whether we like or no and if that is the case why you did not tell us before. Go through my history am an IP activist and I swear my self of not violeting of any human fight as copyright is concernt. Please Stefan2 it's bettre before you do think about new editor like me and am teling you all all of images of Impala, Naura,...... anaway I have alot to say but don't look only in Europ, Asia, Ameriica's remember also africa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francis Kaswahili (talk • contribs) 09:34, 04 March 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.222.56.180 (talk • contribs) 2013-03-04T07:40:15
 * I can't remember everything, but I think that the files you had deleted from Meta in March were deleted without my involvement. Most of the files on Commons were tagged for deletion by or, not by me.
 * The files I tagged for deletion on Wikipedia and on Meta appeared on numerous other websites elsewhere on the Internet, and there was no indication that you were the copyright holder or that the copyright holder has permitted you to upload the files. Additionally, all files on Meta have to be available under a free licence, but you had not indicated any licence or indicated where the images came from. Images with insufficient information are usually deleted after some time because it isn't possible to verify if the files are permitted or not.
 * If you have permission to use the files and if you have permission to make them available under a free licence, then you should contact OTRS. See Commons:COM:OTRS for instructions. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

SVG files
Hello, these are SVG files, so the file size is something insignificant. Regards! --Dyolf77 (talk) 14:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I propose to delete thes files and upload a .PNG version!--Dyolf77 (talk) 14:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

?
? Vyacheslav84 (talk) 14:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * First of all, this is English Wikipedia. Please write your comments in English. I don't speak Russian.
 * I would like to ask you to read the non-free content criteria and in particular criterion 1. Files like File:Doc balt flot1.jpg are not permitted because someone else can draw a freely licensed map of the same area. There are already freely licensed maps of all parts of the world. For example, Openstreetmap can be used for this purpose. Photos like File:SMX-25 - Diving frigate.JPG are not permitted because it seems that vehicles of the same model still exist. It is possible to take other photos of the same vehicle model and publish those photos under a free licence. For example, see WP:NFC §1 which says that you can't upload unfree photos of buildings which still exist. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Подземоход Требелева.jpg ? Podzemohod Trebeleva was tested in the Urals, Mount Grace, in 1946. Trebelev intended to use his podzemohod in various fields: digging tunnels for urban communication, exploration, mining, etc. However, the design proved to be unreliable, and the project was abandoned. - Now it does not exist. File:SMX-25 - Diving frigate.JPG - it does not exist at all. It is only on paper. SMX-25 a gunship project of the 21st century, a hybrid of surface ship and submarine. it seems that vehicles of the same model still exist. - there is no such ships. How can redraw what does not exist outside the project on paper? File:Doc balt flot1.jpg - It is not a geographical map, it is map of the military facilities. This is the result of several experts to repeat that an outsider can not. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 16:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

So clean up templates for deletion? Vyacheslav84 (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!!! A File:Doc balt flot1.jpg there is not no mountains or rivers or forests or other geographical elements. There is essentially circuit area overlaid with the military installations. Besides military facilities represent special characters, why no can redraw. Openstreetmap such maps does no. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 13:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Stefan, Vyacheslav84 has started what appears to be a related discussion at Village pump (policy). Phil Bridger (talk) 17:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Replied there. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

sorry by called "мудак". Vyacheslav84 (talk) 08:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Maps consist of two parts: the location of military installations signs and topographic contour. 1. From topographic contours of a solution Wikimedia - [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Derivative_works#Maps As a result of the court decisions, following parts of a map are in the public domain, and may be used freely: ... Geographic or topographic features. Those are facts, and facts aren't copyrightable] 2. Location of military facilities we must to redraw the hair in exactly with the original maps, so this is pure kopivio. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 04:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

From Richard Corfield
Hi Stefan, I have sent a notice to permissions explaining that I own the copyright on this image. Do you know how long it will be before it goes live? Thanks, Richard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clemrit (talk • contribs) 11:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It depends on how fast the e-mail is read. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Adaptations of Les Misérables
Please explain your addition of the non-free tag to this article on the article's Talk page. What's non-free? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The article contains unreasonably many non-free images. See WP:NFLISTS. All images will have to be deleted from the article. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Next time please make your objection clear on the article's Talk page so we don't have to guess what your objection is. How were we supposed to know? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 15:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

quick question
Hey there, quick question for you stefan. Are emblems and logos of u.s. military units in the public domain? I saw on one of their websites that said otherwise and thought I would ask you since you are knowledgeable in regards to image copyrights and such. Are images on WP considered commercial reproductions? Thank you, cheers, —<font face=Verdana> -<font color=#FFF>dain  <font color=#000>omite   06:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Works by the United States government are in the public domain, including works by the United States Armed Forces and the United States Army Institute of Heraldry. For example, you can see many public domain works by the Institute of Heraldry at Commons:Category:PD US Army USAIOH. Are you thinking of that kind of images?
 * At the top of the page, I see a statement saying "How should 1.3 million US dollars in Wikimedia donations be spent? Comment on proposals submitted by four organizations to the Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC)." Also, once a year, there is a request at the top asking people to donate money to the Wikimedia Foundation. These notifications about donations might make Wikipedia commercial. Also, it is possible to order printed copies of articles (see Help:Books/Printed books), and this likely also makes Wikipedia commercial, since you have to pay for the printed copies. However, it doesn't matter whether Wikipedia is commercial or not, since files which can't be used for commercial purposes are disallowed per policy anyway. See db-f3. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah that's what I thought too with them being in the public domain. I found a unit insignia on the Air Force Historical Research Agency website and it's caption says "In accordance with Chapter 3 of AFI 84-105, commercial reproduction of this emblem is NOT permitted without the permission of the proponent organizational/unit commander." and so I sent them an email asking howcome it said that if they were in the public domain. They replied with:

An active Air Force organization has exclusive use of its currently approved heraldic emblem. The Air Force Historical Research Agency (AFHRA) is responsible for controlling the use of all other emblems. Images of all Air Force organizational emblems are protected by Title 18, United States Code, Section 704 and the Code of Federal Regulations (32 CFR, Part 507).

Commercial enterprises may use the symbol of an active organization only with the commander's permission and after they have executed a license agreement with the Air Force Trademark and Licensing Office, an office under the Air Force Public Affairs Agency. A license agreement is also required for commercial use of all emblems controlled by AFHRA.


 * So, would CFR 32 section 507 not apply since wikipedia isn't using them for a commercial purpose? Here's a link to CFR 32 section 507 for reference. I was just curious about all this in regards to those unit insignias and emblems. —<font face=Verdana> -<font color=#FFF>dain  <font color=#000>omite   00:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The law is here. This sounds like a non-copyright restriction. Sometimes, an item isn't only protected by copyright but also by something else which may restrict the use of the image. Unless it is illegal to host the image (for example child pornography), we usually don't care about non-copyright restrictions. Compare with the images below:


 * See also Commons:Template:PD-USGov-Military-Army-USAIOH, the corresponding talk page and Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-USGov-Military-Army-USAIOH. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ohhh, I gotcha, sounds good. Thank you very much for helping me to understand that better. Especially with those helpful links. Take care, —<font face=Verdana> -<font color=#FFF>dain  <font color=#000>omite   01:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Text transferred from Category:Craig Curtis Image
Hi Stefan,

Please do not delete: File:Craig Curtis, an American actor, producer and filmmaker.jpg Craig Curtis has given me permission to use his image freely on Wikipedia, and I will acknowledge this in the article's reference section.

Next, how do I upload his image to: Craig Curtis I have tried several times unsuccessfully in my sandbox site.

Thank you in advance. JJ Monte Ccjjpro (talk) 04:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There are several problems:
 * There is no way to verify that Craig Curtis has granted any permission. See WP:CONSENT.
 * The copyright holder is normally the photographer, so Craig Curtis is presumably not authorised to grant any permission whatsoever. Instead, permission needs to come from the photographer.
 * Your permission sounds like a permission which is only valid for Wikipedia. This is not enough. Anyone must be allowed to use the image for any purpose.
 * If you wish to use the image in an article, just add Craig Curtis, an American actor, producer and filmmaker.jpg where you want the image. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

FYI
I will try not to miss any more, but FYI, I use the edit summary "permission received" when the permission is in order, and I am intending to add the PermissionOTRS, while I use an edit summary of "some information received, but some loose ends to tie up" when I get something that looks like they are trying to provide permission, but haven't done it quite right (such as Wikipedia only permission). In those cases, my intent is to add the OTRS received template.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  15:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's also what I assumed, but it seemed safer to ask you for clarification so that I wouldn't make a mistake. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that, the last thing we need is two people making a mistake. -- SPhilbrick (Talk)  22:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

File:MAHFUD ALI BEIBA3.jpg
Hi, I had uploaded the file to illustrate the Mahfud Ali Beiba article, as he was deceased in 2010. I'll change the template to a non-free use rationale if its needed, is it OK?. Regards,--HCPUNXKID (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Unclear. See Files for deletion/2013 March 9. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Deleting my files
Are you required to notify me that all of my files are being removed? I'd be just fine if you removed all of them without notifying me. -- Kevin W.  - Talk  01:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You know, it would be much better if you could just release your images under a free licence so that they won't have to be deleted at all. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Many of them can't be released under a free license because of the logos. Plus, I don't want my work being used on here anymore anyway. Getting into too many fights over NFC stuff left a bad taste in my mouth and I want to stick to editing. -- Kevin W.  - Talk  22:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, I have only tagged files with logos which are below the threshold of originality, for example File:ACC-Uniform-NCSU.png. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Privately tarred road in Awka-Etiti, Nigeria.jpg
Hi Stefan, about the tag on the above named file; The photographic image in that file was taken by me personaly with my girlfriends camera on a trip to Nigeria in 2007. I named my girlfriend as author of the picture because it had been published before in her travel blog here.Please note that the image in the file is not copied and pasted from the travel blog linked above but uploaded from the original camera HD memory card. This is evidenced by the fact that while the picture in the travel blog has 56051 Bytes and 550x413 Pixel, the picture uploaded by me in the file has 860 KB and and a resolution of 800x600 pixels. Besides, pictures uploaded unto the members area of that travel blog are public domain according to their terms of use here.But like I said, the picture was not copied from the blog in the first place. What do I do to get the file untaged? Ochiwar (talk) 20:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This document does not state that anything is in the public domain. The only thing it says about copyright is that the uploader grants Travelpod permission to use the photo for any purpose. I think that you should get Antje Gohmann to send an e-mail to OTRS. See WP:CONSENT for instructions. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Well I think it is obious the picture i uploaded is not from the travel blog but is rather the original source, especially since the file I uploaded contains additional information in the Metadata section concerning the camera used etc which is not available on the travel blog. But if you insist, OK no problem. Will an email from Antje Gohmann`s office or private account suffice, or what will you need as proof of her identity? Her email is not stated in the travel blog so how will you know the email is from her?Ochiwar (talk) 21:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

She has sent the email as requested. If you require any further proof of ownership or identity please let me know. Thanks.Ochiwar (talk) 19:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I dealt with the OTRS ticket and hence gave permission, removed the deletion tag, and added a OTRS ticket tag. (also changed license to be the one that she had released it under). Commonshelper is refusing to cooperate but I'll transfer it to commons asap. NativeForeigner Talk 22:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Formal Request for comment (RFC)
A formal RFC has been entered at Talk:Lisa Lavie on the topic of non-free content. RCraig09 (talk) 16:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for telling me. I have been a bit busy lately, so I haven't had the time to follow the discussions on that page, but I will try to comment later. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment
Hey Stefan2; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Barry Pring photos
Hi Stefan, I've sent on the relevant permissions email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Best NorthLondoner NorthLondoner (talk) 14:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Eastman Chemical Company logo.svg
Go ahead and delete File:Eastman Chemical Company logo.svg from the English Wikipedia. I wasn't aware that a file by the same name was being uploaded today to Commons. Rare coincidence. &mdash; QuicksilverT @ 22:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Secretary of State John Kerry 2nd portrait
Thank you for your message!

I happen to be a big John Kerry fan but do not log on wikipedia much anymore. I just figured that the new 2nd recent portrait from the State Department looks better in several ways. If you want to get a better quality of the photo it's here http://www.state.gov/secretary/photo/index.htm! Thank you and best wishes! Keith G.J. Cody (talk) 02:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

JBeano's image
Thanks for catching the image uploaded by. I've reverted his edits and given him a COI tag. Dougweller (talk) 08:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Glenmorangie Bottle Image
If you read the upload image tags you would have seen that I work for the company. As such I have the permissing to use the image directly from the company. By deleting the uploaded image you are infact reverting it back to the original image with a copyright infringement. Do not delete this image! Monkeyonyourback (talk) 09:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no statement on the file information page saying that you work for that company. It says that the file was made by "The Glenmorangie Company" and that you uploaded "a free file from somebody else", which implies the opposite. In any case, there is no way to verify your claim. You will need to sort this out with OTRS. See WP:IOWN. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I will just delete the image altogether including the previous image also as the image rights haven't been approved by the company. Monkeyonyourback (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Image Deletion
Hi Stefan2:

You just left me a message about the speedy deletion of a file named Richa bhadra. jpg. I was the one who intially tagged it as potentially not free but made a mistake in the file name and was trying to change it. I am not trying to remove the tag. In fact, if you know how to correct it, do you mind helping me out? Thanks.

Sosthenes12 (talk) 22:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

Hi again,

Sorry, I didn't realize that there was a Common's deletion request. I somehow added another deletion request to the page again. Can you remove them? Sorry again.

Sosthenes12 (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12


 * The file is on Commons, but you created a local page with a puf template, so I nominated that extra page for speedy deletion. Someone seems to have deleted it now. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
 Automatic  Strikeout   ( T  •  C ) 14:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Image Questions
I'm not sure what you're asking for in several of the images you tagged. For example, File:Promiselife.jpg is an image I took and uploaded under the GFDL. The tags and info for this are on the page. What more do I need to add?

The File:Ernesthogan.jpg (Ernest Hogan) image is from earlier than 1909 (when the subject died). The image has the public domain tags on the page along with a link to where I originally found the image. Again, what more is needed? The same with the File:GeorgeMLowry.jpg (George Lowry) image, which is a US Navy Academy photo from circa 1910.

If I've failed to specify something on these three images, please let me know how to fix that. But it appears they're all good to go.--SouthernNights (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Most of this is a duplicate of Possibly unfree files/2013 March 16. About File:GeorgeMLowry.jpg, you added a template which says that the photo is in the public domain because it was published before 1923, but you didn't specify when or where it was published before 1923, so there is no way to verify your claim. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm going to delete all the images right now. While I disagree with this kind of nit-picking on obviously pre-1923 images, I don't feel like wasting time trying to locate original source material for items I uploaded more than 5 years ago. Any new images I upload will meet all Wikipedia policies.--SouthernNights (talk) 00:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Carlyle Subsidiaries
Stefan - I would appreciate it if you can either comment on my talk page or the article page to explain specifically your issue with the inclusion of the logos on the Carlyle Group page. I am working on a major upgrade of the article as I have for a large number of other articles and honestly it is a distraction to have to argue about this with you. You said that the section on subsidiaries "looks like an advertisement". I am not sure how Logos constitute an advertisement - they are typically used on wikipedia for purposes of identifying a business or organization. That is the purpose here in which Carlyle has acquired a number of investment businesses and operates them as a network of affiliated businesses. Rather than create a number of stub articles, I think it is preferable to describe each affiliate within the Carlyle article. By using the logos it is much clearer to the reader that the company operates through this network. Each logo is presented alongside other subsidiaries with relevant information / referencing and so it does not really advertise the individual subsidiary nor does it in any way advertise Carlyle. I would appreciate a clearer explanation than "looks like an advertisement" Thanks. <font color="#3950A5" size="1">|► <font color="#000070">ϋrбan <font color="#4D4D4D">яeneωaℓ • <font size="0" color="#BFA137">TALK  <font color="#3950A5" size="1">◄| 23:37, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It is against the non-free content criteria, and in particular WP:NFCC and WP:NFG, to use lots of non-free images in a gallery like that. Besides, this kind of use of logos is mainly seen in advertisement, so it makes the article look like an advertisement. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

RE:File:Ntv7 Logo.png
Hi Stefan.Here I want to explain about the identity ntv7. If you want to know that the logo had two different slogans and two different colors according to show. The red logo on it symbolizes the Chinese and Chinese programs. The ntv7 Colour Purple Logo is for urban show in Malaysia.(talk) 12:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You can only use the licence PD-ineligible-USonly for very simple logos. I don't agree that this logo is sufficiently simple. If the logo is too complex, then the use of two logos seems to violate WP:NFCC. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

tagging for deletion of File:Newborn tammar climbing to pouch.jpg
Perhaps I misunderstood what was required. This image is my own work. I offered it to the ABC to illustrate a news article. I have not signed any rights over to the ABC so I do not see that there is any problem with adding it to Wikipedia/Wikimedia (GeoffShaw (talk) 20:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC))
 * The problem is that the image previously appeared at http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2013/03/18/3718274.htm where it is credited to Geoff Shaw. There is no way to verify that you are the same person or that you have permission to upload the image. Your user name suggests that there is a connection, but we can't assume that you are that person simply because of your user name. See for example DMCA Planet.eco where Planet.eco complained that the file Commons:File:Brief summary for Adrian Dove-1.pdf, uploaded by a user called Planet.eco, was a copyright violation. Try to prove your identity somehow and sort this out with OTRS. See WP:IOWN for some instructions. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

My Marmite picture
How do I go about proving that I took the picture? I don't particularly want my facebook to be covered with Wikipedia jargon. Plough | talk to me 00:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Also it says my Facebook page where the photo is posted is a dead link, which it is not. Plough | talk to me 00:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * When I click on the link, I get an error message (このコンテンツは現在ご覧いただけません.) telling that the contents can't be displayed. Maybe you need a Facebook account or something in order to see it.
 * The problem is that there is no way to verify that the Wikipedia and Facebook accounts belong to the same person. Try contacting OTRS and see if you can prove that the accounts belong to the same person somehow. See WP:IOWN. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I emailed the OTRS. Hopefully that will do. Plough | talk to me 19:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
07:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Logo for NBAD Private Bank (Suisse) SA.jpeg.png
Hello Stefan,

I reduced this logo File:NBAD Private Bank Suisse SA.png The new one is here :File:NBAD Private Bank Suisse SA logo.png

This logo looks ok for you?

Thanks in advance Swissjane (talk) 07:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The size looks good. If you decide to reduce more images in the future, note that it is better to click on "Upload a new version of this file" at the bottom of the page. That way, the reduced copy gets the same file name as the original.
 * The high-resolution image is now unused, so I tagged it as such. This usually means that it will be deleted after a week. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Image upload questioned
Stefan 2, I am sorry for this misunderstanding, it is in fact the first time I uploaded a picture in Wikipedia. And of course I will not infringe the rules.

However, the file in question is also found in http://ferradanoli.wordpress.com/miguel/, where is given "Photos below are of my private collection, and I post them here for public domain (copyright exempted)". The actual file being http://ferradanoli.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/friends-bautista-van-schouwen-marcello-ferrada-noli-and-miguel-enricc81quez-three-young-founders-of-the-revolutionary-left-movement-chile-here-in-santiago-feb-1962.png

Please tell me if it is OK if I proceed uploading the file anew, this time giving the specs. as above, source, permissions, etc. Or any other suggestion for me to solve this problem.

I thank you in advance

/Toronto Toronto8793 (talk) 15:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks fine. I just overlooked the statement at http://ferradanoli.wordpress.com/miguel/ --Stefan2 (talk) 23:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Zinc finger image source problem
Hi Stefan,

You recently commented on a PyMOL image I uploaded as I had not specified the source. I have now made a few alterations - could you please confirm whether it is now ok?

thanks alot

Nwkimberley (talk) 19:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks fine now. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Picture Deletion
Hi Stefan2,

I think this file needs to be deleted but I'm not sure what to do. Can you help me? The file is on the commons: File:Siavash kheirabi.jpg.

Thanks, Sosthenes12 (talk) 22:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12
 * Marked as a copyright violation, so someone will probably delete it soon. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! Sosthenes12 (talk) 00:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

Odlo Picture deletion warning
Hello Stefan2,

You wrote to me concerning the Speedy deletion of File:Company odlo logo.jpg

This image is currently being used in an article I am having trouble approving: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/odlo

but I think I now have enough references to get this article published. I do not know how long the new article will take to get approved, so please do not delete the logo before. Thanks Nmacpherson (talk) 09:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/odlo is not yet an article, so the image isn't permitted on that page per WP:NFCC. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Angela Davis
I'm sorry, Stefan2, but I followed the rather arcane instructions when I uploaded File:Angela Davis enters Royce Hall for first lecture October 7 1969.jpg, and I plainly stated that I own the copyright and I release it under the Commons license. I previously posted the pic on my Facebook page, and I gave you the link. What more should I do? I really think I have done enough to have taken the photo, kept the negative all these years and taken the time to release it to the waiting world via Wikipedia. I am in fairly high dudgeon because all of this was made perfectly clear when I uploaded the photo. Thank you.GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The image previously appeared on Facebook, and there is no way to verify that you are the same person as the Facebook user. See WP:IOWN. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Very simple. I wish the automated message I had received had been so pure in its simplicity and that the instructions had been so clear. Thank you. Kindly remind me again where I should go to prove ownership of this image. GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Contact permissions-en@wikimedia.org and give them some evidence that the Facebook account belongs to you. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
The Bushranger One ping only 23:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Eddy Duchin
I believe I've clearly shown this photograph is in the public domain within the United States, so what happens now? Are you leaving your "dispute" tag on it because you don't agree or just haven't gotten around to taking it off or is that up to someone else or something else? Thank you for your response. --Kmanblue (talk) 14:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Holst-family-tree.tif
Thanks for your comment about uploading the file as an SVG. I don't know of such a format, and my Microsoft and Adobe programs don't seem to let one save in that format. Have you any suggestions? Happy to follow best practice if I can. Tim riley (talk) 16:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * When I think of it, it is probably better to replace it with a table in a different format. Compare with Kim Jong-il family – would you be able to produce anything like this? --Stefan2 (talk) 00:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Changing Seas poster file.jpg
You wrote about an orphaned image - i have submitted an article and this photo is attached to that. I know there is a backlog for approving pages. Can you please withhold removing this photo? Thank you!

See below: "Orphaned non-free image File:Changing Seas poster file.jpgThanks for uploading File:Changing Seas poster file.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 01:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)"

--Daniela.bc11 (talk) 17:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Your sandbox is not yet an article, so the image isn't allowed there. In the past, there was a robot which automatically removed fair use images from article drafts every day (see Bots/Requests for approval/DASHBot 5), but it seems that the robot has stopped doing this for some reason. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Stephen - I've submitted the page for inclusion in Wikipedia. Since the process has begun and is no longer in Sandbox form, does that mean Wikipedia will delay removing the photo which is attached to the pending page? Thanks for your help, and links. You are extremely helpful.

--Daniela.bc11 (talk) 13:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Non-free images are not permitted in sandboxes, see WP:NFCC. I see that a user removed the image from your sandbox because of that. It can't be readded until your submission is approved and it can't be added at all if the submission is declined. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Cool template discovery
Hi Stefan! Here's a template I discovered that we can use for derivative works: Di-dw no license. We can tag these images for speedy deletion, and fewer items will have to be listed at WP:PUF. Best wishes, -- Dianna (talk) 20:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, but some people don't seem to know what a derivative work is, so if a file is tagged with a derivative work tag ({{subst:dw-nsd}}, {{subst:dw-nld}}, {{subst:dw-nsdnld}}), chances are that the uploader only will be confused. By using PUF, it is possible to include a more descriptive rationale, hopefully decreasing the risk that the uploader will be confused. For that reason, I very much like the template on Commons since it makes a very convenient summary of something which many people don't understand. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The matching template for use on the uploader's talk page looks like this: Di-dw no license-notice. I do agree that listing files at PUF gives us a better opportunity to educate uploaders as to copyright law, so there's an advantage to doing it that way. -- Dianna (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

One more question :p
Regarding WP:CSD F1, could it apply for an unused image of .png format which was converted to a .svg format (which is used). I'm just asking because I see that it says "...Unused duplicates or lower-quality/resolution copies of another Wikipedia file having the same file format...." Also, sidenote, both files have shadows on commons. Thanks in advance —<font face=Verdana> -<font color=#FFF>dain  <font color=#000>omite   05:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * F1 is specifically for files in the same format. I believe that the idea is that files in other formats usually aren't 100% identical even if they are mostly identical. For example, in this case, the PNG and SVG files look almost identical at a normal resolution, but if you zoom in a lot, you will notice that they are clearly different. Also, in this case, some people may argue that it is better to keep the PNG file because it file history, which may be needed if someone wishes to use the image using the GFDL licence.
 * I moved the SVG file to Commons (File:Graph with all three-colourings 2.svg) to get rid of the file name conflict with Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ahhhh, I gotcha. Makes sense. Thanks stefan.—<font face=Verdana> -<font color=#FFF>dain  <font color=#000>omite   18:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Image of Papa Cristo's
Hello Stefan,

Please reconsider the deletion proposal as I have just made the article Papa Cristo's. Thank you. Proudbolsahye (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The G11 nomination of NSMBPC Logo.png
I simply nominated the file as this because it exists only in an article that exists to promote the editor's supposed self-made game. I will admit I am unsure of which criteria would best fit this, but I think we can both agree that this ought to be deleted via some means. Ducknish (talk) 23:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

File talk:Swiss military bicycle MO-93 with machine gun, ammo and backpack.jpg
1) FYI (?) Pdfpdf (talk) 14:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Goodness gracious me. What a gentleman! Thank you. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S. I'm not altogether sure why it's up to me to sort it out ... (But that's not your problem!!) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

(BTW: Have you ever thought of archiving your talk page? Pdfpdf (talk) 14:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC))

2) Yeah well ...
 * (diff | hist) . .User talk:Stefan2‎; 01:15 . . (+142)‎ . . ‎Pdfpdf (talk | contribs)‎ (→‎File talk:Swiss military bicycle MO-93 with machine gun, ammo and backpack.jpg: BTW: ...)
 * (diff | hist) . .Led Zeppelin‎; 01:10 . . (-8)‎ . . ‎MadeinJapan (talk | contribs)‎ (→‎1990s)
 * (Deletion log); 01:08 . . RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted page File talk:Swiss military bicycle MO-93 with machine gun, ammo and backpack.jpg ‎(G8: Talk page of a deleted page)
 * (Deletion log); 01:08 . . RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Swiss military bicycle MO-93 with machine gun, ammo and backpack.jpg ‎(F9: Media file copyright violation without fair use or credible claim of permission.)
 * (diff | hist) . .User talk:Nicola Romani‎; 00:24 . . (+1,691)‎ . . ‎Stefan2 (talk | contribs)‎ (Notification: speedy deletion nomination of File:Swiss military bicycle MO-93 with machine gun, ammo and backpack.jpg. (TW))
 * (diff | hist) . .User talk:Nicola Romani‎; 00:24 . . (+1,691)‎ . . ‎Stefan2 (talk | contribs)‎ (Notification: speedy deletion nomination of File:Swiss military bicycle MO-93 with machine gun, ammo and backpack.jpg. (TW))

I withdraw! But thanks for your WP:AGF response. Most appreciated! Pdfpdf (talk) 14:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I changed the "copyvio" tag to a "no permission" tag as soon as I saw your comment on that file talk page, but it seems that the file page was deleted immediately anyway. Maybe the deleting administrator already had opened the file information page and didn't notice my last-minute edit. The file talk page was also deleted, so I don't know whether you had the time to read my comment or whether you even managed to write any further comments there.
 * The problem was that the image appeared elsewhere on the Internet. In such cases, it is often unlikely that the uploader is the photographer, and it is fairly standard to mark the image as a copyright violation. If you (or someone else) is able to prove that the uploader indeed is the photographer, or that the photo is freely licensed for some other reason, then the file can be restored. However, this would typically have to be done via OTRS.
 * About my talk page, I have already archived it twice, but I suppose it's getting too long again. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sadly, in the past I've found this particular lady to be ... "somewhat unreliable". This episode only reinforces that assessment. I could criticise RHaworth for having an "itchy trigger finger", but why bother? He's probably saved both you and me time and effort! I could go on, and probably would if it wasn't WELL past bedtime, but really, I don't think I would be adding anything that isn't already blatently obvious to you.
 * So I'll toddle off to bed muttering something about how nice it is to find someone polite, pleasant, reasonable, rationable, etc. etc. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah well. This person also uploaded three more images:
 * File:Swiss military bicycle MO-12.jpg
 * File:Swiss military bicycle MO-05 in an older pattern.jpg
 * File:MO-93 bicycles at Company 17 hangar.jpg
 * What would you say about these three? Two of them show only a bike and nothing else. Today, I nominated two of her other photos showing bikes on a white background for deletion as copyright violations. I can't find these two, though: Google gives me lots of hits but only other photos of bikes, not the same photos. The third one (with bikes in front of a house) gives no Google hits either. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

File:ECA homepage.jpg
This part of the plane is called a cockpit. And yes, you'd definitely prefer a boring, low quality image of a 100-year old aircraft to illustrate a pilot's association. Enjoy your power to delete pictures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kencheva (talk • contribs) 17:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, but Commons:Category:Aircraft cockpits contains lots of photos of that part of an aeroplane, not only images which are 100 years old, although you could probably find old images in there too. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Stalking?
Hey Stefan2, are you stalking my image uploads? Your edits are quite pedantic! You tagged File:Gunther Behnisch.jpg to be reduced even further in size, when its max dimension is already only 500px. Fair_use suggests anything less that 1000px is probably okay. Is there any point in reducing it further? Sionk (talk) 22:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Image resolution says that anything with less than 100,000 pixels likely is fine and that any image with a dimension larger than 1000 pixels unlikely is fine. Your image has 187,500 pixels but no dimension greater than 1000 pixels, so it is somewhere in between. Category:Rescaled fairuse files more than 7 days old says that the resolution approximately should fit the intended use. In this case, the intended use is to display the image in the article File:Gunther Behnisch.jpg where it is specified in the infobox that only 36,300 pixels should be shown. If the intended use is to show 36,300 pixels, then why does Wikipedia need a copy with 187,500 pixels? --Stefan2 (talk) 00:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Most of them were deleted per WP:CSD, which usually means that they appeared on some other website before they were uploaded here without any indication that you are the copyright holder. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:40, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Fair use deletions
I can see your point on many of our images of 3D works being deleted as a violation of policy. I do agree with your logic in it. I have brought this up at User talk:Jimbo Wales and I think they are failing to understand the issues involved. We do need to find a solution. As it stands now we have three choices: 1). Get permission from the rights holders for images. 2). Use images from countries that allow FOP. 3). Delete them all. I also noticed that File:Oscar statuette.jpg can be replaced with a free licence image according to 1) and 2) above. "Not replaceable" it used far too in fair use rationale when may of these images can be replaced if proper requests are accepted by the rights holders. Deceased persons and demolished buildings are most times hard to replace but not images of 3D works that still exist.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback: you've got messages!

 * Issues have been resolved. — Theopolisme ( talk )  01:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Powr Mastrs
I know Chris personally, I'm not sure how I could prove that though. 174.78.141.117 (talk) 17:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Who is Chris? What is Powr Mastrs? What do you wish to prove? --Stefan2 (talk) 17:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Untitled section
This is my image, I took it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chaetopleura_Apiculata.jpg

Posting on https://nachodonut.wordpress.com/2011/01/13/tyrone-biggums-to-fight-rock-eating-mollusc/ was not authorized. I never attributed it to that site. They took it from NPR. If you look mine is cropped from the original, has the original EXIF data, which the NPR posting does not, mine is higher resolution also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lylegordon (talk • contribs) 21:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no way to verify that you are the same person as the one credited here so you will have to contact OTRS and provide verification. See WP:IOWN. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Jack Rodwell vs Soton
This image qualifies under a free-to-use copywrite license as published by MCFC.co.uk via flickr. The ownership of this image is held by Manchester City Football Club. The image is freely producable. Therefor this image should NOT have been deleted. Thankyou Atban.3000   write me  01:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You need to provide evidence of that claim. All information which is available is a link to Flickr where it says that the image isn't free to use. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

deletion of File:Walkers point 1960's.jpg.
I uploaded this image a while ago and you tagged it for copyright reasons. Your statement said "there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it" I am the creator of the "file" but the photograph was taken by my grandfather. He's been dead for 8 years so I don't know how provide proof that he agreed to license it. I was told by an IP attorney that his next of kin, my father and uncles, would be the ones who could grant permission which had already been done. How should I proceed for this picture to be undeleted? --T1980 (talk) 02:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * See WP:CONSENT for information on how to provide permission from the copyright holder. If it was taken by your grandfather and your grandfather is dead, then the copyright holder would normally be your mother or father unless your mother and father also are dead. For example, I can't upload photos taken by my grandparents without permission from my parents. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Help with registering image permission
Hi there,

If you have email you're happy to be tied to your Wikipedia/Commons accounts, perhaps you could help in contacting this user to confirm permission (which I'm pretty confident has already been given); File_namespace_noticeboard.

I asked because I noticed you had labelled one of this user's images (File:SVR_video_recorder.jpg). Coincidentally, I've also just noticed that you were the previous editor of the File namespace noticeboard before I posted that request above(!!!)

Any help appreciated, thanks. Ubcule (talk) 22:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm back
I'm leaving this not for you, Masem, and Werieth. I just returned from my vacation and was tidying up some things IRL. I understand that we have different views on Non-free content review. No consensus has been reached. I am a little bothered that in the week I was gone, the discussion was closed ... without a consensus, but I'd like to move forward. I suggest we find a neutral place to arbitrate this because the discussion has now become circular. Please leave your thoughts in the State articles section. Thanks. --evrik (talk) 04:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't check that discussion for a few days, and during that time, people wrote a lot of text there and I never took the time to read all of that, so I haven't followed what has happened recently. Anyway, it is often better to ask someone who has not previously participated in the discussion to close it and who is not involved in any other way, especially if people are disagreeing on what to do. I think I saw an archive top template being added be, and he is obviously involved.
 * I will be away during the weekend (in fact, I'm already away), with my only connection to the Internet being a small mobile phone, so I will not be very active until Sunday afternoon at least. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Turbo Pascal 5.5 with Objects advertising poster.jpg
Why is this marked for deletion? I just received an email stating that the image will be promptly deleted. After the first notice, I got permission from the original author. I send an email to wikipedia quoting the full email I received from Embarcadero [current owner of Turbo Pascal and Delphi products]. I also added the OTRS tag (not sure if I got it right) to prevent deletion, but clearly that did not work, or nobody is checking emails at Wikipedia? Ggeldenhuys (talk)

"Opaque"
FYI, I could have just as easily given this image a transparent background and uploaded it as a PNG.... but I didn't (and usually don't). Do you know why? Have you ever seen what the wiki software does to PNG images when it resizes them? It's rather awful. For the most part I'd rather see a nice crisp JPG image with a nearly unnoticeable white background than a blurry PNG just so I can say it has a transparent background. PNG certainly has it's uses around here, but this urge to turn everything with a potentially transparent background into one is a little silly. Just thought I'd mention it, so the next time you add an "Opaque" tag, you'll have something else to think about besides that groovy transparent background. – JBarta (talk) 17:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, JPG compression makes the image annoyingly blurry, and you get an ugly white border on a grey background in the infobox. If you upload an image in the same size as the one used in the infobox, then you won't suffer from any resizing problems either, as the image won't be resized. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Your last statement is the only one I can agree with, and depending on the image, I've done that from time to time. However, to blindly do that for every image without regard for any other consideration is silly I think. – JBarta (talk) 00:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Android
Hi Stefan. Thanks for your response at File talk:Android 4.2 on the Nexus 4.png. Actually I'm fully aware what the issues are and aren't with this image, I was just hoping the person who reverted me would thoroughly explain what they saw as the problem so that I could thoroughly explain why they were wrong. For some reason though they chose to just revert and ignore any discussion. I'm not actually that bothered about that image anymore, because Android 4.2 looks exactly the same as Android 4.1, so we can use any number of properly attributed 4.1 images if necessary. Anyway, I've been doing some digging and have a request for you: It would be nice if you could get someone to undelete these. (The other images either don't matter or are already on Commons, correctly attributed.) I would ask Diannaa myself, but last time she archived my comments without any response rather than defend her admin actions, so I was hoping maybe someone would listen to you instead. More generally I wish people would leave these Android screenshots alone now - all the backgrounds are default Android (i.e. Apache) wallpapers and the icons are, as you say, de minimis. A lot of people are trying very hard to delete perfectly acceptable, free images, which is puzzling to me. I hope they get a kick out of it. Rapture&#39;s Sander Cohen (talk) 18:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Android 2.3.png - clearly states CC-by-2.5 at http://developer.android.com/about/versions/android-2.3-highlights.html
 * File:Android 2.2 Home Screen.png - clearly states CC-by-2.5 at http://developer.android.com/about/versions/android-2.2-highlights.html
 * The screenshots on those developer.android.com pages appear to be licensed under either or  according to the footer. This page is a bit confusing about what is available under what licence, but everything is clearly available under a free licence. Also, it seems that the software used for the screenshots are taken directly from the Android Open Source Project without adding any third-party content. I assume that this means that all icons and backgrounds on developer.android.com are available under a free licence unless otherwise indicated.
 * Are you saying that the two screenshots you mentioned use backgrounds and icons from those two pages, save from one or two icons which are de minimis? If so, then I think that the images can be undeleted and tagged as free.
 * I'm sorry if I accidentally nominated some free images for deletion for violating WP:NFCC. Android is a bit tricky since phone operators take free content, add unfree content and then publish the outcome without any clear indication of what's free and what's not free. As these were tagged as unfree, I assumed that they all included unfree content. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand. The images were, unfortunately, incorrectly tagged as fair use by the uploader and this seems to have caused some confusion. I might not have been clear, but File:Android 2.3.png is this image from http://developer.android.com/about/versions/android-2.3-highlights.html and File:Android 2.2 Home Screen.png is this image from http://developer.android.com/about/versions/android-2.2-highlights.html. A couple of the other deleted screenshots were taken from other pages on developer.android.com, but they are safely on Commons and don't need to be restored here. Rapture&#39;s Sander Cohen (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Those two images from developer.android.com appear to be freely licensed. If the ones on Wikipedia are the same, then I think that they can be undeleted. On the other hand, as you have the images available, maybe it is better to just upload them on Commons directly. Just remember to clearly indicate where they come from, and tag them with Commons:Template:Licensereview so that a Commons licence reviewer confirms the licence in the event of any future problems. I left a note about this discussion at Diannaa's talk page in case she wishes to comment. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not comfortable restoring the images because of the non-free content. How about I email them to you, Rapture's Sander Cohen, and then you could clean them up beforehand? Once they're totally cleaned of non-free elements you could upload them directly to the Commons.
 * File:Android 1.0 Home Screen.jpg
 * File:Android 1.1 Home Screen.jpg
 * File:Android 1.5 Home Screen.png
 * File:Android 1.6 Home Screen.jpg
 * File:Android 2.0 Eclair Home Screen.jpg
 * File:Android 2.2 Home Screen.png
 * File:Android 2.3.png
 * File:Android 3.0 on the Motorola Xoom.jpg
 * File:Android 4.0 on the Galaxy Nexus.png -- Dianna (talk) 23:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Image report
Hello! I think File:Bill Bell 2003.jpeg (in use in William J. Bell) violates the first non-free content criterion, because it is depicting a real-life person (not a character) and its copyright permission is not listed. I'm not sure if you're the right person to be telling this to, but I know you've left myself messages about images and just wanted to report this to someone. Regards,  Creativity  97  00:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:NFCC tells that you can't use a non-free image of a real person if a freely licensed image can be taken or is known to exist. If the real person is alive, then it is almost always possible to take new photo of the person. However, if the person is dead, then it is almost always impossible to take new photos (and even if the body is preserved, there may be photo restrictions – see for example Kumsusan Palace of the Sun). In this case, the person is dead, so it is presumably impossible to take new photos. The question is then whether any appropriately licensed photos exist. Are you aware of any such photos? If not, then WP:NFCC is likely not violated here. That said, the uploader could have given a more specific source for the image. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, thank you for the clarification.  Creativity  97  00:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

90210/OTH
I don't really see the problems here.... The images have the correct information filed out. I read your comments on the 90210 pictures and can understand your thought on it, however, it is a promotional poster that reflects the characters in the current season. If you think it should be removed then I find that very amusing as we should then go around wikipedia and delete all promotional pictures used in articles to help sell the content... moving on... The OTH image... again, not sure why you have proposed deletion of it. I read through your given links... does not seem to be relevant. B.Davis2003 (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Please keep the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 April 13. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Your no reply speaks for itself. B.Davis2003 (talk) 09:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Indiacom Webpage Screenshot Apr 2013.png
Hey Stefan, I understand you have some reservation on addition of a website screenshot on the subject issue. You have mentioned that the image is hidden by default, well please understand that I do not have any control over the hidden functionality and as such even if it is important from a  user point of view, we can not change the functionality. I tried to unhide it by default but failed. Even though this screenshot is not directly detrimental to the understanding of the article, still a website's full page screenshot is always helpful for a visitor to the article. And most importantly I have seen in a lot of article, people have added fullpage website screenshot. If you need I can give you a link to one of such articles. Request you please undo your edit for the same. Thanks Nihar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nihar.M (talk • contribs) 16:47, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Please keep the discussion at Files for deletion/2013 April 13. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Question
Thanks for your message - what is the best/correct way to write the source of a photo if it is a television screenshot? I didn't get it from a website I took the screenshot myself. That's why I thought ABC was the correct source as they own the show. Thanks! Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 17:33, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * For example, for screenshots from episodes, you should indicate which episode it comes from. I think this is what you did after I tagged the file. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:55, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Teresa Strasser Picture
Please explain to me why Ms. Strasser's head shot to which she holds the copyright to can't be used on her wiki page? Jodisc (talk) 21:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC) jodisc
 * She is still alive, so Wikipedia can't accept images of her which aren't available under a free licence. See WP:NFC §1. Furthermore, the copyright holder is almost always the photographer. It is unlikely that the subject of the photo is the copyright holder. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

It is a press head shot that is used to promote her. It is on IMDB and can be downloaded from several sites. There are 100s of actors who have their head shots on their wikipedia pages? how do they get that approved. Is it just how they list it. If it is, please assist. I would really appreciate it. I don't want to cause any trouble but SHE really loves this picture and wants it to be up if at all possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jodisc (talk • contribs) 23:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * She is still alive, so Wikipedia can only accept images which are available under a licence which satisfies Definition. If she wants this image to be kept, then she needs to ask the copyright holder to make the image available under at least one such licence by following the instructions at WP:CONSENT. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

File:1987-1992 Pontiac Firebird Trans Am GTA Cloisonné Nose Emblem.jpg
This is my first time responding to a deletion request, and I'm new at uploading. I may have used incorrect selection when describing the image, but it is relevenat in terms of illustrating how the cloisonné technique is used in modern ways, such as mass produced automobiles as the one described. Can you tell me more specifically what changes I need to make to the way I uploaded it to make it more acceptable? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by SBOT Guy (talk • contribs) 23:09, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

B.Davis2003 at Files for deletion/2013 April 13
Hello, Stefan2. I saw that you reverted B.Davis2003's edits at the pages of the images (their file pages)...but that you didn't revert this removal; I was wondering why you didn't. Did you miss it? I even left a note about it in this edit summary, so that attention could be brought to the removal. I also see that he commented on your talk page before reverting you and removing the listings at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 April 13. Flyer22 (talk) 03:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't see that. Thanks for telling me. I've reverted that now. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Before the WP:Edit conflict, I was just typing to tell you that I saw that you very recently reverted the user on the matter. Not sure how you were able to undo the edit, though, considering that, due to intermediate edits, it didn't work when I tried. Flyer22 (talk) 15:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The "undo" button didn't work, so I went to Special:PermanentLink/550174992 (the last revision before the removal), clicked on "edit" and used copy & paste to restore the deletion requests. The edit summary had to be typed in manually.
 * As the deletion discussions were hidden for almost 24 hours, some people may have missed them. Do you think that it would be better to relist them on today's page instead? --Stefan2 (talk) 16:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Wynnewood, Dallas
Thanks for your very helpful clarification regarding the images in the Wynnewood, Dallas article. I have now identified the images (minus one) as being in the public domain and restored them to the article. Wissembourg (talk) 03:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! For the last one, you would have to identify where the photo was published. If it was published before 1964, then the rule was that the copyright holder had to renew the copyright during the 27th or 28th year after publication, or the photo would enter the public domain after 28 years. As there is no market for newspapers published 28 years ago, lots of newspapers never had their copyrights renewed, so those newspapers entered the public domain 28 years after they were published (but warning: some newspapers did care about renewing the copyright). On the other hand, if the photo comes from a very popular book, then there might still have been a market for it after 28 years, and then the copyright was presumably renewed. The renewal requirement only applies to works published before 1964, so if it was first published in 1964 or later, then it is much more likely to be protected by copyright. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Ides of April cover.jpg
I think I've now added a suitable rationale, but wasn't sure whether it was for me to remove the "Please remove this template if a rationale is provided." was for me, or for someone else, to do. Could you check that the rationale is acceptable? Thanks. Pam D  09:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Cleaned up a bit. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Worshipping Oak - Haverhill, MA - August 2012.jpg and File:Salem Oak Tree - Salem, NJ - November 2012.jpg
Hello - I wanted to let you know that my wife sent emails to permissions-en@wikimedia.org just now authorizing the use of both of these files. Please let me know if any additional information is needed. Thanks. Marty Msact (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If the e-mail contains all necessary information, then we just need to wait for someone to read it. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Question about File:Turk Broda.jpg
Hello Stefan2, just saw your response about this file on media copyright questions. Would you mind clarifying with some details, why this file is not in PD? I am not really involved with that file, but i am trying to understand the nuances of Canadian copyright and its relation to the various US copyright deadlines. You seem to have a lot of experience with such questions, i'd appreciate any guidance, how to establish that particular copyright situation. GermanJoe (talk) 21:41, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * All photos taken before 1949 entered the public domain in Canada 50 years after they were taken. After that, the law was changed, and more recent photos usually enter the public domain in Canada 50 years after the death of the photographer.
 * The European Union, Japan and certain other countries use the rule of the shorter term which says that Canadian photos enter the public domain in the European Union and Japan no later than they enter the public domain in Canada, so Canadian photos taken before 1949 are also in the public domain in the European Union and Japan.
 * The United States does not use the rule of the shorter term, so a Canadian photo which is in the public domain in Canada may be protected by copyright in the United States. US rules depend on when the photos were first published:
 * Canadian photos published before 1923 are in the public domain in the United States because the United States doesn't provide copyright protection to any photos published before 1923.
 * Canadian photos first published in 1923 are in the public domain in the United States because there was no copyright treaty between the United States and Canada in 1923 and because the photos already were in the public domain in Canada on 1 January 1996.
 * Canadian photos taken before 1946 and first published between 1924 and 28 February 1989 were in the public domain in Canada on 1 January 1996. They are only protected by copyright in the United States if the Canadian publisher complied with all United States copyright formalities: copyright notice, copyright renewal (if first published before 1964) and copyright registration (if published without copyright notice 1978-89). The assumption is that Canadian publishers often didn't follow the copyright formalities, and in those cases, you will find that the photos are in the public domain in the United States.
 * Canadian photos taken in 1946 or later were protected by copyright in Canada on 1 January 1996. By virtue of URAA, they are still protected by copyright in the United States regardless of the copyright status in Canada. Such photos can only be uploaded here if you have permission from the photographer.
 * Canadian unpublished photos, as well as any photos which were first published on 1 March 1989 or later, need to satisfy PD-US-unpublished in order to be uploaded here, regardless of when the photos were taken. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the detailed explanation. Initially i missed the part "50 years after creation". That fact is not stated explicitly in the template or in Commons "Rules by territory" (just the resulting 1949 deadline), but now it makes sense. GermanJoe (talk) 22:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The UK and most former British colonies once used either 50 years from creation or 50 years from publication for photos, although some of these countries later abolished this rule. You have the same situation in Australia: Australian photos taken before 1955 entered the public domain in Australia 50 years after they were taken, but the same annoying USA rules apply for Australian photos too. 50 years from publication (for example South Africa) does horrible things to unpublished photos. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

File:James Lord Bowes 1834-99.jpg
Hi, can you please respond to Leopold7's questions at ? He's kinda confused by your rationale and lack of response. If it was taken in 1875 I don't see how it could still be copyrighted. He also uploaded a duplicate at File:Portrait of James Lord Bowes circa 1875.png which has better licensing tags so maybe the one you nominated can just be deleted as a mistake. You also need to archive your talk page. --Closedmouth (talk) 13:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If it was first published in 2003, then the image satisfies PD-US-unpublished. However, the uploader wrote that it has been published at several places. If it was first published between 1923 and 2002, then it may be protected by copyright, with the protection expiring either 95 years after publication (if published before 1978) or on 1 Janaury 2048 (if published 1978-2002). See Commons:COM:HIRTLE. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

PD-Australia
I see from my watchlist that you have embarked on a crusade regarding photos with PD-Australia tags.

The owner of the copyright (Australian War Memorial) says the copyright has expired. I'm puzzled as to why you have taken it upon yourself to disagree with the owner of the copyright. If the owner says the copyright has expired, what are you achieving, or hoping to achieve, by telling the owner that they are wrong?

I'm afraid I just don't understand your motivation.

Hence, I have no idea how to respond to: File:3RAR-1950-P01813.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).
 * Taken after 1945, so protected by copyright in the United States per Non-U.S. copyrights. Stefan2 (talk) 14:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I would very much appreciate it if you could explain to me why U.S. law says that the owner's decision is wrong and should be ignored.

I would also appreciate it if you could explain to me how I might go about responding to the above, or if I would just be wasting my time.

Yours in anticipation, (and thanks in advance), Pdfpdf (talk) 15:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * USA and Australia use different copyright rules. In these cases, the copyright has expired in Australia but not in the United States. See the section about Canada immediately above: the same problem exists with Australia, except that "before 1949" reads "before 1955" in the Australian case. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, as I implied, I know all that. That's why I asked you a series of questions which you have avoided:
 * 1) I'm puzzled as to why you have taken it upon yourself to disagree with the owner of the copyright.
 * 2) If the owner says the copyright has expired, what are you achieving, or hoping to achieve, by telling the owner that they are wrong?
 * 3) I'm afraid I just don't understand your motivation.
 * 4a) I have no idea how to respond to ...
 * 5) I would very much appreciate it if you could explain to me why U.S. law says that the owner's decision is wrong and should be ignored.
 * 4b) I would also appreciate it if you could explain to me how I might go about responding to ...
 * 4c) or if I would just be wasting my time.
 * As I said first time: Yours in anticipation, (and thanks in advance), Pdfpdf (talk) 13:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The Australian War Memorial says that the copyright has expired, not that the image has been released to the public domain. Copyright expiration is an automatic process which happens after a stipulated period of time. This period has passed in Australia but not in the United States. The website is meant for Australian users, so I would assume that it only reports the copyright status in Australia. That tends to be the usual thing with websites belonging to archives.
 * http://www.awm.gov.au/collection/P01813.718 tells that the photo was taken by Ian Robertson, so the copyright holder would be Ian Robertson or his heirs and not the war memorial website, wouldn't it? --Stefan2 (talk) 14:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The Australian War Memorial says that the copyright has expired, not that the image has been released to the public domain. - Hmmmm. Good point. I'll investigate that and get back to you.
 * Copyright expiration is an automatic process which happens after a stipulated period of time. This period has passed in Australia but not in the United States. - Another good point, also needing further investigation.
 * The website is meant for Australian users, so I would assume that it only reports the copyright status in Australia. That tends to be the usual thing with websites belonging to archives. - Maybe. And probably not relevant to this discussion.
 * http://www.awm.gov.au/collection/P01813.718 tells that the photo was taken by Ian Robertson, so the copyright holder would be Ian Robertson or his heirs and not the war memorial website, wouldn't it? - Not necessarily. If he was employed as a war correspondent / photographer / whatever by the Australian Govt, then the Aust Govt / AWM would be the copyright holder, and this is the most likely scenario. (i.e. I'm not aware of anyone not employed by the Oz Gov who independently went swanning off to East Asia / SE Asia / Vietnam / The Middle East or other theatres of war to take pictures or paint portraits on the off chance that someone other than, or even including, the Oz Gov might pay him for his work. Such a person would get NO access to Oz Forces, and NO protection from them either.)


 * By-the-way: Yet again you continue to avoid answering the questions I have asked you. Pdfpdf (talk)


 * Hi Pdfpdf. As one of Stefan's talk page watchers and a co-worker in the task of maintaining our image collection, I am going to try to answer your questions. It's not that Stefan disagrees with the Australian War Memorial; it's just that is only part of the story. United States copyright law specifies that in order for an image to be public domain in the United States, it must be in the public domain both in its country of origin and in the United States. So for an image to be classed as PD here on English Wikipedia it must be in the PD in the United States, because our servers are located in the United States. (For an image hosted on the Commons, it must be PD or licensed for use in both the country of origin and the United States.) There's more information at Non-U.S. copyrights. I don't know what Stefan's motivations are for undertaking this work, but I suspect they're similar to mine: We cannot selectively ignore international copyright law; if we wish to be taken seriously as a world-class website we are obliged to obey the law to the best of our ability. -- Dianna (talk) 19:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you Diannaa! Your reply is most appreciated.
 * You raise an interesting (well, interesting to me,) conflict. On the one hand, we have the owner of the copyright saying it has expired. On the other hand, we have US law saying "no it hasn't"! I find the absolute arrogance of the US world view ... "interesting". (I guess it's analogous to the absolute arrogance of the British view of the world in the 19th century?) But meanwhile, back at the ranch ...
 * So that addresses my points 1, 2, 3 and 5.
 * But that still leaves 4. Viz:

A) I have no idea how to respond to: File:3RAR-1950-P01813.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) . B) I would also appreciate it if you could explain to me how I might go about responding to the above, or if I would just be wasting my time.
 * Taken after 1945, so protected by copyright in the United States per Non-U.S. copyrights. Stefan2 (talk) 14:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * To be specific:
 * 4a) I have no idea how to respond to ... (A)
 * 4b) I would also appreciate it if you could explain to me how I might go about responding to ... (B)
 * 4c) OR if I would just be wasting my time.
 * Again, thank you for your reply. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the image qualifies for fair use? WP:NFCC. -- Dianna (talk) 18:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe. (I'll add that to the list-of-things-to-do. Sadly, that list never seems to get shorter.) Thanks Diannaa, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It says that the photo was donated to the Australian War Memorial by the photographer. If it was donated to the War Memorial by the photographer, this would imply that it isn't a government work, wouldn't it? The government should already have copies of government works and shouldn't need donations. That said, I don't know how someone not working for the government would be able to take a photo of these people.
 * Agreed. If they weren't required to, the forces wouldn't let him (much less his camera) anywhere near them! Pdfpdf (talk) 12:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If the War Memorial holds the copyright to the image in the United States, maybe you could try to get some kind of official statement sent to OTRS, for example from some official person telling that the public domain claim applies worldwide? If you could get such a statement which applies to all images to which the War Memorial is the copyright holder, then that would be even better.
 * Also agreed. I might revisit the Milhist talk page - I seem to vaguely remember a discussion regarding this same issue relatively recently, where the participants were expressing opinions/wishes similar to the ones you mention. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I personally think that conflicts between US and non-US law can be very annoying. These photos are in the public domain in Australia, Japan, the European Union, Canada and lots of other countries, but not in the United States. I wish that the United States would implement the rule of the shorter term to get rid of these annoyances. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "If wishes were horses, we'd all be knee deep in horse manure". Yes, I also agree with your third statement.
 * So, I deduce from your reply that contesting the deletion would be a complete waste of everybody's time, particularly yours and mine. I further deduce that devoting the effort to other courses-of-action is considerably more likely to produce useful results. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, you might wish to take a look at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Ontario highway images. Someone tried to get a statement from the Canadian government, but there was something wrong with the statement, so the images were deleted anyway. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh. OK. Thanks. ("Forewarned is fore-armed") Pdfpdf (talk) 15:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't buy any of this. While legal explanations that these images are technically still copyrighted in the US even if not in AS are no doubt probably true why on earth would the copyright holder explicitly label the images as PD in Australia and then attempt to assert copyright in the US? This is a question that has been asked repeatedly and never answered. The simple answer is they wouldn't. This is especially true when one considers the mission of the AWM and what it exists to do (i.e. non-profit memorial). Of course all of this will be ignored as the strict legal / policy reason will always be applied once the images have been proposed for deletion (as indeed it must for Wikipedia to continue to function). Given this certainly and your claimed sympathies as nominator one truly has to question what outcome it is you hope to achieve Stefan? Do you seek an encyclopedia without images for many of our more important articles? Ultimately that is exactly what this is going to lead to. Suggestions about obtaining OTRS tickets aren't really helpful either - there are literally thousands of images in this category and no chance that editors have the time to obtain the necessary permissions just to tick a box to use an image the copyright holder has already explicitly (or at least implicitly) given us permission to use. (Not to mention the time such a request takes in even getting a response from the relevant government department - one of my requests took several months and when I got the response they pretty much thought I was an idiot because they were of the opinion that sufficient permission already existed). Surely there are more constructive ways to contribute to the encyclopedia than deleting perfectly useable images just because of some technicality which you feel needs to be enforced. Anotherclown (talk) 14:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

P.S.
My personal opinion is that I think your talk page might be overdue for an archive ... Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Overruling King of Hearts advice - why?
Why exactly are you overriding King of Hearts advice on DR? ( at Possibly unfree files/2013 April 14)  --Elvey (talk) 15:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You can't use on PUF pages.  does important maintenance work there and needs to be allowed to edit there. PUF is for files which have not been deleted and which may be unfree. If the file has been deleted, it should go to WP:DRV. If the deletion review decided that the file should go to PUF, then the file should first be undeleted so that people other than admins can tell whether it is free or not. Normally, the one closing the deletion review should do this, so if  didn't do this, you should ask him to fix this. Also, the header is wrong: there's a double "File" there.
 * As there now is some kind of file under that file name, the bot won't close the discussion, but the file still needs to be undeleted during the discussion so that it's possible to tell whether it is free or not. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons and non-free images
Hi, I saw you tagged File:Oberlin OSCA Logo.png to be converted to SVG and moved to Commons, but it is marked as copyrighted—I thought these images couldn't be uploaded to Commons; is there a guideline for this I'm not aware of? (Is the logo too simple to be copyrighted?) – 29611670.x (talk) 21:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The logo looks like an obvious PD-shape to me. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Got it; thanks for explaining! – 29611670.x (talk) 21:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I converted it to SVG—should I upload it directly to Commons, or upload it here and then move it? Do I need to credit the original uploader of the PNG somehow? Thanks, – 29611670.x (talk) 22:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you upload it to Commons directly. Otherwise, someone will have to spend time on deleting the SVG version from here when you've moved it there. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * OK; thanks. – 29611670.x (talk) 23:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

FLH
How about:


 * Photos of Frank and Mary Hoffman
 * 2011 photo Frank and Mary Hoffman

— Preceding unsigned comment added by MaynardClark (talk • contribs) 2013-04-15T22:38:00‎
 * Both Frank and Mary Hoffman appear to be alive, so a non-free image is no option. See WP:NFC §1. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Team Caja Rural 2013 Jersey.jpg
Although your contention is that an item of freely licensed media could be found or created that provides substantially the same information as the illustrated subject, no example or argument is given for this position. This image is a copyrighted image of a copyrighted team jersey imprinted with trademark logo insignias. This image was derived from one used by the team's own website, and so should not be in danger of devaluing or demeaning the underlying copyrighted garment. I am unaware of any free equivalent image. A freely available photograph taken of the jersey on display in public, for example, would be very unlikely to display all of the sponsors' logos and the garment in full, and so would not be an adequate replacement or a fair depiction of the underlying copyrighted work. The resolution of this image is lower than the image available from the team's website directly, which is already at the decision of the copyright holder placed at risk of wrongful use, and this uploaded image's resolution would clearly be inadequate to produce a merchantable copy of the underlying copyrighted garment thereby threatening the copyright holder's opportunity for commercial exploitation of the jersey through licensed sales or otherwise. Transonic Crayon (talk) 13:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The underlying work is not copyrighted. It is only this particular drawing of it which is copyrighted. Plenty of similar images have been deleted as replaceable all of the time. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

April 2013
Please refrain from going through a user's contributions and tagging them for deletion, if a pattern of abuse has not been shown. Such use can be seen as wikihounding, a form of harassment FKA wikistalking. You have placed obviously groundless speedy deletion tags (e.g. ) on files I uploaded. A pattern of hostility reduces the likelihood of the community assuming good faith, and can be considered disruptive editing. Please AGF and note my last two edits, which may help you do that.--Elvey (talk) 02:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a claim on the talk page that this image was obtained through a leak. That sounds like an obvious violation of WP:NFCC, so I'm not sure what the problem is.
 * Quoting the policy page you mentioned:

"Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam."


 * So it seems that reporting violations of WP:NFCC isn't harassment. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 1)The diff I linked to is to an edit of yours that makes the obviously invalid claim that "the work has not been previously published outside Wikipedia". THAT is all that the (e.g. diff) shows.  That is part of the pattern of harassment I'm talking about.  You should assume good faith. --Elvey (talk) 16:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The diff shows that I think that the image violates WP:NFCC. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Elvey. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ''Again, in particular, please stop WP:WIKIHOUNDING me! Most recent example: diff. Please (re-)read WP:WIKIHOUNDING.'' Elvey (talk) 17:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hm? Is it suddenly WP:WIKIHOUNDING to post a comment to a talk page after seeing a notice on my watchlist that a user has edited the page? --Stefan2 (talk) 22:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Leepa valley photos
No need to tell me each time you delete these - after all I recommended their deletion. But can you please inform their creator on User talk:Faizanalivarya. I had already informed him of the nom for deletion. Best wishes--Fil e  Éireann 21:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry ignore this. I am trying to multitask feeding the baby and looking at this.--Fil e  Éireann 21:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You were the one who created the local file information pages, so you got the F2 notices about unneeded local file information pages. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Pushman v. New York Graphic Society
I learned something new today that I did not know. Had you ever heard of Pushman v. New York Graphic Society before? Prior to 1976 (the court case was repealed by law in 1976), if the only physical embodiment of a copyrighted work was transferred, unless there was an agreement in writing to the contrary, the copyright was transferred as well. In other words, if you took a photo and then gave your only copy of that photo to someone before 1976, you transferred copyright to them. The "so what" of this is that if we have a photo from a family photo album or some such thing and that person (or their ancestor of whom they are the sole heir) obtained the photo before 1976, we need not concern ourselves too much with who it was that originally took the photo - the copyright was transferred with the photo until 1976. --B (talk) 01:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That's interesting. I've heard of people talking about things like that elsewhere without providing any good source, so I've never known if it was true.
 * Note that although it is called the Copyright Act of 1976, the law applies to actions made on 1 January 1978 and later (so the above is also true for transfers made in 1976 and 1977). The year is the year when the politicians voted on the law or something. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Neondian
Reading the non-free content rules, I can see why it is necessary to delete Neondian1995cover.jpeg, but there is a precedent for including alternative covers if they differ dramatically from the original cover (for example White Light/White Heat, where two covers are included), and I would therefore oppose the deletion of Neondian2006cover.jpeg. Nevertheless, I sincerely doubt my opinion makes any difference. KosmischeSynth (talk) 15:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * How so? The article The Quest for Kalevala only contains the German cover, and not the Finnish cover, the Italian cover, the Dutch cover or the Brazilian cover, which are all very different to the German cover. In what way is the article Neondian any different? The only difference that I see is that Neondian is a music product (meaning that you don't see the cover when consuming the product) whereas The Quest for Kalevala is a printed product (meaning that the cover is seen a lot when consuming the product). --Stefan2 (talk) 15:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Knowing absolutely nothing about copyright laws beyond the basics, I merely point to White Light/White Heat, which has three versions of the cover (USA, UK and re-release). Now it may be that White Light/White Heat is also in contravention of copyright law, but I designed my page for Neondian with it in mind. If I'm wrong, so it White Light/White Heat, or else we're both right.KosmischeSynth (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Scottish Challenge Cup Final programme covers - deletion
Hi Stefan2. I've provided a possible solution to the problems you pointed out regarding the use rationale on the files that I uploaded and have left a comment on the. My suggestion was to change the rationale to something like this here. Please let me know what you think and if it is suitable. Thanks,  Cal  Umbra   15:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Simpsons-related FFD discussions
Could you re-list all of your recently-opened Simpsons-related images in a single discussion? Arguments to keep or delete that apply to one almost certainly apply to all. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)
 * Which Simpsons-related discussions? I checked the FFD pages for today, yesterday and the day before yesterday, and didn't find anything which from the file name looked like a Simpsons-related discussion. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * DOH! you proposed these for deletion over a week ago, at Files_for_deletion/2013_April_14 and following. There has been no discussion on any of them.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  23:08, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Why would that be improved by bundling them into a single discussion? Arguments to keep an image would be based on individual elements in the respective articles, so I think that it would be more confusing to bundle them. There has been at least one case with a bundled episode image deletion discussion (Non-free content review/Archive 21), but that one looks very messy, with lots of subsections, mainly for images that someone wished to keep, although in the end, those were deleted too. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You are correct. When I made my earlier comments I took the fair-use justification that these were all "promo cards" to mean that they were all "official," studio-release promo cards, making them morally equivalent to DVD-single-episode-cover-art (albeit for a DVD that does not exist) and therefore qualifying as an "album cover" for the episodes.  However, yesterday I dug around for one or two of the images and couldn't find any indication that these images had that status.  Lacking that status, you are correct, they should be handled individually.  Then again, all other Simpsons stills that do not qualify as "album cover"-equivalent use should also be evaluated closely for WP:FAIRUSE.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  15:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Genome Valley image of CCMB
The image do not have any copyright issues, it is not from any newspaper or company website or not from any advertisements. I request your help in doing so, I am new to this, I would appreciate your valuable time Thank youMurrallli (talk) 13:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Which of the images are you talking about? --Stefan2 (talk) 14:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I am unable to understand the fair use policy procedure, (the procedure is lengthy and confusing) the two pictures (novartis and ccmb) in it are the photographs taken by me, I need ur help to do the necessary procedurs posted in my talk page, I cannot do it by myself as a new user it is cumbersome Murrallli (talk) 14:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Which of the images are you talking about? It seems that you only are talking about two images, but you have uploaded more than two images. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

how many times I should tell, I am talking about all images included yesterday, now u got it will u please help me navigate, wihout talking about trivial matters like how many images, I do not know what I should do, can u help me?? Murrallli (talk) 15:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Yesterday, you talked about "the two pictures" (see above) and now you are apparently talking about all images. Please clarify what you mean. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Genome valley image of US pharmacopeia building

can u please tell me where the hell I should put this template di-replaceable fair use disputed??? why the hell do u make these procedures so confusing, just put an email and give the procedure t include a fair image simple way, what is this all non sense system, you dont even indicate where tO put the template and, why dont u help editors make wikipedia navigation easier, why all this round about procedures??? Murrallli (talk) 14:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You add anywhere on the file information page. Also see WP:NFC §1 which tells that it isn't permitted to use fair use images of buildings which still exist. There is no evidence that these buildings have been demolished. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Which of the images am I talking about?

are u joking??? you dont know which images in the article of genome valley r in dispute, (u have added the tags) instead of that I will talk about Taj Mahal images??? Murrallli (talk) 15:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * From what I can see, you have uploaded six different images but are complaining about two of them, unclear which. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I have added FOUR IMAGES (which included 1 LOGO) I dont know about other TWO images, now please tell me where to put the above TAG and tell me about the non sense procedures, Is there a Intellectual property to edit content in wikipedia??? why this non sense for images??? Murrallli (talk) 15:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You have uploaded six images, not four. See Special:Log/Murrallli. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

which file information page???please provide link to that page

Murrallli (talk) 15:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

In this link - File:US pharmacopeia hyderabad office.jpg, I do not understand where to add that non sense, I have tried to include my reason, but it did not appear Murrallli (talk) 15:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * What are you trying to add and why? --Stefan2 (talk) 15:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

the bulding still exists, so what??? the image is included in the article, because it is exsting the author made the image public,

Murrallli (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * As I wrote above, Wikipedia doesn't permit photos of buildings used under a fair use claim if the building still exists. See WP:NFC §1. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:50, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

what??? in the article genome valley, i added existing buildings since it will justify fair use, how can u expect a demolished building pic in the live article???

Murrallli (talk) 15:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * As the buildings obviously haven't been demolished, the pictures you have uploaded simply aren't acceptable on Wikipedia, per policy. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Please dont message

I cannot understand this image policies and non sense, if u wish to help my images tagged as fair use, or else please dont spoil my efforts by adding other wikipedia policies, I have approached u for tech support to help navigate my dispute over images, not that u dispute with me over fair use, good bye Murrallli (talk) 15:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter whether you understand the image policies. As long as your image uploads violate image the policies, your images can't be kept. The policy has already been explained to you above. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

so in all wikipedia articles, current buildings are not there??? demolsihed buildings r there,  now i know ur misguiding me, dont message me, let me try to dispute with

Murrallli (talk) 16:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Only fair use images of existing buildings are disallowed. Freely licensed images are perfectly acceptable. Your images show no evidence of being freely licensed. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * POV pushing

what u want is, not to put any images in that article, and ur manipulating wikipedia rules, NOTHING IS EXPLAINED BY YOU, NOW ABOUT THIS SUBJECT, INSTEAD OF EXPLAINING UR TALKING NON SENSE AND ALSO TRYING TO ESTABLISH UNFAIR USE OVER MY IMAGES, USING MY LACK OF KNOWLEDGE IN IMAGE POLICIES, DONT MESSAGE ME,  Murrallli (talk) 16:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If you want an explanation, then you need to tell what you want me to explain, and express yourself clearly. For example, first you mentioned "the image" (meaning just one image), then you were suddenly talking about "the two pictures" and then you were suddenly talking about "all images included yesterday", meaning, according to yourself, "FOUR IMAGES", although Special:Log/Murrallli clearly tells that you uploaded six images yesterday. If you can't express yourself clearly, then it is impossible to know what you are asking about, and without knowing what you are asking about, there is no way to answer you. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I am establishing evidence of licence, dont interfere

Murrallli (talk) 16:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

i said images i (not other users not previous ones) uploaded in genome valley article, on 24th april, and u r asking me 100 times the same question

Murrallli (talk) 16:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

As long as you don't express yourself clearly and clarify the things above, there is no way to help you. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

STOP MESSAGING ME OKAY, INSTEAD OF HELP ME NAVIGATE U FORCE THE IMAGE TO BE DELETED?? DONT EVER MESSAGE ME

Murrallli (talk) 16:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Whenever you keep deleting maintenance and deletion tags, those tags just have to be restored as you refuse to address the problems. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Codename Lisa (talk) 15:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Question
Which is a free license? --Supermathguy68 (talk) 19:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A licence is considered as free by Wikipedia if it satisfies Definition. For example, Creative Commons Attribution–ShareAlike and the GNU General Public License are two common free licences, one for photos and text and one for computer software. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Source problem
Hi Stefan2, Actually Dazedbythebell and myself were considering migrating File:Meher Baba 12.jpg to Commons. What exactly should the source information be? Where the image was downloaded from? The one sure thing is that it was taken in India and there is it is now in Public Domain. Hoverfish Talk 15:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia and Commons can only accept Indian photos if they are in the public domain in both India and the United States. For example, an Indian photo can only be in the public domain in the United States if it was published before 1941, but there is no information about where the photo comes from or where it was published, so there is no way to check whether it was published somewhere before 1941 or not. Without a source confirming publication before 1941, the image can't be kept. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I did a very careful search and think that I have provided the information needed. I also found that the image is from 1936, not 1941, according to the Glow magazine, which published it in 2003. Can you please check and let me know if it is all right now? Thank you. Hoverfish Talk 18:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * But when were they first published? According to the copyright law of India, the copyright to photos expires 60 years after they were taken. If the photo was taken in 1936, but first published in 2003, then the copyright expires 60 years after 2003... Indian law is a bit annoying in that unpublished photos taken after 1907 have perpetual copyright. Wikipedia uses USA law, which does not provide for perpetual copyright, but unless the photo either was published before 1941 or satisfies PD-US-unpublished, then the photo will typically not be in the public domain in the United States. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That's very useful information. I'll see what I can do. Thank you Stefan2. Hoverfish Talk 13:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Files Listed for deletion - April 26, 2013
I saw you have listed the files File:Riverdales 2006.jpg and File:Phase Three 2008.jpg for deletion due to them being redundant extra covers. I disagree that they are redundant, not just because they are different than the original album covers, but the reissues offer different content (be it extra songs or different track listing) and I feel that it is important to offer readers a visual clue to tell the difference between the original album pressings and the reissues. --Gtandersson (talk) 16:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Compare with the article The Quest for Kalevala. That article only contains the German cover and not the vastly different Finnish, Italian, Dutch or Brazilian covers. Why is that article any different? --Stefan2 (talk) 17:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Given that I've never seen those covers, and I have absolutely no knowledge of Duck Tales comic books, I can't really use that as a strong basis for comparison. What I can assume is that the variations of the comic were released around the same time and contain the same material within (save for the possibility of translations), so in that case there is no need to show the different covers. But being that the reissues of the albums in question (Riverdales and Phase Three) contain different/altered material, and were released years apart, I feel that it is important to show readers the difference. Surely the articles can be edited to mention the different artwork (they both already have), but why simply tell readers about it and not show it? Why make them leave Wikipedia and search the web for the image when it can be easily placed within the article? If this is a practice that Wikipedia does not feel is necessary, then why do so many pages (Far Beyond Driven, Virgin Killer, Yesterday and Today, Sticky Fingers, Item and more) feature multiple artworks? --Gtandersson (talk) 18:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Other articles with multiple covers typically looks like WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST to me. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Do what you have to do. Sounds to me like you made up your mind when you listed the files for deletion and this conversation has been a waste of my time. --Gtandersson (talk) 13:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Addition of exact source and re-sizing of File:MohammadAli.jpg
I have added the exact source of image and also uploaded the smaller version of image to meet Wikipedia criteria of non-free content. If there is anything else regarding image then please leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you--Jockzain (talk) 16:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What is the origin of the file? See WP:NFC §10: you can't use a non-free file if the origin of the file is unknown. This seems to be a scan from a printed publication, but you have listed a website as source. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Its not a scan from printed publication. It was taken as screenshot from a documentary film aired on Geo TV in 2008 and again aired at the same channel on April 18 2013. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=591518930871738&set=pb.270783522945282.-2207520000.1367002496.&type=3&theater the channel put this image at their facebook page to promote the documentary.--Jockzain (talk) 19:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've amended the source field. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for putting your time and efforts in this matter.--Jockzain (talk) 16:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Investigating File:Office2001.jpg copyright status
Hi.

Is File:Office2001.jpg copyright-protected? I seem to remember you telling me something about utilitarian things but I can't remember correctly. Could you please review it with me?

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Utilitarian objects such as computers and chairs are not protected by copyright in the United States, the United Kingdom and certain other countries. See Commons:COM:UA and Commons:COM:CB. Other countries may be different. For example, last year, the Supreme Court of Norway decided that the chair to the right on this image was a copyright violation of the chair to the left (see the court ruling here). Different countries may define "utilitarian" differently. For example, here you can read that a US court found that a Stormtrooper helmet isn't utilitarian, whereas a UK court found that the same helmet is utilitarian. This means that the helmet is subject to copyright protection in the United States but not in the United Kingdom.
 * Things printed on packaging isn't utilitarian, but in this case, it looks as if the print seems to be too simple to be eligible for copyright. I would guess that the packaging itself is utilitarian (it just looks like a box meant to contain one or more CDs), so I would guess that the packaging isn't copyrightable. The packaging is a 3D object, so we would need permission from the photographer (see for example Commons:COM:ART or Commons:Template:Non-free frame revdel). I might be wrong about the print or the utilitarian aspects, so I would suggest a discussion at WP:NFCR or WP:FFD about the image. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

You have a message!
Please take a look. And also one personal suggestion, why don't you move some of the conversation here to an archive. It's making a mess here. - Jayadevp  13  11:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Pat Judson
There has been no on this picture's status in the past month. What do you suggest we do? Thanks <b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">—<b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">Cliftonian</b> <b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">(talk)</b></b> 13:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a common problem with photos: it isn't always clear where it was first published. I would guess that it is very likely that the photo is in the public domain. I've replied there. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

OTRS
Hi Stefan2. Have you ever considered volunteering to help with the permissions queue at OTRS? I have started (just in the past few days) working on it. There's a huge backlog and I think that if we could eliminate the backlog and start addressing tickets in a timely fashion, it would save a lot of work at PUI. --B (talk) 04:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. It would be interesting, but I'm also a bit afraid of messing something up, in particular when handling confidential information. I've been very busy with other things during the past week, and I would at least wish to wait a bit until I am less busy. See also the section above. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you turn on email? (Even if just briefly to send me a message with an email address and then turn it back off.)  Thanks. --B (talk) 15:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Try m:Special:EmailUser/Stefan2. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Another question
Hey there Stefan, I was wondering what to do regarding a "file" like this.. File talk:050406-F-1234P-077.jpg. As you'll see when you hit "File" it takes you to File:Forrest L. Vosler, medal of honour recipient.jpg which is on commons now. I think it should be deleted but was wondering what route is best to take for that. Thanks for your help, —<font face=Verdana> -<font color=#FFF>dain  <font color=#000>omite   18:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd say delete or turn into a redirect. File talk:Forrest L. Vosler, medal of honour recipient.jpg contains the same information. Note that WP:CSD contains an exception for files on Commons, so I'm not sure if any speedy deletion criterion applies. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Gotcha, sounds good. I read G8 and saw a link to template:Db-talk, I'll give that a try. Thanks again, —<font face=Verdana> -<font color=#FFF>dain  <font color=#000>omite   23:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh just an update, I used db-talk as the rationale but the admin used "G6 Talk page is a redirect created by move of associated article" as the delete reason. —<font face=Verdana> -<font color=#FFF>dain  <font color=#000>omite   15:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * As I wrote, WP:CSD doesn't apply to files on Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Mural LA Central Library.jpg
Thank you for your analysis at. I have withdrawn the nomination. I have also added a summary of the important facts at Commons:File:Mural LA Central Library.jpg. Could you tell me if you believe everything I have written there is accurate? I plan on deleting the file locally; that wouldn't violate a protocol I'm not aware of, would it? All the best, – Quadell (talk) 19:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I added Commons:Template:Oldpuffull and a couple of copyright templates within Commons:Template:3-D in PD. The PD-old-auto template is useful for people outside the United States: it tells that the mural is in the public domain in Canada and China, but not in France (rule of the shorter term only for PD-1923 but not for lack-of-formalities PD reasons) or Germany (no rule of the shorter term for US works). Looks OK to me. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 18:17, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Energetically Modified Cement
Dear Stefan:

Please contact Dr. Vladimir Ronin, a professor at Luleå University so that he can discuss this with you directly. You can contact him directly by going to www.emccement.com, and emailing him using the contact form at the foot on the page.

My word is not good enough. You say it "cannot be verified". I want to know if every person who uploads is put through this baptism of fire. My word is my word. Your motive cannot be "verified" but yet, I HAVE to take you on trust.

Seems yet another example whereby Wikipedia does everything it can to aid the "accuser", yet the "accused" cannot question the motives of the very person "attacking" in the first place.

Put simply, I am not questioning your good faith. I am not asking for verification. Yet you persist. Does it not occur to you that the individuals nominating the pictures for deletion may be male fide? Yet they are given the benefit of the doubt. No wonder wikipedia has such a reputation of being such a brutal place: all the rules about fair play (and implying good faith) before before raising an allegation seem to count for nothing. Or has this not occured to you?

Kind regards Jono2013 (talk) 01:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Please just follow the correct procedure as stated at WP:CONSENT, Commons:COM:ET and Commons:COM:E-postmallar. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I have received the following email from Professor Ronin, which he sent earlier to "permissions-en@wikimedia.org". If any aspect is not concordant with the steps you have proposed, then I'd be pleased for your guidance. Kind regards Jono2013 (talk) 16:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Dota 2 Screenshot
Hi, I reduced the size of the image once to what I think is a perfectly reasonable image size. Remember the image is made of two separate game screenshots and thus has to be somewhat bigger overall to be able to see each individual image, I don't think it needs reducing further and I think doing so renders the image too pixelated. Samwalton9 (talk) 18:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Which image are you talking about? --Stefan2 (talk) 14:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The Dota/Dota 2 comparison on Dota 2. It doesn't matter now though, someone else reduced the image to what I would consider possibly too pixelated. Not going to argue however. Samwalton9 (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Your username...
Hi.

So, what is going to happen to your username?

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Anything happening with it? If you mean Single User Login finalisation announcement, then it means that the Wikimedia Foundation will rename de:User:Stefan2, nl:User:Stefan2 and commons:User:Stefan2 to some other names because the foundation has decided that three different people can't share the same user name on different projects. When that happens, I will ask to have my accounts on those three projects renamed so that I have the same user name on all different projects. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you going to become Stefan4 here, as you are most active on Commons? Best regards Codename Lisa (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I am actually about equally active on both projects. Once the WMF has renamed away the conflicting accounts, my plan was to request renaming of the other accounts so that I will be Stefan2 everywhere. I'm also planning to use redirects from old user names at other projects so that people won't have any problems finding me, so no need to worry. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of CPT 4200 Cassette Tape Selectric Word Processor.png
You have apparently deleted the file "CPT 4200 Cassette Tape Selectric Word Processor.png".

I had explained clearly on the form for the image why there was not a good substitute image available and why the use of this image did not conflict with any existing commercial or artistic interests. The images that were offered as substitutes are largely junk, not showing the machine clearly, having missing keys, with the two parts of the machine disjoint, and not showing the typing part of the machine in its original form, as should be depicted in a historical article on the subject. The image I uploaded was taken from a one-page advertising flyer from the early 1970s, not then marked with a copyright notice, and representing a machine that has not been manufactured for over 30 years, produced by a company that ceased operations more than a decade ago.

Not having this image available deprives readers of Wikipedia of a clear idea of what this machine was like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LehmanUMN (talk • contribs) 21:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I didn't delete anything because only administrators can delete images. It was deleted by following the discussion at Files for deletion/2013 May 11. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm have not seen an actual discussion. I replied to the queries a couple of weeks ago, explained that no suitable substitute was available, then you asserted substitute images were available, then my image was gone. Nobody discussed my points of why the other images were not suitable, or why this one did not infringe other interests. What am I missing? Please point me to the discussion you are referring to. talk —Preceding undated comment added 21:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:FFU
If you have a moment, I would appreciate any copyright knowledge you have. There are two requests at Files for upload about Canadian currency. To be completely honest I have no idea how either should be handled. Any guidance you could give would be fantastic! Thanks, -- Тимофей ЛееСуда . 05:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Someone else already seems to have handled those.
 * Canadian currency enters the public domain in Canada 50 years after publication and in the United States 95 years after publication. Currency published before 1946 is in the public domain in both countries. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Al Hirschfeld Alfred Hitchcock Green.jpg
Hi Stefan,

I wanted to offer an explanation for the image of Alfred Hitchcock from TV Guide that you marked for deletion. I'm not entirely sure where to do so, but I posted the following in the "talk" page concerning the image's deletion. I'm copying what I posted there below:

First of all, this painting appeared on the cover of TV Guide to document Hitchcock's American television show, Alfred Hitchcock Presents. The fact that this ran as the cover of TV Guide shows how important Hitchcock was in his television career, a fact many casual fans are not aware of. Most of all, the image absolutely contributes to an understanding of Hitchcock's macabre career and character. Al Hirschfeld portrayed Hitchcock in green in order to visually represent the macabre subject matter and style for which Hitchcock was known. Therein Hirschfeld had poetic license to capture Hitchcock's character better than any photograph could. The National Portrait Gallery purchased the painting because it is so effective in this regard. Robyn42 (talk) 01:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind attention, Robyn42 (talk) 02:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Stefan,

You are right that the image's relevance is not adequately explained. I think that I should have explained it to begin with in the article. I want to suggest that I could put the following text in the "Television, radio, and books" section, following the discussion that is already there about "Alfred Hitchcock Presents", the television show that the painting is about:

"In 1957, TV Guide commissioned Al Hirschfeld to do a painting of Alfred Hitchcock for their cover. Hirschfeld took this opportunity to portray Hitchcock in green, in keeping with the macabre subject matter and style for which Hitchcock was known. Therein Hirschfeld drew upon a poetic license that no photographer could have taken. The National Portrait Gallery later purchased the painting because it so effectively captured Hitchcock's character and image."

I think that this would add to the information in the article, and would also allow the image to serve an informative purpose as well! Thank you for bringing this to my attention; looking forward to hearing your thoughts! Robyn42 (talk) 03:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The correct place to discuss this is on the deletion discussion page:. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Bill Curtis.jpg
Hi Stephan,

About the copyright question for File:Bill Curtis.jpg, I have just forwarded an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. This mail is from Bill Curtis regarding the usage of its image.

I hope it will be ok, otherwise let me know.

Best Regards DamienPo (talk) 05:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The e-mail that you have quoted there only allows people to use the image on wiki pages on certain topics. Wikipedia can only accept images which can be used for any purpose, so the permission is insufficient. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: Possibly_unfree_files/2013_April_9
You're right, I missed that one. Good catch. Thanks! (ESkog)(Talk) 13:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Historical Marker copyrights
Stefan, I noticed your comment over at, and I wanted clarification for my own personal knowledge. Is it your contention that historical markers installed prior to 1978 are in the public domain, and if so, what is your basis for that? I've got several images of historical markers I'd like to use, but want to hold off until this is resolved. Does it make a difference if the marker is installed by a State government as opposed to a nonprofit? Presumably federal historical markers are the property of the U.S. Government, and there would therefore be no copyright. Any direction would be great.  Cdtew  (talk) 18:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Markers made by the federal government are fine because works made by the federal government always are in the public domain.
 * Markers by state governments depend on the state. Works by California and Florida are fine, but works by other states have to be assumed not to be fine unless you can show otherwise. State governments can choose to protect their works by copyright, and only California and Florida are known not to do so (due to local laws or regulations).
 * If the marker was installed before 1978, then it was published in the moment it was installed. Under the copyright law at that time, works automatically entered the public domain if they didn't contain a visible copyright notice. This means that markers installed before 1978 are fine if they don't contain a copyright notice.
 * If the marker was installed in 1978 or later, then it was not published simply by installing it, so it doesn't matter if it contains a copyright notice or not – it is still protected by copyright (except if it was made by California, Florida or the federal government). The word publication was defined in a change to the US copyright law in 1978, and before that, US courts interpreted the word "publication" slightly differently. You can read more about this at Commons:Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US. Although that page only mentions statues and paintings, what it says is also true for historical markers. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Many thanks!  Cdtew  (talk) 00:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Correct copyright licence
Thanks so much, Stefan2. I wade through these copyright descriptions and tags a lot and find them a bit opaque and seemingly not subtle enough to cover every eventuality. The photo is a family snap from the family album in my possession and never published. What tag/licence do you recommend? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnusmagnussen (talk • contribs) 14:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Where does the family album come from? Does it contain photos taken by your own relatives? Are you the heir of the photographer? --Stefan2 (talk) 14:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Stefan2, Yes, it contains photos from my own family. No one remembers which relative took it. Thanks Magnusmagnussen (talk) 14:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking, the copyright holder is the photographer (or the photographer's heir if the photographer is dead), but I'm not sure what to do if no one, not even the photographer, is able to identify who the photographer was, so I've asked at WP:MCQ for clarification. You could also try e-mailing OTRS at permissions-en@wikimedia.org as the people who read those e-mails hopefully are used to cases like this. Just be careful to specify which image you are talking about. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your help, Stefan2, I'll try this email. Many thanks, Magnusmagnussen (talk) 14:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Ana's Cross.jpg
How am I supposed to prove that this was taken by my brother without compromising my anonymity?-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 19:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The image was taken by your brother, so your brother is the copyright holder to the image. We can only keep the image if the copyright holder has approved the choice of the licence which you has indicated. The usual way would be to ask your brother to send an e-mail to OTRS. Those e-mails are confidential and are only readable by a small number of users. You can find instructions at WP:CONSENT. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you I have requested that he send the email.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 14:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Image
I have two questions:

1. If the image is taken by using bing to take image directly from youtube or video by myself, what should I do not to get it deleted? Or image taken that way it's not allowed?

2. If the image is taken from image that uploaded in a wikia, what should I do to get the permission of copyright?

Sorry if I'm asking too much, I'm actually still new about this. Arami-re (talk) 04:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The image File:Chrome Dokuro.png is taken from a TV series made by Artland (company) on behalf of Akira Amano, so the copyright holder is either Artland or Akira Amano. Only the copyright holder can give you any permission, and the person who uploaded the image to Wikia is unlikely the copyright holder. In this case, the image seems to satisfy the non-free content criteria as the article Chrome Dokuro needs a picture of the character, so it should be possible to use the image anyway.
 * Images from Bing and Youtube are almost always protected by copyright, and permission to use the images is required from the copyright holder. The copyright holder is normally the person who made the image. In a small number of cases, the use of the images may satisfy the non-free content criteria in which case you may use the image anyway. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Then can you give me suggestion what should I do? Should I look for another image of Chrome Dokuro? Arami-re (talk) 03:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Teletype Corporation Model 28 RT Set.pdf
A reply has been entered to your assertion that File:Teletype Corporation Model 28 RT Set.pdf, listed at Wikipedia:Files be deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is. Thank you. Wa3frp (talk) 20:54, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment by User:ScheherazadeSafla
Hi Stefan2, thank you for the message re: Helmut Spahn Interview, the ICSS has given me permission to use the image and a permission email has been sent to Wikipedia. Thank you (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment by User:Mike2murphy
Hi - I added a url with permission to use the following file File:MedicalImageSharing.jpg in the Medical Image Sharing page. It says that it was set for removal. Please let me know if you have any concerns. Thanks. Added 16:39 PM (EST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike2murphy (talk • contribs) 2013-05-28T20:39:30‎
 * The permission is insufficient as it only applies to Wikipedia. See db-f3 for details and WP:CONSENT for instructions on how to provide sufficient permission. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi - I just added a license to the permission webpage. Let me know if this suffices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike2murphy (talk • contribs) 21:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This looks sufficient. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Eega File Review
In case you are interested: Deletion_review/Log/2013_May_30--  Dravidian   Hero  13:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Re:File:DSC unit88-9view1.JPG and File:DSC unit88-9view2.JPG
tried to make appropriate adjustments and couldn't (resizer not working among other things). just included a link to the museum's picture instead. want to delete both images and be done with it. tried and can't, so you can do it.Sianljones (talk) 15:48, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Karen Dawn and Rosie Turkey deletion request
Hello Stefan,

Sorry I was unclear in my description of that photo. I am pretty new to this. It was taken by me, then published by the Associated Press with my permission. I have the rights to it. Is there somewhere I should be making that clear?

Josh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshbgarrett (talk • contribs) 2013-06-01T21:22:45
 * See WP:IOWN for instructions. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Stefan,

I don't understand why you directed me to the Copyright Problems page. It says to completely resolve the issue by sending an email from an address associated with the original publication, or linking to a note permitting reuse under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts) at the site of the original publication.

The original publication is me. I took the photo, and I own the rights to it. The Associated Press did not take the photo. How can we solve this problem? I do not want this photo to be deleted. Thanks for your help.

JoshJoshbgarrett (talk) 00:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If it was published by the Associated Press, then I think that you should contact OTRS to prove ownership. Also, some contracts with press agencies may say that you can't use a work yourself for some time. Check that you haven't signed any such contract. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Olympiacos emblem
Stefan2 I really can't understand what is the problem with File:Olympiakos4.svg. I edited the "purpose of use" section because I thought I can use the image to a template. I found out that this is against the rules and I reverted my own edit and things went back to where they were. Now you changed my own edit and you state that the issue is still unresolved. Please explain what is the problem. I really can't understand why you nominated the image for deletion since I reverted my unintended mistake. Waiting for your answer, Gtrbolivar (talk) 21:46, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It still only has one fair use rationale although it is used in seven articles. See WP:NFCC. Also, it says that the purpose of image in the Olympiacos CFP article is to provide identification in the Olympiacos CFP (Superleague Formula team) article, which is obviously not the case. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:50, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

As everyone understands, a club's emblem is used to provide identification in all the relevant departments of the parent-club. The image should be used to all Olympiacos' departments. But you tell me that, since it has only one fair use rationale it should be used only in one article. This is inexplicable. In all multi-sport clubs the emblem is used for the identification of the club in all their departments. What is the problem here? What's the difference? And why instead of trying to fix this problem you nominate the image for complete deletion? Waiting for your answer, Gtrbolivar (talk) 21:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:NFCC tells that it needs a valid fair use rationale for each article, otherwise it has to be removed from the articles for which it doesn't have a valid fair use rationale. Currently, it doesn't have a valid fair use rationale for any article as the only fair use rationale it currently has states that the purpose of the use of the image in the article Olympiacos CFP is to provide identification in the Olympiacos CFP (Superleague Formula team) article, which is obviously not the case. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

So if I now edit the file and provide use rationale for each and every file in which the image is used, the issue would be resolved, wouldn't it be?Gtrbolivar (talk) 22:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks OK now. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok Stefan2. See ya Gtrbolivar (talk) 20:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Northgate.jpg
Just received an email stating this image is going to be deleted ? I'm sorry but I took this image myself and feel its fine to upload, have to say thou for a general user of the site, it seems quite difficult to just upload your own images and they not be filed for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.243.130 (talk) 23:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * When you uploaded the image, you didn't select any licence, so the copyright status of your photo is unknown. Please choose a licence, for example pd-self (placing the image in the public domain) or cc-by-sa-3.0 (allowing users to use it under specific terms). Also, please log in when choosing the licence. A confirmation for any of those licences placed here on this page whilst logged in should suffice. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I am happy with pd-self on this image I will try to post future images with this tag — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayjay04 (talk • contribs) 2013-06-02T23:53:37

New Hampshire Historical Society headquarters and library.jpg
I have no idea how to respond to the message life on my Talk page:



Below is the e-mail granting permission:

John, On behalf of the New Hampshire Historical Society, please upload the attached image of the New Hampshire Historical Society’s headquarters and library to Wikipedia. This image is available for use without restriction. Thank you, Joan Joan E. Desmarais Assistant Executive Director

New Hampshire Historical Society 30 Park Street Concord, NH 03301 603-856-0603

JJ (talk) 13:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This seems to have been sorted out. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

File:London Paralympics 2012 USA v Australia.jpg
I've uploaded a smaller version of this free image. Due to restrictions on photography, only a free image could be created of the subject. Hawkeye7 (talk) 14:12, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The image is not free and violates the non-free content criteria, and in particular criterion 8. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The image is legally free. I don't see how it violates criterion 8. What additional information do I need to provide? Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The image is unfree as you can't use it commercially. For example, this means that you can't use it on websites with advertisements, such as Wikimedia projects during a fundraising campaign. It violates WP:NFCC as you would be able to understand the article just as easily without having the image there. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It was my judgement that the image was necessary to understanding. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
L Faraone  13:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia files with disputed copyright information
This is now down to around 120 files... Any chance of finally clearing it ? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, there are a few tricky ones... Take File:The West Gate of Seoul, Korean Empire (대한제국 서대문역).jpg for example. It's probably from this book and in that case the photo is in the public domain. However, Google doesn't host any electronic copy of the book (at least not in Europe), so the only way to solve the problem is to find a paper copy of the book. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

A question
I've got a question. Out of all the pictures I uploaded, which ones are suitable to keep up, if any? Wimpyguy (talk) 16:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't have time to read all of the articles to check, so I suggest that you ask at WP:NFCR or WT:NFC. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Stemma files from www.araldicacivica.it
Hello Stefan. I see you have nominated for deletion some stemma files, such asFile:Arzachena-Stemma.png. There's twenty of them at Category:Replaceable non-free use to be decided after 10 July 2013. I am not sure why you have chosen to nominate these particular files for deletion. Are you aware that we have 3,000 such files for fair use on this wiki? I hope it is not your intention to strip the wiki of all of these coats of arms? -- Diannaa (talk) 20:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * See Commons:COM:COA and Commons:Template:Coat of arms. Coats of arms are defined by short segments of text and the textual definition is in the public domain known as a blazon. Anyone is free to make his own drawing based on the blazon as the blazon is in the public domain. Two examples:
 * Commons:Category:Coats of arms of municipalities of Sweden is an example of how some users have created freely licensed images of the coats of arms of all municipalities of Sweden.
 * Files for deletion/2013 May 6 was closed by the closing admin demonstrating how to create a freely licensed replacement (File:Cervinara-Stemma.svg).
 * The files from www.araldicacivica.it appear to be creations by users of the www.araldicacivica.it website and appear to be unfree. In some cases, the images appear to come from some books, but the books are not clearly indicated (at least not on Wikipedia and the links to www.araldicacivica.it are bsr), so the copyright status of those images can't easily be determined. There is no reason why we should use the unfree images created for the www.araldicacivica.it website instead of freely licensed versions created by Wikipedia users. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Question about original research
Its me from the talk at File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg after your reply and seeing a few other coat of arms nominated I have a question. These images are copyrighted - thus cant be duplicated in any real form correct? And on Wikipedia we dont show original research - so we seem to have a problem.Moxy (talk) 23:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If you mean the coats of arms mentioned in the section above on the talk page, those are artworks which are © www.araldicacivica.it. Coats of arms are defined by text and the text is in the public domain, so anyone can replace a non-free coat of arms by making a new drawing based on the text (see Commons:COM:COA). File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg was made by the Canadian Government, so the Canadian Government is the copyright holder. The ones mentioned above were made by www.araldicacivica.it, so the copyright holder for those is www.araldicacivica.it. There are other drawings of the same coats of arms which are © the respective Italian municipalities. The definition (the blazon) is often very old, so there are often also old drawings of a coat of arms which is PD-old.
 * I don't see any problem with original research. We just need a drawing of the coat of arms based on the correct blazon. Making a drawing doesn't seem to be any more original research than taking a photo of a building and then adding the photo to the article about the building. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand your not a content editor.... so will try to explain - here on Wikipedia Original research is not allowed as it is at commons. We cant make stuffup and present it has the real thing. See WP:OI "It is not acceptable for an editor to use photo manipulation to distort the facts or position illustrated by an image. Manipulated images should be prominently noted as such. ".Moxy (talk) 15:17, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * As you have not responded to my question on the discussion page, I will restate it here. The correct image uses maple leaves as mantling, while the Commons file uses ermine fur. One is a plant, the other is the skin from an animal. There is no way that difference can be explained away as simply artistic license in interpreting the blazon and drawing the mantling how you like. I may draw maple leaves in a different way then you would, but if something (in this case the blazon) says "maple leaves" and we were both asked to draw it, I can promise neither of us would choose to draw fur instead. Now do you still wish to argue that the Commons file is just as good because it's from the same blazon, when it clearly is not?  Fry1989  eh?   20:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not about "making up a drawing". You look up the blazon (a textual description) in a reliable source and make a drawing of it. It's the same thing as looking up the address of a building and taking a photo of it.
 * The Commons image isn't useful here as the blazon differs, but this doesn't prevent anyone from creating an image based on the correct blazon. WP:NFCC only demands that a free replacement can be created, not that it already exists. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that WP:NFCC demands one exist now. I'm saying I believe it's spirit was that there must be a reasonable expectation of a free replacement to come. There isn't that expectation at all, we have tried and tried and completely failed at getting a free replacement. There is zero expectation that we will ever have one.  Fry1989  eh?   18:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It just requires someone to sit down with a paper and a pen (or other tools). For the same reason, we don't allow non-free photos of living persons (such as Kim Jong-un) since all we need is someone with a camera. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

About non-free content image
sir, I had uploaded velukkudi krishnan swamy image. It is non-free content and copyrighted image. podhigai tv is the copy-righted owner and author File:Velukkudi krishnan swami.jpg can you please tell me that should  i add more information and content ? Manavatha (talk) 10:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This appears to be a non-free photo of a person who is still alive. Such images are not allowed per WP:NFCC and WP:NFC §1. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Pilot Cosby Show tv guide 1984.jpg
Just in case, you have a reply in regards to this image. For me, the fact that it is orphaned and that the screenshot is still used is not a sufficient reason to have it deleted. I can switch the screenshot with the ad if everybody favors the ad. Can you further explain why else the image must be deleted? --George Ho (talk) 23:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Just in case, you can comment about File:Pilot (The Cosby Show) monopoly lesson.png in FFD. --George Ho (talk) 05:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Replied there. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
I like the thinking behind keeping User:Nyttend's crop; but can't square it off as how that image is free and usable given we know it is a crop of a larger copyrightable image.  LGA <sub style="color:#8B0000;">talk <sup style="margin-left:-4ex"> edits   07:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If you remove everything copyrightable from an image, then there is nothing left that you can violate the copyright of. Think of this: Buy a single brick in a shop and take a photo of it (say, File:Porotherm style clay block brick angle 1.jpg). A single brick isn't copyrightable, so this photo can't be a copyright violation. Next go to a copyrighted French building and take a photo of a single brick used for the wall of that building. If you use the correct camera settings, the two photos may be seemingly identical. Why would one be a copyright violation but the second one allowed? That would simply not make sense, and neither photo is a copyvio. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

To Live and Die in L.A. (soundtrack) album cover image
Why have you tagged the Wang Chung album cover for removal? It would be like removing a film poster in a film article. Bad move. It has a FUR. What do we have to do to make this right? Luigibob (talk) 20:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The image is used in articles in which it violates the non-free content criteria. See the discussion at WP:NFCR. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:ANI notice
It's been suggested at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents that User:SonofSetanta be assigned a mentor to help with copyright issues. I mentioned there that you and I have been the ones providing him with the most support and explanation, at least on Commons. Perhaps you'd like to volunteer to be his mentor, or make some other contribution to the discussion? —Psychonaut (talk) 12:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Images
Hello. I have noticed that you have flagged some images that I uploaded as having the wrong license (1, 2 and 3). Can you please let me know what licenses they should have? Many thanks. McPhail (talk) 17:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The source images are listed as being licensed under different licences than the ones you used for your uploads (for example a different version of the licence). The solution is to change the licence tags to match those of the source images. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll try to fix this. McPhail (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Please don't spam me with pointless notices
...like these. Care to read my upload notice, choose appropriate tags for your grievances, and, possibly, edit the uploaded images instead. Thank you, Ukrained2012 (talk) 14:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Notifying you of apparent violations of copyright is not "pointless"; it is a requirement. Please take the time to read the messages left on your talk page, which explain the general concern, and also follow the links to any centralized discussions, where you will probably find further details on the problem.  If it is determined that there really is a copyright violation, it is important that you understand what it was so that you do not repeat the problem.  Users who persist in contributing infringing material, even in ignorance, are blocked.  —Psychonaut (talk) 14:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what to do
I've been sent some sort of message about the photo in my Wikipedia page (N. Lee Wood) about it not being fair use. i.e.: User talk:Nonnythemouse I have absolutely no idea what the explanation means. Am I supposed to ask the person who took the photograph to email you confirmation of his consent for it to be used? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nonnythemouse (talk • contribs) 23:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The file violates policy as it is an unfree (fair use) photo of a person who is still alive. See WP:NFC §1. Unless the photographer contacts OTRS (see WP:CONSENT for instructions), then the photo will probably be deleted in two days. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I can't even figure out where to click in order to reply to this properly, sorry - the photograph is of me, so I hope I'm still alive. I'm a novelist, and Vineet Rajasekhar is a friend who took the photo and know I intended to use it as an author photo on any subsequent published novels. He's a mechanical engineer by profession and an amateur photographer, a very good one, who hopes to become a professional. I've emailed him and hopefully he'll email me a consent letter to use this photo. Will that be sufficient? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nonnythemouse (talk • contribs) 00:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * See WP:COI: it is inadvisable to edit articles about topics closely related to yourself.
 * Most images on Wikipedia have to be under a free content licence, and this is in particular true for photos of people who are still alive. A free content licence allows anyone to distribute copies of the work and to modify the work. This photo only seems to come with a permission for using the photo in the article N. Lee Wood, which is not enough. If the photographer is willing to license the photo under a free content licence, then he can specify a licence and send evidence of that licence to . If he isn't willing to license the photo under a free content licence, then the photo will have to be deleted from Wikipedia. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:33, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello again. I have received a letter from the photographer granting me permission to use that photograph, which says:

I hereby affirm I, Vineet Rajasekhar, am the creator and sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the portrait of N Lee Wood located here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/04/NLeeWood%2C2011.jpg. I agree to publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported" and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. Vineet Rajasekhar, Creator and Copyright Holder vineet.rajasekhar@gmail.com +64 21 051 3562 26 August 2013

Will that be sufficient? Secondly, while I realise it is inadvisable to edit articles about topics closely related to myself, I didn't even know there was a Wikipedia entry about me until well after it had been created. As some of the information was wrong, or outdated, I only changed certain facts to make it more accurate and up-to-date. The article contains the barest of biographical facts and is mostly a bibliography of my published works, nothing terribly controversial at all. I hope this is allowable. 220.237.93.158 (talk) 23:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, ask the photographer to send that message to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

File:KFF - Youtoons II.ogv
Can you please remove the template from this page? - I do intend to use either it (or an image of the title from it) asap. As per the PPACA talk page, it doesn't seem to work on IE (like other videos user Wikipedia's suggested software). I'm just trying to work out the best way to deal with this problem (I've got some ideas I'm testing). However, I will include this in the article's overview in some way. (I've been delayed in getting round to it due to PPACA talk page issues + personally busy atm). Thank you Sb101 (talk|contribs) 05:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The file is not currently used, so there is no way to remove the template. Besides, at 6 minutes and 53 seconds, the film is very unlikely to pass WP:NFCC in any article at all. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks for letting me know. I hope to get a version up in time, if not I can just copy-paste the details while re-uploading (which I assume won't be a problem since the current temporary issue is about use, rather than an objection on WP:policy grounds). As for NFCC#3b, I would be tempted to argue that a portion doesn't suffice for the purposes of the overview or reader satisfaction, and/or that the length is short enough to justify full inclusion given explicit permission from the content producer. /Shrug. I can put that forward if/when it comes up. Sb101 (talk|contribs) 14:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Welcome?
Hi! You are obviously working hard in a difficult area. Just a thought, not a criticism: if you need to post, say, about a file source and copyright licensing problem on the talkpage of a new user such as, could you perhaps take the extra moment to add a welcome message? Twinkle does that for you in a ... well, very quickly. And, who knows, it might perhaps improve our chances of retaining that editor. Best regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Argh! I thought that Twinkle was set up to do that automatically when notifying about problems, but it seems that this only is possible when requesting immediate removal and not when using slow speedy deletion (e.g. F11) or deletion discussions (e.g. PUF). Sorry, I'll try to look for red-linked user talk pages when using those tags. I've also asked for a Twinkle improvement at WT:TW. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It should be child's play for TW to be set up to do it wherever the talkpage is virgin. Thanks again, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Charminar Old and New Photographs by The Hindu.jpg listed for deletion
Hi Stefan, I added a comment in the regarding the deletion of File:Charminar Old and New Photographs by The Hindu.jpg. Thank You. Irfannaseefp (talk) 03:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

File:2013 Sarasota chalk festival 83d40m official poster .png. listed for deletion
Stefan, this poster was part of the article,Sarasota Chalk Festival, and was among images deleted from that article by a new image editor. There is an unresolved discussion about the images. Should this image be retained until the differences are settled? If not, if found useful for another article or section of the initial article may it be reintroduced after a deletion? _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If the file is being discussed somewhere, then I agree that it would be disruptive to delete it. There was no indication that the file was in use when I found it. I see that it was used at Special:PermanentLink/566867170. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I made time to take the discussion further at the talk page for the festival and placed a copy of the images under discussion there so that they are visible, albeit very small. That also should prevent someone else from issuing another deletion warning. Thank you for your agreement on the need to retain this one image that could wind up without an article, until the discussion is completed. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 05:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Munir Hussain.jpg
Hi, I've replaced the source at File:Munir Hussain.jpg. You can verify this now. Regards, Zia Khan 20:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Moved from user page
Hi there and thanks for the comment regarding St. Nicholas Church. This is the very first time i decided to download a picture from free content. If this is not compatible with wiki policies please remove it...Although this picture is free on internet for free use...but as i said...compliance matters stay always with wiki admins. Thank you... (melathron) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melathron (talk • contribs) 2013-08-26T17:21:35
 * There is no evidence that the image is free to use for anyone for any purpose. If it is sufficiently free, then you will have to provide evidence of that. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

thank you (melathron) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melathron (talk • contribs) 14:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Fiji2Dollar2012.jpg
Hi Stefan, I got the comment you left about my photo of a recent coin being possibly non-free. I don't know whether a photograph of a coin constitutes a "derivative work" and various Google results about copyrights pertaining to coin images weren't very applicable to this case. So if anybody wants that particular Fijian coin to not be shown, I won't really protest, and I won't go to the trouble of photographing the others I have. Thanks! Dan (talk) 01:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You didn't make the coin, the Reserve Bank of Fiji did. See Commons:COM:CUR. That page doesn't mention Fiji, so we will have to assume that the coin is copyrighted unless anyone can show otherwise. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * : Fair enough. I can find nothing in the Reserve Bank Act about how the Reserve Bank, or the Fijian government, views coins vis-a-vis copyright, and although I'm friends with an ambassador or two and have met the PM, I doubt they'd be in a position to know either, so I yield to your assumption. Dan (talk) 01:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

British Military Badges
Stefan where are these badges you want sorted out and I'll have a go to see if I can produce any results? SonofSetanta (talk) 11:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Still hoping you might supply me with a list. I don't need links, just names. I can do the rest. SonofSetanta (talk) 11:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought mentioned Category:Replaceable non-free use to be decided after 28 August 2013 for you several days ago... All of the badges should be in the public domain (PD-UKGov, often also PD-US-1923-abroad), but we would need permission from the photographers, or alternative photos with permission from the photographers. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I didn't see it if you did. That's an impressive list of badges.  I certainly have alternatives with permission for CC3 Attribution for some of them, if not all.  Can you give me a stay of execution on deletion of them while I work at them?   I note they were all uploaded by the same guy.  Obviously a very well intentioned project.  SonofSetanta (talk) 12:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, I've updated File:Connaught Rangers Badge.jpg.  If you could go in now and see that all is well?  Assuming it is I could then proceed with the rest, or at least the ones I have sources for.  They all look pre 1962 to me so the format should be more or less the same for the lot.  SonofSetanta (talk) 14:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that Phil McDowell should confirm the licence with OTRS. Apart from that, it looks fine. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I sent Phil McDowell's permission and acceptance of the licence to OTRS on 22nd August but have had no reply. I e-mailed them again today pointing out that I needed a ticket number to upload a number of images from the same source.  I also left a message at User talk:Wally Wiglet. I can see he's done a fabulous amount of work and thought it was only polite and also because I wanted to draw his attention to his incorrect methodology of summarising and licencing images. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:57, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * That's quite a few off the list now.  File:1st Kings Draggon Guards - badge.jpg was spelt wrong so I created  File:1st King's Dragoon Guards - badge.jpg on commons and did a redirect.  User:De728631 came along shortly afterwards and deleted the redundant file.  I'll leave it for now and get back to it tomorrow. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

As an afterthought: if you examine Category:Replaceable non-free use to be decided after 28 August 2013 now you should be able to see the differences between Wally's files and mine. That should allow you to transfer those free use files to commons. I'm afraid I don't know how to do that yet. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Another thought: if these are all going to have to be transferred to commons why don't I just upload the replacements there and delete the others? I'll await your answer before doing any more. I've got all the cavalry ones ready. SonofSetanta (talk) 10:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I've got to call a halt to the process at the moment. It seems that some of the badges I used weren't Phil McDowell's copyright.  I've had to revert those for the moment until I approach the correct party for permission. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Stefan I need to seek your advice as regards these images.  File:Motor Machine Gun Service Badge.jpg and  File:Hampshire Regiment Badge.jpg would appear to have been lifted without permission from  http://www.britishbadgeforum.com. I have the same concerns about files indicated to be from the IWM who don't have a licencing policy for Wikipedia.  There are other images uploaded by Wally Wiglet which appear to have the same issues from other websites.  No permission for use but a complicated summary intended to show that the image can be used anyway.  My negotiations with the British Badge Forum have had to be shelved while we sort out this issue.  I still have badges coming to me tonight with full permission for use but in light of what I've discovered it would appear that virtually every badge User:Wally Wiglet had uploaded on Wikipedia has been poached without permission from copyright owners.  Do I still have time to sort this out with the various copyright users or will the badges have to be deleted en masse?  I've left a message at Wally's talk page but I'm not hopeful of a good outcome after what I've seen. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Its a vandal that I reported hitting a admin's user page with shock images (which was a sock of someone the admin blocked I never looked into it). He has also hit my commons user page with graphic images so be ware that you are now on his radar. But Thanks anyway for the revert. Werieth (talk) 20:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Dominic Sherwood - Lucy Fry.jpg48px|left|alt=|link=
I think you probably intended to leave the message on User talk:Emiwais's page not mine? He has uploaded two other screen captures that probably also need speedy deleting. kind regards Theroadislong (talk) 18:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * All speedy deleted images have since been uploaded again by User:Dom Sherwood BR Theroadislong (talk) 21:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You created a local file information page for a file on Commons. User:Emiwais got a speedy deletion notification on Commons whereas you got a speedy deletion notification on Wikipedia for your local file information page. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for THIS note....
Image File:Pocket Gangsters poster.jpg is at MSD. It had formerly been a part of the article "Pocket Gangsters", but that article was moved into WP:INCUBATOR and is now at Article Incubator/Pocket Gangsters. Shall I place redirects within the summary and FUR here  ???      Schmidt,  Michael Q. 23:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The error is that File:Pocket Gangsters poster.jpg isn't used in the article namespace. Per WP:NFCC, all non-free files have to be used somewhere in the article namespace, otherwise they can be speedily deleted one week after tagging per WP:CSD. The image isn't permitted on the page Article Incubator/Pocket Gangsters at all since the page isn't in the article namespace, per WP:NFCC. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As an admin AND the uploader who understands why it should go, may I go ahead delete it earlier? I realize I can always upload it again at such time as the article comes back out of the incubator,  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 12:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As the original uploader, you could delete it immediately per WP:CSD if you so wish. Also, as you are an admin, you could undelete it instead of reposting it (if you find that easier) once the article is back in the article namespace. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thought as much. Thank you for the assurances. Great day,  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 00:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: File:1948 Hatzic Pumphouse Breach.jpeg
Hello Stefan2. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of File:1948 Hatzic Pumphouse Breach.jpeg, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''Not a candidate for speedy deletion. Try WP:PUF instead.''' Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Pocket Frogs.png
Exactly what did I do wrong with this file? I'm not exactly sure what my mistake was. Thanks. -- <sup style="font-weight:normal">t  numbermaniac c 00:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If you look at the section "File history", you can see that there are two old versions: one from 2010 and one from August this year. The old versions are unused, and per WP:NFCC, we can't keep unused unfree files. One of the tags tells that the old versions should be deleted on 10 September (or later if the admins are behind with deletions).
 * The image has an opaque background, which makes it look a bit bad on a background which is not white. For example, the background in the infobox is not white. It is therefore preferable to convert the background to a transparent one; see Transparency (graphic). This is not a deletion notice but a request for an improvement. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah, ok. Thanks a lot, at least I know what I did wrong. -- <sup style="font-weight:normal">t  numbermaniac c 00:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

File:T R Ramachandran.jpg
I don't understand what is your problem with this screenshot from a 72 year old movie. You see the image is clearly in public domain in India; in fact, anything published before 1953 is. You see, if you keep deleting the valuable culturally-important images I'm uploading to Wikipedia, I'm not the loser, Wikipedia is. You might observe that Wikiproject India already sucks big time, much of it looks like a rotten bunch of trash full of propaganda, advertising, etc. I am one of the few working to clean this trash. Many of the images even in Commons are of doubtful copyright status and little is done about them and even less, the time spent upon them. It would be better if you can mind your own business and stop harassing me.- Ravi <sub style="color:red; font-family:Monotype Corsiva;">My Tea Kadai 06:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is hosted in USA, not in India. According to the copyright law of the United States, Indian films first published in 1941 or later are protected by copyright for 95 years from publication. The copyright law of the United States doesn't care about what the copyright law of India says (except if the copyright expired in India before 1996). See Rule of the shorter term and Golan v. Holder. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:SNDP Edu Fund.jpg
Saw your note. The original document does not carry any copyright. It is a just receipt for donation paid by one of my ancestors. The document is now past 70 years old and no copyright could exist in India, other than for the image created (photograph) by me, which I am not claiming any copyright. So please remove the unfree file notes. Let me know if any action is needed from my side. Thanks. Aaroamal (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Wally Wiglet
Every file this editor has ever uploaded would appear to have been lifted without permission from another website. I have concerns about a number of .png graphics files he has uploaded claiming "self". I believe you have a method of checking these? If so would you like me to name the files which are suspect? SonofSetanta (talk) 11:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Some time ago, I added {{subst:rfu}} to all images where I could easily verify that the badge was in the public domain, for example if the regiment closed down before 1963 or if the badge mentioned people such as "GVR" or "MR" who died before 1963. I suspect that there are more PD badges amongst those photos, and even if the badge is still copyrighted, I suspect that we would still want permission from the photographer (using the dual template Photo of art), but I postponed the more difficult cases until later. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is, there are so many badges, all lifted from external websites. Those I can identify no problem.  Where I am having serious doubts however is where he uploads files such as  File:MuralCrownBadge.png and claims "Own Work".  I seriously doubt they are his own work.  If you take a look at one of the earlier graphics here you can see that he admits to copying it and modifying it - and it's a fairly simple graphic, but later images such as the MuralCrownBadge, some of them quite complicated, don't have this admission.  I suspect he's simply copied them, tweaked with Photoshop and then uploaded them claiming they are his own.  Is there a way you can check?  SonofSetanta (talk) 13:21, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If someone uploads a photo of a person or a building or something, it's usually easy to find out whether it has been taken from some website by searching for it on Google Images. However, the crown badge is difficult as Google Images unfortunately finds several completely different images. Also, if you modify an image in Photoshop, this reduces the chances of finding the source --Stefan2 (talk) 13:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Because it changes the metadata - I've come across that before. Graeme Bartlett advises me here that we can save the graphic images if they satisfy WP:NFCC and remove the "Own Work" claim, so I'm going to have a go at that.  As always any advice you may have could be very useful.  SonofSetanta (talk) 14:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Two things

 * Could you please archive this talk page? At 990 kb, many people will no longer be able to load or view the page, or send you a message. Thanks.,
 * When using the unsigned template, please add the user name, behind a pipe. The user name is required, or the template does not function properly. Adding the time they signed is optional. The template is supposed to be substituted. Thanks, -- Diannaa (talk) 01:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems that someone created the page User talk:Stefan2/Archive 3 by copying and pasting the first discussions from this page, so I was unable to move this page there to archive the discussions. I have now tagged the page with db-g6. I'll move this page as soon as that becomes possible. I prefer to have the edit history at the same place as the discussions, so I only archive my talk page by moving it to the archive.
 * unsigned recommends substitution on Wikipedia but that this is discouraged on Commons (due to automatic translations of it). A bit confusing. If you find that I have missed to fill in the user name somewhere, feel free to add it there. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Archiving done. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)