User talk:TLSuda/Archive 10

Vivian James discussion
Would you please unclose the discussion? The admin who deleted the image does not appear to have reviewed it and closing it makes it look as though that is what occurred. I have asked that admin to look over the discussion.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 14:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * My close pings the deleting admin, who will have the chance to review the discussion. I see no reason to open the discussion. If you think the deletion was unwarranted per policy for any reason you should open up a DRV. The discussion at WP:NFCR should not turn into a DRV discussion, and is made moot by the deletion. Let's keep things in the appropriate venue. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 15:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

One question, does your close of the discussion mean that you endorse the deletion because you agree that it violates non-free use policy, or merely that you acknowledge that it has been speedly deleted it by Ronhjones per F7? Diego (talk) 14:37, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not endorse anything, I haven't even read the discussion. The image was deleted which makes that particular discussion moot. The closing admin will be pinged giving them a chance to see the discussion. If they want to change the close, they are more than welcome to. If not, and you disagree with the close based on policy, DRV would be the appropriate next venue instead of starting a DRV discussion at WP:NFCR. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 15:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Going by the di- tag that was on the image which expired Sept 19th, Ronhjones had used F7 "correctly" in this case. The problem was that as soon as the non-free review tag was added, the di- tag should have been removed, to allow the NFCR discussion to override the 7 day delayed deletion. Note that I think TLSuda here was only commenting that with the image gone the discussion was moot, but I would agree that the image should be restored and the di- tag removed, the discuss re-opened (not fresh, it's near its end) .  I have added an instruct to NFCR to, when tagging for NFCR, to remove the di- tags so this type of situation doesn't happen again. --M ASEM  (t) 14:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Masem is correct. The discussion is currently moot. I'm not going to reverse the deleting admin's decision, but he is more than welcome to. I've read none of the discussion on the topic, so I have no opinion either way. If the deleting admin sees the discussion and feels that it should remain deleted based on the discussion, the next step would be DRV. If not, the it is there interrogative to change it. I have no attachment to the close, so if the deleting admin, or any uninvolved admin wants to reverse my close, no hard feelings. We just have a major problem with the wrong types of discussions being at NFCR and I'm trying to keep it cleaned up a bit when I have the chance. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 15:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * As a note, we should give Ronhjones a chance to reply (a few days) before opening a DRV. I'll ping his page to make note of the conflicting tag issue, though, as part of the reason to undo on their own before DRV. --M ASEM (t) 15:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I removed the tag when the non-free review discussion started, and someone edit-warred to reinstate it; the image should have never been deleted under speedy deletion. Now we have the paradox of a deletion endorsed sustained by two admins, both of whom agree that any other admin could review and undo their actions, yet we have no admin actually performing the un-deletion. Diego (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Diego, I'd hope that you go back and revise your statement. I wrote not once, but twice, that I don't endorse or not endorse the deletion. I frankly don't have a dog in this fight. You want the image restored? You know the process. All I did was close a now moot discussion. Leave me out of this, and please be more careful about putting words into others mouths.  TLSuda  (talk) 15:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, I didn't want to say that you agreed that the image was meant to be deleted, only that you have acted upon it as a firm decision without questioning whether the other admin followed proper procedure (something that the other admin gave you permission to do). I agree endorsed was the wrong word when you explicitly said that you didn't endorse the decision. Diego (talk) 16:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I frankly don't care whether the image is kept or not. There are 100s of other admins available. If I had wanted to make a decision I would have. My only opinion is that since the image is deletion, the discussion is moot. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 16:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

FFU/La Salle Catholic College
Reference your Files_for_upload on hold status, apparently a fair-use graphic was put up, see here thumb RegistryKey (talk) 21:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 September newsletter
In one month's time, we will know our WikiCup 2014 champion. Newcomer has taken a strong lead with a featured list (historical coats of arms of the U.S. states from 1876) and a raft of featured pictures. Reigning champion is in second place with a number of high-importance biology articles, including new FA Isopoda and new GA least weasel. , who is in his fifth WikiCup final, is in third, with featured articles Pictor and Epacris impressa.

Signups for the 2015 WikiCup are open. All Wikipedians, new and experienced, are warmly invited to sign up for the competition. Wikipedians interested in friendly competition may also like to sign up for the GA Cup, a new WikiCup-inspired competition which revolves around completing good article reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. and 22:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

[[File:Altcar Bob.jpg]]
I know it's been a good long while (I don't really keep up with things on here anymore), but I'm a little disappointed that this image ended up being deleted. I originally uploaded it as a fair use image for the article Altcar Bob, it was another user who changed it to a PD license which is what led to the deletion discussion. It was my hope that the image could have been retained under the fair use license I originally gave it - is there any possibility of having it restored on that basis? Small-town hero (talk) 13:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Its a rather grey area with this image. First, there is the issue of whether or not of these models exists in a museum or junk yard or anywhere. If so, the image would automatically fail WP:NFCC. Second, as the train was active prior to 1923, any photograph that can be proven to be published before then would be free. There most likely was a photograph published in a newspaper or book prior to 1923, and that would keep this image from being used once again due to WP:NFCC. Likely, even if you could prove that no train still existed, we'd like to err on the side of caution that there is likely a public domain photograph in existence. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 19:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Copyright
Is the FBI logo copyrightable, is the USMS, the ATF logo? Huh?

Hopper1010 (talk) 09:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course not. Any work made by the United States Government is automatically in the public domain. But this has nothing to do with File:Icelandic police star (logo).jpg which is what I assume you are getting at. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 12:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, that post was written in rage. I didn't quite understand the "verdict" so to speak. Mind explaining to me? Hopper1010 (talk) 13:02, 14 October 2014 (UTC) Just now I spotted a law that if the author of the material died more than 70 years ago, it wouldn't be copyrightable. Now, the star was made sometime in the 1920s or 1930s, by man called Björn Björnsson. I haven't been able to find any information on him (http://www.logreglan.is/displayer.asp?cat_id=435). He designed the star at the order of the Police Chief Hermanns Jónassonar (1928-1934). What do you think? Hopper1010 (talk) 13:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Its all very simple. We currently do not have enough information to without a doubt prove that the image is no longer copyrighted. We have to err on the side of caution when it comes to copyright. Therefore, the image is being kept, but just as a non-free file. If you can prove beyond the shadow of a doubt when it was published (not created), who published it, when and where, then we might could figure something out. It is currently not in danger of being deleted, so there is nothing truly to worry about. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 13:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Another thing; it's been 84 years since the star was released; the copyright act wasn't out then; nor was there a "Republic of Iceland". It was Denmark. Iceland was apart of Denmark. "Article 44: "In the case of a work which has not been presented, by an unknown author, copyright shall expire after 70 years have elapsed from the end of the year of its creation.]1)"

Article 6 When a work, or parts of works, by one or more authors, are incorporated into a composite work, which may be in itself considered to be a literary or artistic work, the person creating the composite work shall hold copyright thereto. His right shall in no way affect copyright to the works incorporated into the composite work. The provisions of the first paragraph shall not apply to newspapers and periodicals, cf. Article 40. [The provisions of the first paragraph shall apply to databases, with regard to their selection and arrangement, provided general conditions for copyright protection have been satisfied. This shall not affect the copyright to any works which may be included in the database. Nor shall it affect the parallel rights of producers in accordance with Article 50.

'''A database, as referred to in this Act, cf. the third paragraph of this Article and Article 50, shall mean a collection of independent works, information or other details, which have been arranged in an organised or systematic fashion and are accessible by electronic means or by other methods. A computer program, which is used for the compilation or operation of a database and to which access is granted by electronic means, shall not be deemed a database for the purpose of this Act.''' Here is proof; http://www.mbl.is/greinasafn/grein/726955/ (news). http://www.logreglan.is/displayer.asp?cat_id=435 (official police website).

Hopper1010 (talk) 14:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but that block of text is completely useless and irrelevant. First, it doesn't actual cover the copyright status of this image. We know who designed the image, but we don't know when or where. Second, I think there has been some information that has not been appropriately given to you. On En.Wikipedia, where our servers are hosted in the United States, we have to comply to US copyright law. Works usually have different copyrights in different countries, regardless of where it came from.  For this work to be in the public domain in the United States, it would have had to be published prior to 1923 or be in the public domain in Iceland prior to 1996. As far as we can tell, neither of these are true. I'm glad you're so passionate about this, but the file simply is still copyright in the United States, and therefore we must only use it as non-free. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 14:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Photo of Henri Giraud
You have deleted a photo that I posted on Henri Giraud,. It was proposed for deletion on 10 October because I am not the photographer (he died in 1995). I followed instructions and revised the photo information, then sent permission to WP:OTRS. Why has the photo been deleted? I am the sole copyright owner and this photo has never appeared anywhere else. Can I appeal this decision? Cmacauley (talk) 14:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Unless and until we have full evidence of permission we are not supposed to host images. If you submitted an email to OTRS through the process outlined on that page, as soon as the email is processed, the image will be restored. Deletion is not permanent. It is an unfortunate process, I understand, and there are often backlogs, but as soon as it is caught up, everything will be taken care of.  I will go check to see if I can find your email. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 16:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Possibly unfree file deletion
Greetings! I noticed that you closed a WP:PUF discussion - just wanted to point out there were a bunch of other files from the same source listed in that nomination that also require deletion. Thanks! With respect - Kelly  hi! 23:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't feel it appropriate to delete those files based on that discussion since they were added a day before the discussion should have originally closed and only 5 days had passed since you added them to when I closed it. I also didn't feel comfortable because there was no discussion on the images aside from you saying they were from the same source. That being said, the discussion does seem to cover issues with the whole source (which is obviously a copyright issue). I'll go ahead and delete them. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 15:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Another deletion
Hi, TLSuda. You deleted an image (File:Cec logo.svg) and stated "The result of the discussion was: Delete". Could you please provide a link to that discussion upon which you based your decision to delete the image, or elaborate on your reason for the deletion? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The discussion that you linked is what I based my closure on. The image violates WP:NFCC#3 and WP:NFCC#8, neither point did you completely argue. In dealing with copyright it is up to those who seek to keep the image to prove it meets all requirements. For the image to meet WP:NFCC#8, it must be discussed in the article and it must be necessary to the understanding of the text. The specific logo was not mentioned in text supported by 3rd party reliable sources. If it is not mentioned, it isn't necessary to the understanding. All companies go through logo changes, but unless there is sufficient coverage by 3rd party reliable sources that show the change having notability, we do not include it. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 16:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the prompt response! Since the image is unique (there is no duplicate image of the old mascot being used), and it isn't a high resolution, copyright-violating image, WP:NFCC#3 doesn't apply. I honestly don't see why WP:NFCC#3 was raised in the argument for deletion (please let me know if I am misunderstanding #3). WP:NFCC#8, on the other hand, can be subject to some editorial interpretation as to what constitutes "Contextual significance" -- so I fully expected to see some discussion.  Instead, there was zero discussion at the link I provided, and no disagreement at all with the points I raised, which is why I asked you for your reasoning behind the deletion.
 * The logo/mascot/voice/image change is indeed mentioned in our article. The present wording is no longer as comprehensive as it should be, or once was (I intend to fix that), but the mascot change is an issue of significance covered by reliable sources (CSM, Time Magazine, Los Angeles Times, Associated Press, ...) and has even been a matter of contention among some editors (example). CEC built a whole advertising campaign around the mascot change; most companies never change their logo, and the few that do usually do so quietly and without much fanfare.  What steps should I take to have the image un-deleted? Or, given the above information, do you still feel the image should remain deleted? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * BTW - I see you've nominated this related image for deletion; in that case, the reasoning for deletion actually fits. It's clearly a partial duplicate of another image. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a few misunderstandings. NFCC#3 doesn't mean identical images. It purely means that multiple images should not be used when one would suffice.  Logos, in this article, are only being used for identification purposes.  We only need one logo for that purpose, therefore the rest fail WP:NFCC#3. The image still fails WP:NFCC#8 because WP:NFCC#8 has two parts.  The first part says that the image must increase the reader's understanding.  I'm not sure that this is met, but one could argue that seeing the old logo would help the reader understand the changes. The second part says that it must be detrimental to be removed. In this case it is not detrimental to be removed. An average reader could understand the significant changes to the logo without seeing the logo. The article doesn't mention the logo, only the mascot changed.  The mascot is also a costume and figurine, so taking an photo of one of those (still used under fair use) would be more appropriate for the current content that is in place. I still do not think there is enough third party sourced material that actually discusses the logo (or mascot) changes to a point that would be notable for inclusion in any encyclopedia. Maybe I'm wrong and there are marketing textbooks that discuss the change or something.
 * Currently the image should and will stay deleted. The text has to support the inclusion of the image before the image is uploaded (or in this case restored). This rule is in place so that images aren't hosted "waiting" for years for the information in the article to be updated. So, if you can get the text into place to bring the article so the image meets WP:NFCC#8 (which would give the image a different purpose than just identification therefore allowing it to pass WP:NFCC#3), I would be willing to restore the image. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 15:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the additional explanation on the NFCC requirements in play here. You've added much needed clarity (yes, I was indeed misunderstanding a couple things). I am planning a small overhaul of the article, including content related to the deleted image, but I'm unsure at this point if re-adding the image would be justified even then. I'll do more research and see what available sources have to say on the matter. Thank you again for taking the time to clear things up for me. Best regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Good Technology New Corporate Logo.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Good Technology New Corporate Logo.png. 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) 21:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Deletion Review Appeal
Hi, I am of the opinion that you prematurely closed the discussion on my file or misinterpreted the argument and have referred it to Deletion Review at Deletion review/Log/2014 October 5

Deletion review for [[File:PGA CBS 2014]]
An editor has asked for a of. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Comment by
UserGogo212121 Hello TLSuda please look this three page Link To License Information: http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/celebritymicro/images/id/5396/category/parties/type/view/imageid/2683885/

URL: http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/celebritymicro/images/id/5396/category/parties/type/view/imageid/2658572/

URL: http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/celebritymicro/images/id/171/category/parties/type/view/imageid/2683800/ --Gogo212121 (talk) 16:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note that this also was posted on my talk page: User talk:Stefan2. Please do not post the same discussion on multiple pages. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014: The results
The 2014 WikiCup champion is, who flew the flag of the Smithsonian Institution. This was Godot13's first WikiCup competition and, over the 10 months of the competition, he has produced (among other contributions) two featured lists and an incredible 292 featured pictures, including architectural photographs and scans of historical documents. , 2012 and 2013 WikiCup champion, came in second, having written a large number of biology-related articles. , WikiCup finalist every year since 2010, finished in third.

A full list of our prize-winners follows:


 * wins the prize for first place and the FP prize for 181 featured pictures in the final round.
 * wins the prize for second place and the DYK prize for 65 did you knows in the final round.
 * wins the prize for third place and the FA prize for four featured articles in the final round.
 * wins the prize for fourth place
 * wins a final 8 prize.
 * wins a final 8 prize.
 * wins a final 8 prize.
 * wins the GA prize for 27 good articles in round 2 and the review prize for 28 good article reviews in round 1.
 * wins the FL prize for three featured lists in round 2.
 * wins the FPo prize his work on featured portals.
 * wins the topic prize for a nine-article featured topic in round 3.
 * wins the news prize for 28 in the news articles in round 3.

Congratulations to everyone who has been successful in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and a particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have participated this year. We warmly invite all of you to sign up for next year's competition. Discussions and polls concerning potential rules changes are also open, and all are welcome to participate. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2014 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. and 22:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Photo of HIH the late Prince Katsura
Hi, TLSuda. You deleted and stated that "The result of the discussion was: Delete". Could you please elaborate on your reason for the deletion? The previous version of the portrait depicted another person and was then removed, but the portrait I uploaded was correct, and it didn't seem to violate Wiki guidelines, since it's still available in Thai Wikipedia. Regards,ChengH (talk) 15:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * First the image uploaded on the Thai Wikipedia is a copyright violation. Second, you didn't attribute a source for the new image, which qualifies for deletion. Third, you cannot just find an image of some random website to upload to Wikipedia. That's not how this works.  TLSuda  (talk) 18:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews
Hello. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular. The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered. If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.) If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with. Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors. I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC). Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Tropic Air logo.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Tropic Air logo.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) 00:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 is just around the corner...
Hello everyone, and may we wish you all a happy holiday season. As you will probably already know, the 2015 WikiCup begins in the new year; there is still time to sign up. We have a few important announcements concerning the future of the WikiCup.


 * We would like to announce that Josh (J Milburn) and Ed (The ed17), who have been WikiCup judges since 2009 and 2010 respectively, are stepping down. This decision has been made for a number of reasons, but the main one is time. Both Josh and Ed have found that, over the previous year, they have been unable to devote the time necessary to the WikiCup, and it is not likely that they will be able to do this in the near future. Furthermore, new people at the helm can only help to invigorate the WikiCup and keep it dynamic. Josh and Ed will still be around, and will likely be participating in the Cup this following year as competitors, which is where both started out.
 * In a similar vein, we hope you will all join us in welcoming Jason (Sturmvogel 66) and Christine (Figureskatingfan), who are joining Brian (Miyagawa) to form the 2015 WikiCup judging team. Jason is a WikiCup veteran, having won in 2010 and finishing in fifth this year. Christine has participated in two WikiCups, reaching the semi-finals in both, and is responsible for the GA Cup, which she now co-runs.
 * The discussions/polls concerning the next competition's rules will be closed soon, and rules changes will be made clear on WikiCup/Scoring and talk pages. While it may be impossible to please everyone, the judges will make every effort to ensure that the new rules are both fair and in the best interests of the competition, which is, first and foremost, about improving Wikipedia.

If you have any questions or concerns, the judges can be reached on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, on their talk pages, or by email. We hope you will all join us in trying to make the 2015 WikiCup the most productive and enjoyable yet. You are receiving this message because you are listed on WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk), The ed17 (talk), Miyagawa (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Figureskatingfan (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACam_communications&diff=637183808&oldid=636481228

Note that the user is blocked (not for misbehavior, though) and thus won't be responding. DS (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Pavel.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:Pavel.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 17:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

File deletion
Why on earth did you delete my file? What is the point of the consensus-driven FfD if a file is deleted when the majority are against file deletion and provide stronger arguments, some of which weren't even given time for rebuttal by the deletion-sided editor? You provided no justification for deleting it, and the person who nominated it for deletion has no understanding of the concept depicted, and you didn't even give him the chance to respond to my later arguments, unless he perhaps couldn't find a more successful argument.

Regardless, it is in no way your authority to delete files from FfD based on what you think; the whole point of the process is for gaining consensus. This image had consensus against deletion.-- ɱ    (talk  ·  vbm)  18:18, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 launch newsletter
Round one of the 2015 WikiCup has begun! So far we've had around 80 signups, which close on February 5. If you have not already signed up and want to do so, then you can add your name here. There have been changes to to several of the points scores for various categories, and the addition of Peer Reviews for the first time. These will work in the same manner as Good Article Reviews, and all of the changes are summarised here.

Remember that only the top 64 scoring competitors will make it through to the second round, and one of the new changes this year is that all scores must be claimed within two weeks of an article's promotion or appearance, so don't forget to add them to your submissions pages! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! , and

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Files_for_deletion/2014_September_11
I would like you to return to your decision to delete this file. There were 2 discussions going on at the time. You based your decision on the smaller of the two discussions on the opinion that two points of NFCC criteria were not met. My argument, which was supported by others, was that there were two discussions happening and that I had already given a fuller explanation at NFCR that covered the two points you felt were missing. The fact that you choose the smaller of the two discussions and the fact that it largely ignores my rationale at the larger of the two encourages gaming of the system at two different venues. The second discussion should have been closed while the 2nd commenced. The article, at the time of deletion, already contained context about the image. Policy and procedure were not followed in this case. I'm prepared to take it to DRV.--v/r - TP 22:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Woah TP, those discussions started over 4 months ago. I considered both discussions although the whole thing was a cluster in my opinion. So much of the NFCR discussion centered around whether it was a free image or not, and frankly it was. I could've put the close at either venue, and I possibly should've put it at NFCR since it was started first, but I felt then, and after re-reading it now feel that it encompassed both discussions. You only made two comments at the NFCR discussion, the first starts "The indictment is iconic as the first indictment of a Texas Governor in nearly 100 years." We do not need an image to understand that he was the first governor in 100 years to be indited. We do not need the image to understand that he has a public campaign.  Not including the image does not ignore the fact that it exists. There is plenty of sourced text that shows all of this information without needing to see the image to understand it. We really do not need to see the image to understand his feelings.  We can directly quote his feelings and get a perfect understanding through text of it. You don't need to see the image to understand, you don't even have to describe his mugshot to include content about his feelings about it. Your only other comment is about not having added sources as quickly as you would have liked.


 * Nowhere in your discussion did you actually show how both WP:NFCC#1 or WP:NFCC#8 or all of the other points of WP:NFCC were met. And like everything with non-free content there is rarely a situation where the decision is forever. There could now be, with new content or even a better discussion, enough in the article that makes the image pass WP:NFCC. Based on my reading of the whole discussion, no where did those people who supported the keeping of the image show that it met all of the requirements of NFCC. We have to remember that when it comes to non-free content the burden is on those who want to keep the image.


 * Instead of attempting to drag this through DRV (which I think would add even more cluster-ness and would potentially cause issues with any new arguments being made) can I suggest a different and better solution? Start a discussion on the article talkpage, where it should be easy to get support, that shows definitively at this time, that there is sufficient context that supports the inclusion of the image and that it meets all points explicitly of WP:NFCC. Specifically show how the image meets WP:NFCC#8 (remember it has 2 parts: "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.") If you can do this, and find consensus at this time, I'll happily restore the image as currently meeting all of WP:NFCC. While this may not be the most conventional method, I believe that it would be the best method moving forward. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, three things:
 * You said, "whether it was a free image or not, and frankly it was" If that is the case, do we even need to have this conversation?
 * The photo is of a moment in the history of the state of Texas. It cannot be replicated and it was impossible for a free version to have been taken by someone else.
 * NFCC #8 was argued in my comment dated 19:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC) meeting both parts of #8. The article topic is the indictment and the photo is going to help the reader understand the indictment's target's feelings toward the indictment itself.  It is not something that could be explained in words.  You have to see the photo.
 * --v/r - TP 01:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I meant that it was not, that was a typo on my part.
 * His mugshot was not a moment in history, his arrest was. His indictment was.
 * Nothing in your statement shows how the image meets WP:NFCC#8.
 * Did you not read my reply above? You say the topic is the indictment. The mugshot is just one aspect of the indictment. You do not need an image to understand his indictment. You say that the image will help the reader understand his feelings toward the indictment. Okay, that might be true, but there is one thing that would help any reader understand his feelings. That thing is free. It being free would make a non-free image fail WP:NFCC#1. A direct quote from Rick Perry saying his feelings about the indictment would perfectly illustrate his feelings. Can you tell me why a mugshot would illustrate someone's feelings better that what someone says their feelings are? Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 01:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think TMZ says it best : "Texas Governor Rick Perry pursed his lips with a faint smile as he posed for his mug shot ... and the pic is a study in politics and spin control....Perry -- who says the charges are BS -- has a lot at stake in this mug shot. He clearly wants to run for President in 2016, so the way he looks and dresses in the pic is critical."--v/r - TP 17:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Its critical to his political campaign, yes, but not critical to understand the article about his indictment. So far, it seems to me that you would be using the mugshot because of its iconic status to illustrate/identify his indictment. This would not be an appropriate use of a non-free image according to our policies. Furthermore, having gone back and looked at said article, there is barely a blurb mentioned about the mugshot itself and further, his mugshot is not even mentioned in the main article about Rick Perry.
 * What saddens me most, is that the information you are providing on this talk page really could potentially warrant using this non-free image within policy. This saddens me because none of this information (especially the TMZ quote or any quote from Mr. Perry himself) isn't even on Wikipedia. Hell, there is probably enough coverage of the mugshot and its significance alone to create a whole article, or at least a full section. I'm still gonna stand by what I've said from the start, based on my interpretations of the discussions (plural) and the new evidence that you've brought here, the image does not meet WP:NFCC#8, currently.  I still personally think that it could, but not right now with where the article is. I'm happy to continue debating point by point with you, if that is what you desire, but I still think my original offer would be the best solution. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Qtrax Logo 2013.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Qtrax Logo 2013.png. 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) 21:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Qtrax Logo 2013.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Qtrax Logo 2013.png. 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) 00:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:ScoreBig 2013 logo.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:ScoreBig 2013 logo.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. Diannaa (talk) 02:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Undelete Request
Hello. I did some research on the situation about this and wanted to start the process for undeletion. The Wiki policy states to contact the reviewing admin first. The image was nominated for deletion as a "copyright violation", however its copyright was never actually in question. It was a movie created by HBO and was listed as a fair use image based on the rarity of the image and one of the only photographs shown worn on a black SS uniform. This was discussed here as well. The original nomination was also tainted with sour grapes (unfortunately). I think the image should be undeleted and posted as fair use to display a rare insignia on a black SS uniform. Thanks for your time. -OberRanks (talk) 05:01, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It was not deleted for being a copyright violation, it was deleted for failure to meet WP:NFCC. All non-free media must meet all points of WP:NFCC. The discussion at that talk page was between you and one other editor and has nothing to do with the image's status. I also fail to see how this nomination was retaliation (your comment about sour grapes).  Future Perfect is very well know in the file namespace for successfully assisting with the cleanup of copyright violations and images that do not meet our policies.  I see no reason that this should be undeleted based on your above comments.  Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 05:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Is there a forum page to bring matters like this up? If not for this particular case, just for own knowledge of where the undelete page is for image requests.  Thank you! -OberRanks (talk) 05:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Deletion review would be the place you are looking for. You will likely want to explain what you think was wrong with the nomination, the discussion or my admin close of the discussion. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 21:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 March newsletter
That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. 64 competitors made it into this round, and are now broken into eight groups of eight. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups. Round 1 saw some interesting work on some very important articles, with the round leader owing most of his 622 points scored to a Featured Article on the 2001 film Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within which qualified for a times-two multiplier. This is a higher score than in previous years, as had 500 points in 2014 at the end of round 1, and our very own judge,  led round 1 with 601 points in 2013.

In addition to Freikorp's work, some other important articles and pictures were improved during round one, here's a snapshot of a few of them:
 * took Bumblebee, a level-4 vital article, to Good Article;
 * worked-up the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 article, also to Good Article status;
 * developed an extremely timely article to Good Article, taking Magna Carta there some 800 years after it was first sealed;
 * And last but not least, worked up a number of Featured Pictures during round 1, including the 1948 one Deutsche Mark (pictured right), receiving the maximum bonus due to the number of Wikis that the related article appears in.

You may also wish to know that The Core Contest is running through the month of March. Head there for further details - they even have actual prizes!

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. , and

Thanks for your assistance! Miyagawa (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiCup.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Wqyk-color-logo official.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Wqyk-color-logo official.png. 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) 00:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:PiedmontCollegeOffLogo.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:PiedmontCollegeOffLogo.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) 16:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Newspapers.com check-in
Hello TLSuda,

You are receiving this message because you have a one-year subscription to Newspapers.com through the Wikipedia Library. This is a brief update, to remind you about that access:
 * Please make sure that you can still log in to your Newspapers.com account. If you are having trouble let me know.
 * Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, to include citations with links on Wikipedia. Links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. Also, keep in mind that part of Newspapers.com is open access via the clipping function. Clippings allow you to identify particular articles, extract them from the original full sheet newspaper, and share them through unique URLs. Wikipedia users who click on a clipping link in your citation list will be able to access that particular article, and the full page of the paper if they come from the clipping, without needing to subscribe to Newspapers.com. For more information about how to use clippings, see http://www.newspapers.com/basics/#h-clips.
 * Do you write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let me know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate it if you filled out this short survey. Your input will help us to facilitate this particular partnership, and to discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you,

Wikipedia Library Newspapers.com account coordinator HazelAB (talk) 00:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Image of Pepsi Throwback
In June 2014, someone replaced File:Pepsi Throwback 2010.png with a picture of a different product. You deleted the older version, citing F5. Instead, I think the change should be reverted, since the new picture is for a different product. The original purpose of the picture, as stated in its description and filename, is to illustrate what Pepsi Throwback looked like in 2010. The current picture seems to be something else – it illustrates "Pepsi-Cola Made with Real Sugar", not "Pepsi Throwback". Can you please revert that? —BarrelProof (talk) 01:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Please also see the discussions I just started at File talk:Pepsi Throwback 2010.png and Talk:Throwback (drink). —BarrelProof (talk) 01:30, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks like its been resolved. I've deleted the wrong revisions (per WP:NFCC). Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 11:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Improper deletion
You closed the discussion at in blatant disregard for both what WP:NFCC actually states and the well-reasoned arguments another user made in the discussion. The image is so drastically different from the current one in the article that criterion 3 does not even come close to applying. Criterion 8 does not apply either because there is discussion of the older version in the article (that is not even remotely represented by the current screenshot). The fact that the precise older version number is not mentioned does not remove the contextual significance. Mdrnpndr (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey Mdrnpndr. So here's the thing about WP:NFCC, its very rigid and has lots of applications. In this situation, I made the close under exactly what WP:NFCC actually says, as well as what it means in actual practice. WP:NFCC in practice means that two images that are exceedingly similar (IE of different versions of the same software) are not allowed. Here's why: The basic premise of WP:NFCC is that as a community, Wikipedia should absolutely minimize the amount of non-free media (to comply with US law and the WMF's mission). As such, we strive to only use non-free media where a) absolutely necessary to the understanding of the article and b) it would hurt the article beyond repair if removed (all of this is WP:NFCC). We have to remember that to keep non-free media, the onus is on the supporters to keep to prove that it meets all aspects of WP:NFCC and WP:NFC. In this particular situation/discussion, it was never shown that it meets specifically WP:NFCC and WP:NFCC. Simply being discussion about an older version does not mean that we need to see it. Its been nearly ten months since the discussion was closed, and the article has been seen by thousands of visitors who have had no issues understanding the article without the image (first part of #8). Secondly, we can completely live without the image because we could take the current image and add free text (sourced of course) that describes the major differences. As it stands now in the article, there isn't even content about the older version of Sound Recorder. There is nothing in the article that would require a reader to see that older screenshot to understand the text content. I hope that sheds some better light on the situation. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 11:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

FC Barcelona (crest).svg
Can you tell me why does Barcelona has crest on all of it's sub articles, and Benfica couldn't. The explanation of fair use is just basically the same.--Threeohsix (talk) 22:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 May newsletter
The second round one has all wrapped up, and round three has now begun! Congratulations to the 34 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our second round. Leading the way overall was in Group B with a total of 777 points for a variety of contributions including Good Articles on Corona Borealis and Microscopium - both of which received the maximum bonus. Special credit must be given to a number of high importance articles improved during the second round.
 * was one of several users who worked on improving Ulysses S. Grant. Remember, you do not need to work on an article on your own - as long as each person has completed significant work on the article during 2015, multiple competitors can claim the same article.
 * took Dragonfly to Good Article for a 3x bonus - and if that wasn't enough, they also took Damselfly there as well for a 2x bonus.
 * worked up Alexander Hamilton to Good Article for the maximum bonus. Hamilton was one of the founding fathers of the United States and is a level 4 vital article.

The points varied across groups, with the lowest score required to gain automatic qualification was 68 in Group A - meanwhile the second place score in Group H was 404, which would have been high enough to win all but one of the other Groups! As well as the top two of each group automatically going through to the third round, a minimum score of 55 was required for a wildcard competitor to go through. We had a three-way tie at 55 points and all three have qualified for the next round, in the spirit of fairness. The third round ends on June 28, with the top two in each group progressing automatically while the remaining 16 highest scorers across all four groups go through as wildcards. Good luck to all competitors for the third round! , and  16:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Request to restore deleted images
Please restore:
 * File:POLICIA DE PUERTO RICO.JPG - source: http://www2.pr.gov/Directorios/Pages/InfoAgencia.aspx?PRIFA=040
 * File:PRDCR logo.jpg - source: http://ac.gobierno.pr/correccion/ http://ac.gobierno.pr/correccion/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/logo_dcpr.png

They fail under non-free logo and happen to be state government agencies.

&mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:19, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Both were deleted because they were tagged as the user's own work and not fixed for months after taking to WP:PUF. They could be restored, but all of the information is wrong. It would frankly be simpler and easier if you were to upload clean files (preferably without the caps and a PNG if you could find one.) Let me know if you need help. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 17:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

IMDEA
Hello, your processing of our recent request for image upload was handled incorrectly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IMDEA_Networks_Logo.png#metadata

We have requested that the logo for the IMDEA Software Institute be uploaded as a new file. Instead, the IMDEA Networks Institute logo was replaced with the IMDEA Software Institute logo. These are two separate entities with different logos. The result is that the IMDEA Networks page now has the logo of IMDEA Software erroneously.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMDEA_Networks_Institute

To fix this the IMDEA Networks Institute logo should be reverted to its previous, correct version, and the IMDEA Software Institute logo be created as a new file, which will be linked to by the IMDEA Software Institute page.

Best regards, M — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.147.107.1 (talk) 09:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Issue resolved. There was some confusion because the logo that was requested to be uploaded did not have an actual article. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 13:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * And the WP:PUF and WP:FFU backlogs are also down a lot! Very appreciated! --Stefan2 (talk) 00:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Heh thanks guys. All of those backlogs started when I went inactive for far too long.  I felt like it was my fault so I needed to clean up the mess a bit.  Thanks for y'alls help too. I see the place hasn't fallen apart yet.  Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 00:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Heh, thanks, but like I said above, these backlogs have their roots from the last time I was ever active. My fault...my mess.  Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 16:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

user gogo212121
hello TLSuda Can I upload the photo in wikipedia of which license to upload picture this picture http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/celebritymicro/images/id/171/category/parties/type/view/imageid/5778191/ --Gogo212121 (talk) 16:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes You can upload it with the BollyWood Hungama license at Wikimedia Commons. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 17:05, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

user gogo212121 hello TLSuda When this picture was taken where I can see when it is --Gogo212121 (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC) UserGogo212121 Hello TLSuda  if I upload my photo will delete you --Gogo212121 (talk) 16:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If you upload to Commons, it should not be deleted as long as the appropriate tag is added. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Your request at Files for upload
Hello, and thank you for your request at Files for upload! Unfortunately, your request has been declined. The reason is shown on the main FFU page. The request will be archived shortly; if you cannot find it on that page, it will probably be at this month's archive. Regards,  TLSuda  (talk) 17:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Where do I find your question??? Stagophile (talk) 13:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It would be on the Files for upload/May 2015 archive page under the header for the image that you requested. Likely the image was requested a long time ago (there was a huge backlog). It would probably be better to just open a new request. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 14:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

CITIC Telecom CPC Official Logo
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color:#ffcece" | This upload request has been declined. Please do not modify it. ''This request for upload has been reviewed. The reviewer comments appear below the submission text.''
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Description: This is a logo for CITIC Telecom CPC

URL: https://www.facebook.com/CITIC.Telecom.CPC/photos/a.159899550689744.37620.117571578255875/621593431187018/?type=1&theater

License: Fair use request. The significance of the logo is to help the reader identify the organization, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the organization, and illustrate the organization's intended branding message in a way that words alone could not convey.

Link To License Information: https://www.facebook.com/CITIC.Telecom.CPC

Author/Copyright Holder's Name: CITIC Telecom CPC

Article To Be Used On/Reason For Upload: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:CITIC_Telecom_CPC. The significance of the logo is to help the reader identify the organization, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the organization, and illustrate the organization's intended branding message in a way that words alone could not convey.

203.85.10.42 (talk) 08:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol opinion vote.svg Comment: As this is a non-free file, could you please complete the "non-free use rationale" below? See Non-free use rationale guideline for instructions. If a rationale isn't provided within seven days, the request will be declined. Thank you.

 TLSuda  (talk) 15:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol declined.svg File upload request declined. The article in which this non-free file should be used was declined at Articles for creation.  TLSuda  (talk) 16:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't understand the reason. Do you mind explaining to me so that I know how to revise it??many thanks.
 * We cannot put non-free images in the Draft namespace per WP:NFCC as such we cannot upload this image. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 13:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Bogus reasons for deleting this image
Re File:Official UK ‘No Through Road’ sign.png

I'm very irritated that you deleted this after the time and effort spent creating, uploading and ensuring this image was correct and not infringing copyright. The reasons you gave for deletion are bogus as the file you claim already exists (File:UK_traffic_sign_816.svg) is, in fact, wrong. And the "slightly different tint" is also incorrect. Consulting the latest specifications of the UK Government's road signs would have shown you this. This is why the file was uploaded in the first place. This is all very annoying and has caused yet more inaccurate information to be disseminated by Wikipedia. Chairboy73 (talk) 14:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I did not give the reasons for deletion, another user did. But in looking at the photo and the discussions (from 5 months ago), The image was rightfully deleted.  The image that you uploaded was from 2010 from the UK Gov. The image on commons, which is a much better quality is from the same source but a 2011 version.  There very well may be a better 2015 version than both images. Either way, there was absolutely no need for both images to be uploaded.  Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 14:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)}}

Picture request
You left no comment on my picture. Feeling confused.--88.111.129.157 (talk) 16:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The Sheikh Nimr one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_upload --88.111.129.157 (talk) 16:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, something happened with the scripting. I've just re-commented.  Sorry about that. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 16:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

File
Hey! May I ask, you assist with 2015051710012141 as you previously dealt with him/her on 2014071610021202. It's regarding some PDF file which was recently flagged for deletion. Thanks, ///Euro Car  GT  20:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've taken the ticked ownership and I've sent a response (although it may be too direct). Hopefully this time it will open some dialogue.  Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 20:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Files_for_upload/December_2015
Sorry! I didn't mean to upload the file after you'd commented asking for a fair use rationale from the requester, ultimately stepping on your toes. You hadn't commented on the request yet when I decided to just do the rationale myself and started the process of uploading the image, and I didn't notice your comment until I'd already uploaded it and went to go accept the request. Have a good day!  --Nick&#8288;—&#8288;Contact/Contribs 21:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely fine to do that, no harm done. My personal belief is in two parts.  1) I feel it is their responsibility to do more than drop a request on the page and abandon it forever. 2) I like to have their beliefs on the fair use rationale.  Since I am uploading it for them, I'm already taking responsibility for the photo.  I never want to be questioned about why I made a decision without there being a paper trail for me to follow.  In this case it was pretty cut and dry and we would've ended up at the same point. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 21:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Deleted photos
Hi, The photos for 2 articles Skyway Enterprises Flight 7101 and Loganair Flight 670A have been deleted. These photos were of the actual planes that the articles depict. During all my research I never found any free photos. Both of these planes crashed and were destroyed w/loss of life. I contacted both photo owners and got permission to use them. I've read Non-free content criteria. There is no free equivalent for these photos and it is quite impossible for further photos to be taken. Is there a way we can get these photos reinstated? Thanks for your consideration. Samf4u (talk) 21:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey Samf4u. I saw that you had mentioned that those were the actual planes.  With most, if not all, plane crash articles, we use a free image of a differently branded but same make/model/design plane. Unless there is something specific that the article discusses about the plane that the actual plane would need to be seen for the text to be understood, there is no reason to use a non-free image (WP:NFCC#8 & WP:NFCC#1). The free equivalent is that there are other still active planes of these models available that could be taken. If you have contacted the photo owners, did you ask them to release it under a free license?  If they did, then we could use the images forever without any legal or policy based restrictions.  IF you haven't, I would recommend doing that and having them go through the process at commons:Commons:Email_templates. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 21:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi TLSuda, Thanks for your quick response. I understand but it is frustrating. I'll contact them both and ask for free license. Regards, Samf4u (talk)  21:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Believe me, I do understand how frustrating it is. And if it seems like our policies are more strict than the law, thats because its true.  Our mission has us trying to hit the goal of as much free content as possible.  Sometimes that means we have to do something slightly not as good, but close.  Another route to go would be if there was discussion in the articles about the crashes that had information that would only make sense if someone saw the crash, we might be able to find crash photos and build a very strong case to beat WP:NFCC#1 & #8.  Currently the content isn't there, and it may not be possible, but you never know until you do the research and try.  Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 21:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a good suggestion! If I can't get the free license release I'll look into it. Samf4u (talk) 22:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Restore CodeProject Logo.gif.
Please restore the image. I fixed the licensing of the image on the same day that the possibly un-free inquiry was made, so I would like the image to be restored. Thanks. Kamran Mackey (talk) 09:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You added a fair use rationale but there was no license. Every file has to have a license. Determine which (non-free) license you think fits best and let me know.  I'll restore it and add the appropriate license.  Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 13:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:James "Oklahoma Jack" Clark mugshot.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:James "Oklahoma Jack" Clark mugshot.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is [ a list of your uploads].

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Stefan2 (talk) 23:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Russell Lee "Boobie" Clark.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Russell Lee "Boobie" Clark.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is [ a list of your uploads].

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Stefan2 (talk) 23:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

File:James "Oklahoma Jack" Clark mugshot.jpg
Hi TLSuda. We got an email from a reader saying this is actually Walter Detrich, not James Clark. If you go here and scroll down to the mugshots section, Clark is listed but the name hyperlinked to the image is Detrich's. Maybe your source was wrong, or perhaps they are mistaken, or the ICPR site is wrong? Just thought I'd let you know if you want to remove it or correct it or something. I note we don't have an article on Clark in any case. § FreeRangeFrog croak 20:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey FreeRangeFrog. I uploaded that image per a request at WP:FFU some time ago. I honestly don't know who the image is of, nor do I have enough information to go one way or another.  If someone else with more knowledge on the subject wishes to change the image, that would be fine by me. I might can look through the FFU archives to see who requested it and get their input.  Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 11:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I nominated it for deletion since it a non-free file. Maybe someone will write an article about the other guy in the meantime § FreeRangeFrog  croak 18:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeezus
I don't usually do this, but I just don't see how you could determine there was "clear consenus" (per the wording at WP:NFCR) to say the file should be deleted given low participation and the fact that it was  it should be kept in a discussion with much greater participation. Calidum T&#124;C 15:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There is clear consensus (even with low participation) that the non-free image could be replaced by a free one. The previous discussion was about whether or not the image was non-free and if the fair use was correct.  That discussion decided that the image was non-free and that the fair use rationale was correct.  The discussion did include information on whether or not the image should be kept, but this was only minor, and no consensus was established at that time for its usage being within policy or not. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 15:26, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Message
I just read your message on my talk page. Thank-you. You are very kind. I found a somewhat simpler solution to my problem: I no longer upload images to the site. Thanks again. -- Jason Palpatine (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)  This User fails to understand Wikipedia's Systematized Logistical Projection of its Balanced Policy Contingency. (speak your mind | contributions)

FSU Athletics logo on sports pages.
First of all how is it wrong to put the official logo to describe the Florida State football and baseball on their main page? That is how each team is recognized. The Ohio State University, University of Michigan, University of Florida, UC-Los Angeles, UC- Berkeley, and the University of Alabama all have their respective logos representing each of of their sports on their pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeminoleNation (talk • contribs) 18:05, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:NFC#17 Its against our policy to use non-free images in this way.  Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 15:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

YOUR JUDGEMENT
You make no sense. Judging from your talk page it seems like I'm not the only person who finds you bothersome. I'll find a way to put the FSU images back. No editors had a problem with the images before you came along. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeminoleNation (talk • contribs) 16:06, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Obviously they did, or else there would not have been a discussion at WP:NFCR. The discussion, and the consensus of said discussion, establishes that the image fails policies and therefore cannot be used. If you go against that, you can be blocked for your actions.  Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 16:13, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

FSU Athletics logo
Okay well if you know so much about what images can or cannot be used. Then how about instead of just removing it completely from a page and making it look incomplete why don't you try to find a suitable replacement of that image which can be used. Not everyone who edits on wikipedia knows what has to be done.--SeminoleNation (talk) 16:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That is a content decision. There are two possible free FSU logos that could've been used.  That is a decision that should be made by someone who has a better understanding of FSU and the articles/content about it on Wikipedia. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 02:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Darlene and Jinx image declined
Hi, TLSuda, Yes, Darlene June Nay (formerly Darlene Sellek) is the copyright holder, but the image has been licensed as noted. What evidence is required and how do I submit that evidence? Pedoggett (talk) 01:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Whomever took the photo has the original copyright. That person would need to either send proof that they have released the image under a free license. We recommend going through the process outlined at WP:CONSENT. If the original photographer gave/sold the copyright to someone else, we would need evidence of that transaction along with the new copyright holder following the same process at WP:CONSENT. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 12:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Canada Games Logo
Hi TLSuda, I saw your exchange on Files For Upload with regards to the Canada Games text logo vs full logo. I tried to pull up the file to run a Google Image Search to look for any other instances of the logo besides what the user provided, and interestingly enough, now that file has been removed from ryushare for expiration, self-deletion, or removed for a Terms of Use violation. Just thought you should know. RegistryKey(RegEdit) 12:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I had noticed it, but thanks for checking it out. I would read nothing into it. That user has requested files be uploaded from ryushare before. They expire pretty quickly. Usually I can just pull them off an official website. In this case I don't think there is a clear answer. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 12:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Liberland
Hi, you deleted and. Did it "lack licensing information for seven days after being identified as such"? (Media files that lack the necessary licensing information to verify copyright status may be deleted after being identified as such for seven days if the information is not added.) Was there any info? It might be in the public domain.. I suppose one has to check the file to see the notice.. Thanks, --WikiHannibal (talk) 17:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There was no license. Only thing in the license area was insignia which is not a copyright license itself. Aside from that there was a copy to commons tag (incorrect) and a SVG tag. Hope that helps, Sorry,  TLSuda  (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)