User talk:TLSuda/Archive 5

Your NFCR closes
I wondered who this "TLSuda" was who had sprung from nowhere and was closing the NFCR discussions. Now I've worked it out. Thank you for doing all this, it is very helpful indeed, though it may well be thankless for you. Inevitably, I have looked to see if I agree with your closes and generally I do (that may not be encouraging for you!). I'd like to raise a question about just one, the first close I disagreed with,. Did you mean to put "Image is not below TOO in the US"? Stefan2 only raised it as a possibility and Masem said it wouldn't be considered sufficiently original in the US ending up effectively suggesting "keep". Perhaps it was a typo for "Image is not below TOO in the UK" but even in that case deletion was doubtful because neither contributor was very sure and WP is allowed to keep work that is not in copyright in the US. As a guideline "While Wikipedia prefers content that is free anywhere in the world, it accepts content that is free in the United States even if it may be under copyright in some other countries." But I can get stuff wrong so I'd be interested in your reply. Thincat (talk) 11:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey Thincat. Thanks for your question and thanks for reaching out to me. First let me say that TOO is tricky. Just because its below TOO in one country, and could therefore be PD, does not mean that it gets the same treatment in another country.  The image may be TOO in the UK, but US Copyright law could still offer copyright protection.
 * In Stefan2's he says that the image fails WP:NFCC. He also brings up the possibility that the image could be below the Threshold of Originality (TOO). Between the little bit of consensus there and longstanding understanding of TOO, in relation to US copyright law, the image is past TOO, and therefore non-free.  Since it is still non-free, it must meet all of the criteria of WP:NFCC. The image was simply a web banner about an event. There is content in the article about the event, but not the image of the banner.  The removal of the banner does not increase the reader's understanding of the event, and therefore it is simply decoration. We do allow non-free content to be kept, but only if it meets all of the criteria of WP:NFCC.  Since the image was purely decorative, it fails WP:NFCC#8 and therefore had to go. I hope that answers your question.  If you have other questions, please do not hesitate to ask. --  TLSuda  (talk) 11:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think the image was of any importance at all, not even decorative(!). My understanding is that even slightly fancy logos may be copyright in the UK, but not in the US, see commons:Commons:Threshold of originality. In other words, the opposite of what you say. But I won't pursue this any further. Standards in file deletion/review discussions have, I think, improved substantially above the shockingly poor levels of a couple of years ago when huge numbers of files were being improperly deleted. As well as deletions against strong well-argued consensus, files tagged as orphaned (even those wrongly tagged by a bug-ridden bot) were being deleted on grounds of being of no conceivable use, even when they were PD and in use. Articles with links to these supposedly orphaned files then had these links removed by another bot. Sound files, because they do not appear in "file usage", were particularly vulnerable. I hope those dark days are over. Anyway, enough of all that, best wishes. Thincat (talk) 18:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the cleaning crew
Congrats on your successful RFA and I'm really glad to see someone else helping out in filespace. Have you thought of applying for OTRS access for yourself? it's very useful to be able to check for yourself the status of tickets on either PUF discussions or F11 CSD nominations. Nthep (talk) 09:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I have thought about it prior to my RfA, but I did not know how useful I would be. I am only a little familiar with the whole concept of OTRS. You make a good point, though, it would be helpful for me to do, and it would be another aspect I could help out in. It would save me and other OTRS volunteers additional time, so I think I ought to apply this afternoon. -- TLSuda (public) (talk)  10:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've applied for becoming a volunteer. We can see what happens. --  TLSuda  (talk) 23:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations on your recent promotion! Or is it really a demotion, in which case commiserations? I've just noticed your activity on NFCR, and I was sure that you weren't an admin when you reviewed my GA nomination. Anyway, enjoy the coffee.  Green Giant  supports  NonFreeWiki  ( talk )  15:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Britain (film) images
I was recently advised via a heads-up on the orphaning of images in the film article, however, the other ones in question have already been removed without notice. Please explain. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've responded over at User talk:Stefan2 so let's keep the discussion there. --  TLSuda  (talk) 18:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Samuel Pitkin Image
When the file was nominated for deletion, I had posted that I had received permission from the state agency that owns the image and asked what was needed to demonstrate this? I received no response and now the image was deleted? So I ask again, what is needed? Hobbamock (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In the future when asking about a specific image, it is very helpful to link to that image (or where it was) so I can find the relevant information. I assume you are talking about File:Major General Samuel Pitkin.jpg? And the discussion: Possibly_unfree_files/2014_January_30?
 * If that is indeed what you are talking about, you need more than "permission for the image's use." Does the "Connecticut Military Department" actually own the copyright to the image? If so, they can release it with a free license, (public domain, CC-by-SA, etc) by sending an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org using something similar to the declaration form at WP:CONSENT. They will need to prove they own the image and include a link to where the image was.  The image looks like a scan from a book or other paper media, and therefore is very possibly owned by the creator of the source.  The "Connecticut Military Department" would have to give the original source of the image, show that they own the copyrights.
 * Basically the "Connecticut Military Department" cannot just say that they think the image is in the public domain because they want it to be; they have to show evidence of such. I hope that helps. Cheers, --  TLSuda  (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I wish someone had forwarded this info to me in my original request for what was needed.  I'm sure the original creator of the image is long gone from this earth so I will send a request to their historical office.  Their original message to me was that as long as they received attribution, they were fine with the image being shared.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobbamock (talk • contribs) 12:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The cool thing about WP:OTRS (the volunteers who handle these permissions emails) is that they include some admins who can restore photos. Or someone can ping me to let me know and I will restore it myself. Thanks, --  TLSuda  (talk) 15:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Book cover images
Hi, FYI: you deleted File:B.E.Johansen-2009book.jpg, File:B.E.Johansen-2007book.jpg, and File:B.E.Johansen-2006book.jpg on March 8 (CSD F7). As you see, they're "blue-linked" again, as the same editor re-uploaded them. I have again tagged them as F7. --Randykitty (talk) 17:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Franz Walter Stahlecker photo that you deleted
Thank you for doing this. However, it has come to my attention that the file that was deleted might be of a slightly higher resolution and therefore a better image. Is it possible to replace the current file on the Commons with the deleted one?Hoops gza (talk) 00:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It is extremely helpful if you link the image you are talking about. I believe you are talking about File:Franz Walter Stahlecker01.jpg, correct? When I checked the deleted image, the one on Commons is actually higher resolution.  It is 328x444 whereas the image I deleted is only 210x300. The deleted one is also not any better quality. Cheers, --  TLSuda  (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, my mistake, thanks for the clarification.Hoops gza (talk) 02:13, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Your Graphics Lab request

 * Thanks User:Orionist. It looks great! --  TLSuda  (talk) 21:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Happy to help :-) -- Orionist  ★  talk  09:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

PUF closures
I saw you deleted several files listed on Possibly unfree files/2013 December 3 where the only participants other than the nominator opposed deletion, please could you clarify why the opposing opinions were disregarded? The relevant files are File:KelburneTramTunnel1910.jpg, File:84 Punjabis badge.jpg, File:82 Punjabis badge.jpg, File:53 Sikhs 5 FF.jpg, File:130 Baluchis 1910-22.jpg, File:126 Baluchistan Inf badge.jpg, File:92 Punjabis badge.jpg, File:George Weston Limited head office and factory, Toronto, 1920.jpg. January ( talk ) 11:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your questions, I'll take each deletion one by one.


 * File:KelburneTramTunnel1910.jpg There is no evidence that the photo was taken in 1910. Without evidence we cannot assume that it was taken and therefore we cannot know the copyright status.  The source website no longer exists.  If we assume that the creator was unknown like the uploader suggests, we would just need evidence that the image was taken prior to 1964. We might could WP:AGF on the image, but there is nothing in the image to me that the image was definitively taken prior to 1964, as the image as it stands could be exactly reproduced even today (in my opinion).
 * 1) The badge images, although they were for organizations from pre-1923, may not have been made prior to 1923. They could've been used as insignia or for other uses and could potentially look differently than the one that was published in the books. They could possibly be in the public domain in the united states, but according to the PD-pakistan tag, they may not be in the public domain in Pakistan, unless its been 50 years after the death of the creator. With no creator listed, we do not know if it has been that long.  On a side note they are rather rough images that could be replaced by one of the experts of the graphics lab.
 * File:George Weston Limited head office and factory, Toronto, 1920.jpg. I may have made a mistake on this image, as I cannot see why I would have deleted it. The only issue that I see is that there is not enough evidence that it is in the public domain in Canada (which would cause it to not need to be on Commons).
 * Feel free to revert any of my deletions if you feel that my opinions are incorrect. I can be wrong sometimes (I am human) and you will not hurt my feelings if you do what you think is right. Hope that helps, --  TLSuda  (talk) 21:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. I'm not sure if it's accepted practice for an administrator to overturn another administrator's close without going through WP:deletion review, but if you agree that the close on File:George Weston Limited head office and factory, Toronto, 1920.jpg was incorrect would you be willing to change it to a keep? January  ( talk ) 08:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That may not be the acceptable practice in general, but any administrator has my permission to overturn my administrative actions without even talking to me first. Or if you feel like something should be changed but you personally don't feel comfortable doing it, let me know and I will revert myself and you can reclose. I would be happy to change that to keep per your reccomendation but I don't have access to a computer for a few hours, possibly not until mid-morning tomorrow UTC. -- TLSuda (public) (talk) 12:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll go ahead and restore it since you're away from your computer. Thanks January  ( talk ) 13:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

FAC help
Hey T, I see that you're busy here with your new admin duties (I'm so proud!), but I wanted to ask a favor. I have a languishing FAC with only 3 supports, so I'm worried that it will fail. Would you mind taking some time and going over to take a look? Thanks, I appreciate it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm more than happy to look it over for you. It might take me a few minutes, but I'll check it out! --  TLSuda  (talk) 18:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey, I saw your note on my talk page before I saw that my FAC had passed! So thanks for the good news, and for your willingness to help out.  Wow, it passed with just three supports.  BTW, User:Shoebox2 below is a good egg, with loads of potential.  She was my mentee like you were, and I was the one who GA-reviewed her current FAC, which is a very fun article.  So I'm sure she's appreciate your assistance.  Thanks again. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk)

Calculator (Windows)
Hi.

I am calling about on Calculator (Windows) article. There is a small problem: The current image File:Windows 8.1 Calculator.png is not the image of the subject of the article. The majority of the article talks about the now-deleted File:Calculator on Windows 8 (scientific).png. As such the former fails WP:NFCC.

I think it would be more appropriate to undelete File:Calculator on Windows 8 (scientific).png.

Thanks.

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The article is about the Calculator software on Windows, not just one specific version and type. File:Windows 8.1 Calculator.png is a free file, so therefore does not fail any part of WP:NFCC and therefore is be most acceptable image to use in the article period. There is only even one line about the Windows 8 version of the calculator, and only mentions the scientific version in passing. Furthermore it is my belief that all of the images except File:Windows 8.1 Calculator.png fail WP:NFCC#8 as they are not critically discussed and fail WP:NFCC#1 as that one is free, as would be images of the calculators from Windows 3.0 and Windows 4.1 if they had been made from those versions of Windows (instead of later versions). I think the consensus was generous in allowing 2 non-free images on the article, and since none were specifically discussed, I tried to choose three that were the most important to the article while showing differences across multiple versions.  I know you spend much time working on Windows-related articles, and that you cruise through WP:NFCR occasionally, so I cannot see why you were not able to make it to the discussion previously. File:Windows Calculator Programmer Mode.png is more discussed than File:Calculator on Windows 8 (scientific).png so if you feel passionately enough about that one, I would be more than happy to change it out for File:Calculator Vista Scientific.png. Cheers, --  TLSuda  (talk) 00:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * File:Windows 8.1 Calculator.png is free? Wow! Very well. We leave it at that. Consider my request withdrawn.


 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 01:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * @Codename Lisa - Speaking as someone who often reviews images at the FA level, I agree with TLSuda's judgement here. There is no halftoning or other significantly creative color elements in the calculator. The buttons and layout are similar to any other number of calculators. Typeface is not copyrightable in the US, last I checked, and the only words here are not enough to pass the threshold of originality. The overall combination may toe the line a bit (and cross it in some jurisdictions), but the US threshold of originality is sufficiently high that I feel comfortable labeling this one as free. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello, . Let me get this straight: Given that I have already said "Very well. We leave it at that. Consider my request withdrawn", are you expecting me to do something else?


 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 21:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Did I say I expected you to do something more, Lisa? No. I simply provided a more detailed explanation, so that you could understand why the calculator was considered PD. This, in turn, means that in the future you could (perhaps) identify PD elements of software, and thus use those in place of a fair-use image. You know the adage about giving a person a fish vs teaching a person to fish, right? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Could I ask you to take a look at my FAC as well?
Hello, I'm a bit new to the FAC process, so excuse if I'm being presumptuous. The thing is, I also have a FAC that's been languishing a bit since last month, and am becoming genuinely concerned it'll fail merely for lack of interest in the nom. Would you be able to take a quick look? Not asking for support per se, of course, just feedback. Thanking you much in advance for any help you can provide, Shoebox 2   talk  15:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I will try to take a look today. I don't have actual FAC experience, but I will try my best to look over it soon. --  TLSuda  (talk) 15:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Cunard
Congratulations on your recent successful RfA! I have replied at User talk:Cunard. Cunard (talk) 03:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of File:BreakfClubBlue.jpg
The file was originally listed as non free, however it is a pre-1978 newspaper ad with no copyright marks and therefore in the public domain.


 * US Copyright Office page 3-magazines are collective works (PDF)

"A notice for the collective work will not serve as the notice for advertisements inserted on behalf of persons other than the copyright owner of the collective work. These advertisements should each bear a separate notice in the name of the copyright owner of the advertisement."

Would you please take another look at the deleted file. Thanks, We hope (talk) 16:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've taken a look at the deleted file, and there is no evidence that the file is in the public domain, as we cannot see the the whole page where there may or may not be copyright marks just outside of the crop. We also do not have an actual source (IE what newspaper, etc) so we have no way of verifying copyright status. When we cannot verify copyright status, we cannot assume the the file is free, or in the public domain. As a non-free file it fails WP:NFCC#10a as the source is not adequate to find information about the image. I hope that helps. Cheers, --  TLSuda  (talk) 17:00, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=600770627 your edit] to Balika Vadhu may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page]. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

NFCR discussion about File:CovelliCentre.PNG
You closed with the closing remark Image is PD-textlogo and retagged the image as PD here, although Masem and me tended towards treating the file as NFC. I think we should retag the file as non-free, until there is a consensus to treat it as free. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  22:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, you're right. I don't know what I was thinking on that file. I'm gonna go back and check all of my closures around that time.  Thanks for the heads up! Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 22:08, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Side note, did you see my question on your talk page from March 1?  TLSuda  (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting back at the closures and retagging the file. Yes, I did see your question at my talk page. I have to admit I was not really prepared to respond at that time as I got other stuff to do and eventually forgot to get back at it (I wished there was an option to reactivate the new messages message myself to remind me a second time). Also, please DO feel free to include me in your recall list. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  22:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Much thanks. I don't think that it will ever come to my recall, but I've trusted your opinion for some time. I like to surround myself with smart level-headed people who will help me when I mess up (like with this). Thanks & cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 22:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Request for information about removal of images
From E.N.Stanway (talk): It seems that you are responsible for the deletion of images from the Bruce E. Johansen article which I created, on two separate occcasions. The only documentation or notice that I received regarding these deletions is the six identical banners placed on my user talk page at User talk:E.N.Stanway. I am reproducing one of these banners here:

Thank you for uploading File:B.E.Johansen-2009book.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Randykitty (talk) 13:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC) Please note that there does not seem to be any explanation about any problem, simply that "there is a concern", yet the statement seems to imply, considering that the files were deleted, that you have determined that they do "not qualify". I insist that you give special attention to the following statement:

This is surely some sort of fraud or doubletalk, because I changed the image description files for the files in question, yet they were deleted even more quickly the second time, with what I consider to be a profound rudeness. I think that I am entitled to a better explanation than what I have been provided, as well as an explanation of what it is that would provide the appropriate documentation for what is surely a typical use of images. I suggest that any supposed objections to these images are merely a ruse as a means of harassing me, as part of an ongoing compaign of harassment. The vagueness of the tag alone impedes an understanding of the situation, and I consider that the general rules for tagging should apply, such as this one:

That would seem to be especially important in a situation such as this where I have been deluged by dozens of tags being placed by User:randykitty on all the articles that I have created during the past year, which he apparently sought out through my contributions page. He has made complaints with maintenance tags approximately 85 times in maybe 40 "edits", during which time he has contributed not even a sentence to the articles or the corresponding talk pages. No other editor has ever had any complaint about any aspect of my work which was determined to need a maintenance tag. This quotation describes the situation:

User:randykitty is now engaged in aggressive reverting of my edits without even a word on any article talk page. The quickness of his reverts creates the suspicion that my contributions page is on his watch list for the purpose of harassing me. Of the many tags he has put on these articles, none of his complaints has ever been found to be justified. We are now locked in an edit war over the notability of Bruce E. Johansen in which User:randykitty refuses to understand what he is told. I have followed this rule in removing these tags:

The situation has degenerated now to the point that User:randykitty has threatened to have me blocked from wikipedia, which would seem to be what is called "no-edit orders" at WikiBullying. I am reproducing here notices which were placed at User talk:E.N.Stanway: Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Donald A. Grinde, Jr., without resolving the problem that the template refers to, may be considered disruptive editing. Further edits of this type may result in your account being blocked from editing. Randykitty (talk) 11:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC) If you intend to enforce the above threat of "blocking", then I think that it would only be proper for you to explain, at Talk:Donald A. Grinde, Jr., what basis you think that there is for any of the maintenance tags that have been placed on that article. I have still not yet received any explanation of the attempt to have the article quickly removed. Fortunately, that effort was quickly thwarted by another editor, but if we are going to be discussing the issues regarding this article, then I would think that this effort to quickly delete the article would surely be an indication that this entire affair has not been motivated by any desire to improve the wikipedia. This is your last warning. The next time you remove the maintenance templates from Wikipedia articles without resolving the problem that the template refers to, as you did at The Great Sioux Nation (book), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Randykitty (talk) 13:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC) Please inform me of your intentions with regard to enforcing the above "last warning". I propose that you review all the maintenance tags in question to ascertain whether any of those tags is valid and what you would consider to be the appropriate measures to correct the situation. I would like to hear a thorough explanation of the nature of these problems, on the appropriate talk page for the article in question, in accordance with proper procedures concerning the placing of maintenance tags. The following banner is espically amusing in light of the fact that, six times, the statement was made "Thank you for uploading..." Please stop adding inappropriate images to Wikipedia. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. ''Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's "fair use" policy. images uploaded without conforming to this policy constitute copyright violations and simply re-uploading such images after they have been deleted constitutes disruptive editing that may get you blocked from editing. Please consider that WP must take copyright issues very seriously. If you have questions in this area, please go to Media copyright questions, there are several very helpful editors there that can help you or answer your questions. Thanks.'' Randykitty (talk) 14:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I would like to have a thorough explanation of nature of the problem in the both these instances of the deletion of images, and I would like for you to explain what steps you think would be proper to establish compliance with wikipedia policies in this situation where such usage is most surely typical, in order that this astounding waste of time may come to an end. I would like for this discussion to occur at Talk:Bruce E. Johansen so that other editors can take part and so that there will be a record of the disputes over the article, instead as User:randykitty has insisted, solely on my user talk page. I seems to me that this whole situation, and that editor's user name as well, is more than a little creepy. I would like for you to clarify the extent of your involvement in these matters, especially the deletion of images during this campaign of harassment, and whether you believe that I have been provided adequate explanation of the supposed problems with articles which I have created. I would like for you to declare whether you intend to enforce these threats of blocking, and on what grounds. More details may be found at User talk:randykitty, Talk:Bruce E. Johansen, User talk:E.N.Stanway, and Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I consider that I am entitled to revert edits that I deem to be improper and I intend to continue to do so. It is now my sad duty to inquire of you, in the words of Woody Guthrie, which side are you on? E.N.Stanway (talk) 09:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey E.N., First let me say that I have collapsed most of your text after I have read it because its a block of text. I do not need to see the quotes from various policies and exact copies of the notices that you have received.  Trust that I do understand what is going on.  Second, I have not, nor will I "pick sides" between editors in a dispute.  I have no comment on the dispute with maintenance tags as I have little experience in that area. I suggest that most of this dispute discussion should take place on appropriate talk pages.
 * As for the image situations, I can answer about that. I have deleted the three images not once, but twice. If you continue to upload the images, after they have been deleted, you can face reprimand including blocking. I hope that it does not come to that, and I'm glad you've come to my talk page to try to work this out.
 * So, basically here is what is going on. You have uploaded three covers of books by the subject.  You do not own the copyright to these covers, so therefore they are considered non-free by Wikipedia policy. As non-free content, they are subject to WP:NFCC where they must meet all of the criteria.  WP:NFCC is the specific concern in this situation.  The covers are not critically discussed in the article, nor should they be. The images inclusion is not mandatory for the reader to understand that they exist. There is no situation that I can see where non-free book covers would be necessary to understand that a particular author wrote them.  In this case the images are only used for identification of the books. Because of this, the files violate non-free policy and need to be deleted.  We do have an long-time consensus-based exception for media covers (see WP:NFCI). The covers still have to meet all criteria of WP:NFCC, and the only way to truly satisfy WP:NFCC#8 for any media cover is that it be used only on the article about that specific work for identification purposes. If any of the three covers that you uploaded were of notable books, that had their own individual notably sourced articles, the images could be used on those specific articles only and be within policy.
 * I hope this at least gives you some information on why the images were deleted. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to ask. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 11:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As a side note, recreating deleted content without having proper discussion is rarely successful. If you ever have an image deleted, the proper process is to reach out to the deleting administrator or go to an appropriate noticeboard. Also, all three images were tagged with di-disputed fair use rationale which gives explicit instructions on how you can contest the deletion. In the future, should you find yourself in a similar situation, you should follow those instructions before the deletion occurs.  TLSuda  (talk) 11:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for the information in the matter of the deletion of the images, and for your kindness. The explanation goes far toward helping me to understand the situation.  I especially appreciate your comment that "most of this dispute discussion should take place on appropriate talk pages".  That was my first point in all of this, and had that process been followed, the whole mess could have been mostly avoided.  The tagging of the images, coming as it did along with the overwhelming use of templates, tags, and forms, along with a lack of real information, was simply overwhelming.  I hope that it is understandable that I might become agitated and perhaps irritable.  Please note also that it was the threat of blocking which brought me here, again with little information and no discussion on the article talk pages.  It was this threat that I was referring to when I mentioned picking sides.  I certainly didn't intend to suggest that you join an edit war.  Thanks and best wishes,  E.N.Stanway (talk) 04:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks. If you're noticing that I'm cleaning up images, that means that you've been helping too! Thanks for helping me clean up a bit.  TLSuda  (talk) 04:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Prospecting pit of Arthur Megson in 1904.jpg missing evidence of permission.
Hi

The above mentioned jpg has been used by the Welkom Publicity Association since the 1950’s and has been in the public domain ever since. The photo was taken circa 1910.

Under the Copyright Law of South Africa, 1978 (as amended) which remains in force, photographs, the term is fifty years from first publication, or fifty years from creation if not published within fifty years.

I hope this suffices as sufficient evidence of permission.

This information was sent to 'permissions-en@wikimedia.org'on the 10/03/2014. Please reverse the action on this image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruce Paulmac (talk • contribs) 05:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In the deleted image, it says the date is 1968. Under the copyright law that you quote, with 1968 being the first publication date (that you listed, still no proof of this date or any for that matter), the image would enter the public domain in South Africa in 2018. It would therefore not be in the public domain in the United States.  If the image were first published in the 1950s like you claim above, it would be in the public domain in South Africa, but not in the United States until 95 years after creation or publication due to URAA laws.  See Commons:COM:Hirtle and Commons:COM:URAA.  If you can get more adequate information on when the photo was taken, who took it, when it was first published (or at least the first date that you can find in a WP:RS, we can work on getting the copyright sorted out. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 11:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Unoabjd.jpg
Hello, I was wondering about your closure at The nominater only said the image "seems" replaceable with no further explanation, while I explained based on guidelines and reliable sources how it's not, and yet you decided consensus was delete. Could you please explain your reasoning here? Thank you for your time. Siawase (talk) 09:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey Siawase. First, I didn't interpret consensus on this particular deletion discussion, I rather enforced policy. WP:NFCC and WP:NFCC to be exact. The photo and the doll have separate copyright licenses, and because there is no separate tag for the photo, it looks as if it is copyrighted the same as the doll. Therefore a freely released photo would be more acceptable. After looking some more, I see the Flickr source releases it under a CC-by-SA license. The second part of the issue (WP:NFCC#8) is the doll in the image is not the subject of critical commentary (contextual significance) and is only used as identification at the top of the article.  The article only mentions the type of doll twice, once in the image caption, and once where it says the artist created his own line including that type.  There is nothing critical about the style of the doll, or how it looks, why it looks that way, etc. In your discussion you quoted WP:NFCI which allows images like this, but only when there is critical commentary.  Simply mentioning that a company exists is not enough context to justify using a non-free image of their doll.  There would need to be actual content about the doll, and there would be a reason to have the image (more than just for identification). Removing the image does not make the article any less understandable to the reader as it stands currently.  If you can resolve the contextual significance issue, I'll be happy to undelete the image and help tag it better. If I can help out, please let me know. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 11:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking into it. Actually, the brand and its aesthetics and influences are mentioned in the History section as well, only it's spelled "U-noa" (with a hyphen) there so you might have missed it. Is that sufficient? Siawase (talk) 11:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It is mentioned in passing in the history section. There is still no contextual significance.  You cannot just mention a company to make an image of a doll by that company meet WP:NFCC requirements.  If you can find sourced content about the doll that could be included in the article to make it necessary for the reader to see the image to understand the article, that would satisfy our policies.  TLSuda  (talk) 12:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Doesn't WP:NFCI #7 mean that establishing it as an example of this particular aesthetic style of doll (ie modern Asian BJD, regarding which there is critical commentary) is enough? If not can you point me to some further guidelines or examples of how extensive the critical commentary needs to be so I can improve the article? Thank you. Siawase (talk) 13:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, but there still must be contextual significance (WP:NFCC) also known as critical commentary (WP:NFCI) about the image, or what is in the image. Let me try a different angle: Right now there is not any contextual significance to having the image in the article, sorry. Fortunately this can be remedied as I have said a few times above. Basically you need more information in the article (sourced information of course). An example would be adding content (that is sourced) about how and why the doll is an example of the style, this would include information about what the style is, and why the doll is styled as such. This would also include sourced information about what the features are that distinguish the style from other similar styles. You must do more than just mention it in passing, it might take a bit of research to find this information, but if you do, it would support the inclusion of the image and would also improve the article. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 13:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I'm a bit stumped as to what exactly is required beyond what is already there. To me the material in the History and Modern Asian BJDs sections already does what you're describing, ie it outlines what distinguishes Modern Asian BJDs. Based on the material that is already there, if I uploaded an image of a Super Dollfie doll instead, would that satisify WP:NFCC#8? Siawase (talk) 13:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

David Vetter photo
Hi there. I see you re-deleted a photo I uploaded. I had sent in an OTRS email last time, but it didn't do the trick, so resubmitted a different email to OTRS from the photographer that more clearly outlined the public domain release. As this second OTRS email is coming in, can you please wait until the email is read by OTRS before simply re-deleting the photo? The reposting was based on a different OTRS release, and they can take up to a week to read incoming email. Jeremy112233 (talk) 15:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Jeremy, in addition to being an admin here, I'm also an OTRS volunteer. Before I deleted the image, I check to see if there was anything (even something that had not been responded to, but I could not find anything. In situations like this, its safer from a copyright standpoint for us to delete the image and then when OTRS permission comes in to undelete it immediately (something that I am very happy to do). Is there any information that you could give me to possibly help me find the email that was sent to OTRS? Maybe a subject or authors name, or something that I could search? Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Certainly, I've just re-sent it with a clearer subject header: "John R Montgomery photograph". The last one was less clear. Jeremy112233 (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And done! Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 19:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you:) Jeremy112233 (talk) 19:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Brymptonboat.gif
Hi, TLSuda. Giano noticed that File:Brymptonboat.gif, which he uploaded in 2005, has been deleted, and has asked me to restore it. He has used it on a couple of architectural pages. It's a photo from his family album from around 1900, i.e. over 100 years old. I guess he doesn't personally own the copyright — maybe he tagged it wrong? — but surely nobody else does either? In other words, I think it's a free image. Do you mind if I undelete it? (For Wikipedia only. Giano doesn't even want it on Commons.) Bishonen &#124; talk 12:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC).
 * P.S. OK, I've just realized there's a deletion discussion, linked from Giano's page. Really, it's ridiculous not to take his word for it that the photographer, a member of his family, died in 1918. You will understand Giano doesn't want to out himself by giving the photographer's name. It's upsetting to see a great contributor upset over this. Bishonen &#124; talk 12:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC).
 * To answer your first question, someone always owns the copyright, until it becomes public domain. Giano very well might be the owner, if he is a descendent of the photographer and the holder of the sole printed photo. I can understand not wanting to "out" oneself (although I have personally) and while I would like to apply WP:AGF, copyright is a sticky situation. As it stands right now, there is no way for the Giano to show that the image is in fact in the public domain without showing who the photographer is. Since the file has never been published until its use here, without evidence of when the photo was taken and by who, we cannot assume that the image has entered the public domain. There was also a deletion discussion on Commons. The same copyright rules apply here as apply there, so just keeping a copy here does not change anything.
 * On a side note, the image is in poor quality. If Giano has the physical photo like he claims he does, a new scan (as a PNG or JPG) would be much better. You are more than welcome to overturn my deletion, and I won't stand in your way, but I can guarantee that there will be editors who feel that there is not enough information to confirm copyright status.
 * Another route I am willing to take is if Giano can email me a scanned copy of the image (a newer scan to show he still has the physical photo) and specific information on the date of death of the photographer, I would be willing to put that into an OTRS ticket and that should satisfy editors on En.Wp. I'm very willing to work with this situation, but I cannot simply just turn a blind eye because "we should take his word for it," especially when other editors are questioning that word. Let me know how you want to proceed. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 12:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It was deleted on Commons after a discussion in which no one participated; that's hardly a consensus (and no, they don't follow the same copyright rules - they require the image be free in country of origin, and we don't). The discussion here had more people saying it was free or likely free than not. It would fall under PD-US-unpublished, as a family photograph never before published by a creator who died before 1944. We don't typically require editors who claim PD-self to out themselves, unless there is evidence of someone else holding copyright; why should this case be any different? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe, Nikki, but I think TLSuda is being extremely reasonable and helpful. (I thought he would be, after seeing the previous section.) Thank you very much, TL. I can see drama down the line if I were to undelete it (even though I hope nobody would wheel war to re-delete it, or they'd be in trouble). Your second alternative sounds better, if you want to take the trouble with the OTRS thing (I'm not very familiar with how it works). Not least because we'd end up with a better image. I'm sure Giano has superior means of producing a good scan now, compared to in 2005. Uh, would that mean you would do the actual uploading? That would certainly be an advantage, since you'd know the correct tag and info to put on it. I find that stuff a bit of a jungle, myself. OK, I'll go (try to) sell the idea to Giano. P.S., is there any tag that can be put on that'll actually stop it being copied to Commons, as Commons is nothing but trouble in Giano's experience and mine? won't do it, I know. It just requests that a local copy be kept. Bishonen &#124; talk 17:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC).
 * Nikki, I don't see the deletion discussion at Commons being a consensus, rather enforcing policy (something mop-wielders are allowed to do). And you are correct that Commons is more strict about country or origin, but they have the same requirements for the US side of copyrights. And I'm willing to WP:AGF that the file has never been published, but we don't know when the creator died. That's sorta the point of this discussion on my talkpage.
 * Bish, I can upload, or Giano can upload, and let me know when he does. I really am more than happy to help out with this situation. I just need some information from him that he can email to me. As for tags to stop moving to Commons, there are none that are 100% stop. Keep local usually prevents transfer, but if it were transferred, no admin should delete a local file that has that tag on it without good reason. (It could still have issues on Commons, but as long as everything is good locally, it shouldn't be deleted. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 17:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, TLSuda. Please undelete this file. Commons deleted it appropriately as under the precautionary principle there it must be clearly established who took this photo and when it was first published. Here on Wikipedia we can, and should, give some credence to a very well established editor who says his great-granddad took it. It is obviously a very old photo. Jonathunder (talk) 18:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Jonathunder, please read the above discussion. We should and do try to abide by the same precautionary principles. I'm working with Bishonen, another admin above, to work out a solution to this situation. Please be patient while we find the best solution to not only get the image in good shape now, but for the future and so this issue does not come up again. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 18:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You call me a liar. You can get lost and take the image with you and that goes for the 100s of other images I have uploaded from the same historic sources and archives. I'm privileged, I can look at them anytime, now Wikipedia readers can't. You must be very proud of yourself. Giano    (talk) 18:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Giano, I am trying to work with you and others here. I have never called you a liar, nor have I ever inferred that you were. Read the above discussion, I blatantly said that you could be the copyright holder since you would be a descendant. I can empathize that you don't want to out yourself. I also have said that I would be willing to work with you to not only get the image back up but to also prevent this from coming up again. Simple undeletion would not fix the situation that you been subjected to. I'm working toward the bigger picture of getting this issue resolved once and for all for you. I would think that as an established editor that you would at least have the respect to try to work with me and to not accuse others of things they simply have not done. I want this situation resolved for you, forever, but if you are not willing to work in a respectful way, then I cannot help.  I hope you can come around, but if you are too turned off, I understand. Cheers, and good luck,  TLSuda  (talk) 18:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I have read the discussions, here and on Commons and as an admin, I can see the image you deleted. It should be allowed as Nikkimaria notes. This really shouldn't be a major issue. Jonathunder (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You, Nikki and every other admin forever have the same deal that I gave Bish at the beginning of this discussion. If you are so passionate, please go ahead and undelete the image. Undeletion is not going to keep other editors from trying to delete it again, since there truly is not enough evidence to back up what we believe to be true. I'm trying to work toward a solution to put an end to this all forever. Its your decision either way. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 19:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi TLSuda, I hesitate to comment because I don't want to look like I'm piling on. But are you sure that taking someone's word for this isn't OK?  I recall a similar case where a long-standing editor couldn't even prove that a living, un-related artist who had created some artwork a few years ago and uploaded it to a webpage had subsequently placed it in the public domain, and after some angry words all around, it was decided that his word was good enough. I believed him, but if anything there is less reason to doubt Giano's word here, now.  Can't this just be tagged as PD-US-unpublished, as meeting criterion #1, based on Giano's word that the person died in 1918, and it hasn't been published elsewhere? I note your offer that any admin could undelete if they felt "passionate", but I want to understand why this isn't good enough, as I've seen someone's word accepted for things like this before. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * First, in my RfA, I stated that any admin could overturn any action of mine. On my talk page, it looks like there is lots of finger pointing with very few editors/admins wanting to work to find the best solution for now and forever. Second, my simple answer is usually an editor's word is good enough, unless there is a suspicious situation. In this case though, another editor has brought up the question of the copyright status, including the author, date of death, etc. When there is a question about the image's status is when we would want to look into what information we have and what information is available.  In this particular situation we have an editor in good standing's word, but that editor has more information (although they do not want to release it for obvious security reasons) that we don't have access to. This is not an issue of whether or not we trust Giano, its an issue of there is more information to be had, but we don't know what it is. We can simply reply on his word today, but in a year or two, this issue could very likely be brought up again. This would also create a situation where any editor could "give us their word" even in cases unlike Giano, where they may be dishonest. There is also the situation where the file gets used on other websites and often this gets muddled as to which site it was on first. Over time this could cause editors to potentially make the mistake of accusing these images as copyvios of another site. This is why I've offered to help Giano get this sorted out forever. Unfortunately, he does not seem to want to work with me on this issue.  On a personal note, since Giano is the sole holder of this image made by one of his ancestors, a new higher quality scan would show for sure that he has the original copy. (The deleted one is not that great, and Giano has uploaded many more other photos of better quality.) I hope that clarifies my position. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Brympton stables 1928.PNG Here! have a field day and delete this too, this one was taken by another member of my family (Yes, I do know who; I am the heir of most of my relations) amd the resolution is even worse. I'm very sorry, my family chose not to be professional photographers or own the American cameras and be up to your exacting standards. Giano    (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

We admins are still allowed to use our good judgment for the good of the encyclopedia. Otherwise there would be no benefit to having human beings do the job; we could all be replaced by bots. I have restored the image, boldly and out of process. Anyone is free to nominate it for deletion, but before another admin does so, I would expect him or her to use a little bit of common sense. Jonathunder (talk) 21:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This is true. I used good judgement when I made my decision, and you in yours. Opinions differ and that is what makes humans different and unique. Time will see how well this ends up. I'm only sorry no one was willing to work together to a better end, instead only opting to take sides. Cheers everyone,  TLSuda  (talk) 21:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)