User talk:Ww2censor/Archive15

Talk page • Archive 1 • Archive 2 • Archive 3 • Archive 4 • Archive 5 • Archive 6 • Archive 7 • Archive 8 • Archive 9 • Archive 10 • Archive 11 • Archive 12 • Archive 13 • Archive 14 • Archive 15

thanks
me fixGzuckier (talk) 00:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I uploaded my image as public domain, Why did you delete it???
Every time I try to edit a page, I get my hand slapped by somebody whose fiefdom I transgressed. This is the first time I tried to upload any images. I uploaded them EXACTLY as described on the upload page. I put them in the PUBLIC DOMAIN. You came along and tagged them as not having the right copyright. Why did you do that? (BTW, NOWHERE on the upload page does it say anything about the PD-self template!) I am now thoroughly frustrated with this. I have a life. I have just about decided that this is not worth the time of trying to learn anymore, which is a shame because I think I have a lot of cool stuff to contribute. I wonder how many other people out there have valuable content to contribute who are frustrated out of it early on like me.

--KTrimble (talk) 03:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * First, I did not delete your page. Did you actually read this page as obviously noted both at the top of this page AND at the top of the page you edited? It explains most everything you really need to know about image copyright issue. The notice you received clearly states that you did not add a copyright tag to the images but you did not do that. Claiming PD without adding a tag is effectively not proven. Ask the deleting editor, MBisanz who is an administrator, to help you and tell him everything, exactly as I mention on my FAQs page. BTW the images looked great but we take image copyright very seriously around here. ww2censor (talk) 04:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

When I uploaded the images, I selected 'Public Domain' from the dropdown list, and as I recall, I even put text in the Description part of the text box saying that it was in the public domain. I just uploaded another image a few minutes ago and made the same selection, and it says Public Domain in a great big box with a C with a grey slash through it, just like the other images did. --KTrimble (talk) 04:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Nintendo DSi2.png
Hi, I have deleted a few of your taggings today, but File:Nintendo DSi2.png still has a page pointing at it. Let me know when you have updated the link to the differently named image on commons, and then it can get the chop! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

File:DavePatterson.jpg photo
All the things I posted are true. I just can't figure out the proper procedure for allowing them to stay permanently. Help would be much appreciated, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redsoxrgr844 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you actually read this page which is clearly noted at the top of this page and also at the top of the page you edited? Obviously not. Let me be specific. As explained in the tag on your talk page you failed to provide a source that we can check the copyright status of the image. After the tag and notification you uploaded the identical copy with a link to a facebook page in the summary. Now here is the problem. There is no evidence this image is freely licenced, so it is copyright to someone and unless that person, who is likely unknown to you, to release it to us under a free licence, we cannot use it. Besides which, this person is alive so a free image is possible. Sorry, but your chances of keeping it are about zero. ww2censor (talk) 22:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion posted
I've posted a discussion about revising the guidelines for using commemorative stamps here.] I used to be a collector (still have my U.N. collection) and feel that the restrictions are excessive. I actually think that Wikipedia readers are missing a lot by not being able to see commemorative stamps relating to many articles. In fact, just my uploading a number of stamps is again making me miss the hobby. Anyway, I hope you'll give the topic some thought. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Darwin stamp images
Answer: zero. DS (talk) 15:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

not in fact orphaned, the image renaming process is screwing things up
File:20th Arab Scout Jamboree 1992.jpg is not in fact orphaned, the new image renaming process is screwing things up. I've fixed the links. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 12:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * How was File:20th Arab Scout Jamboree 1992.jpg determined to be orphaned? It was renamed from File:ArabJam.jpg on 23 September. Under the previous name, it was used in articles thet redirected to the current name. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 13:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I will presume this was a manual issue and there is no automated process affected by redirected images. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 11:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You are correct that this image is not in fact orphaned. When I reviewed it there were no links to pages showing. Go figure. However, under the WP:NFCC this fails fair-use and I intend to nominate it for deletion. The claims made in the caption used in both articles could easily be made in prose without the use of a non-free image. It is there to make a point that is unproven and unverified and seems more like WP:SYNTHESIS or WP:OR to me. I have looked around several sources and cannot find anything to support the claim. Besides which sometimes postal authorities make mistakes, issuing stamps with errors and this may well be one. We just don't know unless we source it. The existence of the stamps in Scouting in Somalia is already well made in prose so the stamp is unnecessary to claim it exists. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 16:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The links now show because the articles had the image name updated from File:ArabJam.jpg to File:20th Arab Scout Jamboree 1992.jpg anfter you tagged the image; before it only showed the redirect link back to File:ArabJam.jpg. This is the only issue I am concerned with. Otherwise I agree— stamps are not sources. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 16:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Photos for Coeur d'Alene salamander are up for deletion despite relayed permission email to indicated address
The images File:Pidahoensishabitatid.jpg, File:Pidahoensisadjuv.jpg, File:Pidahoensis052.jpg. and File:Pidahoensis05us.jpg are from californiaherps.com, the author of which is Gary Nafis. I emailed him personally and requested permission to use these images for a wikipedia article / class assignment. When he granted his permission, I forwarded the e-mail to permissions-en@wikimedia.org on the 7th. Why are these photos tagged for deletion, and what can I do to correct the issue? A. IVY HUPPRICH 03:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivy,hupprich (talk • contribs)


 * Do you guys ever read the instruction at the top of talk pages? Did you read this page and why did you not sign your post as requested? A wikipedia only permission is not acceptable to us. We require freely licenced images. The OTRS department are usually rather busy so it can take a few days, even a week for them to process the email. The other problem is that the images display copyright watermarks and that usually indicates the images have been copied from elsewhere and are copyright. Authors who release their images may send unwatermarked images instead. On the basis of what you said I will tag the images as awaiting an OTRS ticket but if the licence given is restrictive, they may still be deleted. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 03:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

File:StarAirServiceIreneIrvine.jpg
I have unspeedied File:StarAirServiceIreneIrvine.jpg because I have provided a fair use rationale. If it is insufficient, please let me know. If I did something wrong, also please let me know...fair-use rationales are *not* my area of expertise=P. Thank you. Smallman12q (talk) 21:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Having provided a fair-use rationale is actually an additional problem because a non-free image not used in article mainspace is not permitted, and the source clearly has a restrictive licence. That is now two strikes against the image. Further investigations would need to take place to see if the claim to copyright is actually copyfraud, but more information would be needed about the photographer, date of image and publication, if any. However, on the image talk page Old33 claims to have permission and that the authorization is on the source page. I don't see that permission but he could get an OTRS ticket by having them send their permission to us. Let me know. but right now the speedy is now more valid than previously.ww2censor (talk) 22:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * While it is currently being used in a sandbox, it will be copied over to the actual article shortly. As the validity of his permission is being challenged by you, he will probably have to get an OTRS ticket=(. The information regarding date of image, publication, and photograph can be found at the url in the image description. I will ask that Old33 make an email request for permissions, but will this be necessary if the image is to remain non-free? Smallman12q (talk) 22:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I hear what you say but editors should not use non-free images in their userspace and upload the images that are to be claimed as fair-use when the article goes live otherwise they run the risk of having the image nominated for deletion as here. Actually the date needed is not clear from the source page. There are ranges of dates, no photographer details and certainly no date of photo leaving us asking questions such as, for a start, when did she stop working for Star? Just have him do the OTRS thing and all should be good once that is applied. If that will happen add the OTRS pending template to the image. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 23:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I do agree that editors shouldn't use non-free images in their userspace, but the editor is fairly new...I will move the image to the actual article and let them know. Unfortunately, due to the age of the photograph, its date may not be known...the details listed are probably the only ones known. I will ask that he try and add more details...I will also put an OTRS pending template once he emails the request. Your polite response is much appreciated.=D.Smallman12q (talk) 11:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have sent an email to Univ of Alaska Fairbanks with copy to permissions-en@wikimedia.org asking them to provide email confirmation that I indeed have rec'd their written permission to use this pic in this article. All of the info on the pic that is known is provided on the url of the image. Irene Irvine was apparently a student pilot (customer) of Star Air Service which provided flight instruction (as noted on the title painted on the airplane), not an employee of the company. I put the image in my Sandbox to let it "settle" for a few days before planning to move it to the live article, so that any challenges, confusion, etc. would not degrade the quality of the live article. I thought this was the purpose of the Sandbox! Anyway, I appreciate your suggestions for solutions in addition to your noting problems. Old33 (talk) 17:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Essay (philately)
Hello! The article you linked to, Essay (philately), has a mis-statement: "They [essays] are not sold publicly, but handled by insiders or held in postal museums or collections." Actually, proofs and essays are bought and sold among collecters and dealers, as well, and are found in our albums.Fconaway (talk) 05:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * While I linked to the proper article, I actually did not read it. That statement was introduced by Alex S back in 2006. Floyd, do you have the information and references to fix and maybe expand the article? Cheers ww2censor (talk) 15:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That will require a trip to the library, as I do not have **any** general reference work on philately. I'll see what I can find.Fconaway (talk) 00:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If I can find anything around here I will add it too. You may have seen that I already added some external links which might be useful. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 00:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
warrior 4321  19:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Your image tagging in Johan Laidoner & Snooker Visions Software Factory
Hello, I noticed that when you tagged File:Johan Laidoner stamp.jpg for deletion in the article Johan Laidoner, your edit hid the pre-existing image caption by adding an extra | mark. Please make sure that every time you tag an image within an article, no preexisting content is overwritten, as this must remain in place while the image's deletion is pending and/or under discussion. Cheers, Postdlf (talk) 17:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I discovered the same issue with Leadbeater's Possum, Julius Kuperjanov, and Marc Chagall, just from a review of your most recent edits. Postdlf (talk) 17:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed that when you tagged File:Snooker break.gif for deletion in the article Snooker Visions Software Factory, your edit hid the pre-existing image caption by adding an extra | mark. Please make sure that every time you tag an image within an article, no preexisting content is overwritten, as this must remain in place while the image's deletion is pending and/or under discussion. Postdlf (talk) 23:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The insertion of an extra | mark seems to be a problem created by Twinkle which performed this edit and most of the others as I seldom manually tag images as it takes so much more time to manually do the 3 suggested edits for a deletion nomination, so we may need to have someone look at that specific problem. I have no clue how to fix that and assumed that those who write the Twinkle code know what they are doing. I don't know who to bring that up to. ww2censor (talk) 02:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know either; I've never used Twinkle. One of two solutions in the meantime: either manually go back to each article you tag with Twinkle to correct the error, or don't use Twinkle to tag images until the bug has been fixed.  Cheers, Postdlf (talk) 02:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You might not be aware of this edit which states that Twinkle no longer tags the images as a bot does it daily, so the problem has apparently gone away. ww2censor (talk) 14:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out, and thanks again for your conscientious response to this issue. Cheers, Postdlf (talk) 14:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

File:NogginStamp.jpg
Dear Ww2censor,

A while ago we had a little exchange about the Noggin stamp. As we left it I think you were going to "nominate it for deletion at WP:IfD where it can be discussed in a wider forum by a group of image experienced editors". I am only writing to you now just to see if you still think it needs to be deleted and that you have been too busy, or is it OK now with the modifications to justifcation etc and I can rest easy. I am still not clear, having read the guidlines, why it might have been problematic. I still feel "new" to many of these technical issues on images, copyrights, fairuses etc and am not clear to what extent there is scope for a range of interpretations as to what is appropriate within our guidelines. Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 16:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC))


 * Thanks for the nudge. I have been busy with other images recently but still think this fails both WP:NFCC and WP:NFCC, so I will nominate it as soon as I get the time. Sorry mate. ww2censor (talk) 14:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

CSD
Hi Ww2censor. Thank you for your work on patrolling pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I just wanted to inform you that I declined to delete File:Footballme.jpg, a page that you tagged for speedy deletion under criterion F9 because of the following concern: Uploader hasn't licensed the image yet. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion and especially what is considered Non-criteria. In future you should rather tag such pages for proposed deletion or start an appropriate deletion discussion. Regards feydey (talk) 20:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

feydey (talk) 20:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Tagged for being unsourced and unlicensed
Please delete File:Pepes kenyan bc.jpg as speedily as possible. The source is on the image itself, actually. But I have no time to devote to this. I should never have wanted to put it on my page in the first place, and everything sort of went automatic after that, without me thinking of the consequences. The way I got it into my possession is in the name iself: pepe means grandfather in Belgian Dutch. No worries, just delete. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Pieniezny (talk • contribs) 03:31, 16 October 2009


 * I will tag if for deletion. ww2censor (talk) 14:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

RNLB Mary Stanford
As you know all about stamps and images: is there any way I can add this postage stamp to this article RNLB Mary Stanford ? ClemMcGann (talk) 02:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Clem. Sorry to not be the bearer of better news. The 1974 stamp is still under copyright until 2024, so the only possible way to include it would be under a fair-use rationale justification, however, it would have to pass all 10 non-free criteria. Because there is already an image of the painting in the article the stamp image, showing the same image would fail WP:NFCC as (already) replaceable and under WP:NFCC its contextual significance is already well explained by the current prose, and there is no detriment to the reader by the omission of the stamp image. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 03:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * just a hope :( - ta anyway ClemMcGann (talk) 03:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

CSD
Hi Ww2censor. Thank you for your work on patrolling pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I just wanted to inform you that I declined to delete File:TheophilusNorth b.jpg, a page that you tagged for speedy deletion under criterion F3 because of the following concern: F3 doesn't apply if there is no license. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion and especially what is considered Non-criteria. In future you should rather tag such pages for proposed deletion or start an appropriate deletion discussion. Regards feydey (talk) 10:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

feydey (talk) 10:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The Peak Lookout
I'm one of the contributors of the wiki article called The Peak Lookout. This is in reference to the advertisement tag u placed on the page. We have made appropriate changes so as to make the article more unbiased and neutral. We're working on this page as members of the wikiproject and are not intending to advertise the lookout in any way. You may go through the page, and if you find any possible changes to be made, I'm open to your suggestions. Thanks! 2009549700jain09 (talk) 14:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyright of File:Microarray exp horizontal.svg
Hi Ww2censor, thanks for your message about this image's copyright. Actually, I am *not* the author/original uploader of this image. I was merely helping User:Squidonius fix a bug with SVG rendering, and uploaded a tweaked version on his behalf. So you may wish to contact him with any copyright/licensing concerns. Thanks! Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 14:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

New articles
Hi. I've stubbed Postage stamps and postal history of Bosnia & Herzegovina,Postage stamps and postal history of Bahrain, Postage stamps and postal history of Bhutan, Postage stamps and postal history of Cambodia, Postage stamps and postal history of Albania, Postage stamps and postal history of Belarus, Postage stamps and postal history of Belgium, Postage stamps and postal history of Andorra today. Could you expand a few of them in your own time? Gradually we'll get most of them up and running on here... I'll start with A-D... Himalayan  21:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Sandycove Martello Tower v. Sandymount Martello Tower
It's an easy mistake to make. see easy, and mistake for more info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.1.57.1 (talk) 18:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

AN/I
Hey. You're mentioned in an ANI thread here. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Aerial photography - recent external link deletion (air2you & dragnfly)
Hi

After reading the suggested pages about posting commercial sites I can see why my recent additions were deleted.

I suppose what threw me off was a commercial site that is still included as an external link in the article (Arena Aviation - UK Newscopter & Aerial Filming Specialist).

Out of curiosity.. If I come across articles with commercial external links, should I remove them or should I report it somewhere??

Thanks Rob —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobC450 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * As an inexperienced editor, I suggest that you may want to let others decide but you can be WP:BOLD. Websites obviously self promoting should be removed though some can be regarded as acceptable. Indeed the Arena Aviation link looks like spam to me too. Please review WP:SPAM and WP:COI carefully to familiarise yourself with the spam and conflict of interest guidelines which often crop up with external spam links. Ask me any questions if you need. Good luck and enjoy; I have dropped a new welcome notice with several links on your talk page. ww2censor (talk) 05:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Angel de la Torre.jpg
Per your instruction I have emailed the excerpt from the permission I received to use this image. The following is that emails content: Per your request, please find the following:

My name is Manuel de la Torre. "The referenced photos are photos of my father, Angel de la Torre. These photos are my personal property. I have provided them to Ed LeBeau of Heartland Golf Schools for him to include them in the Wikipedia entry for my father. I understand that in there inclusion in this article that I also release their free use to others.

Thank you Manuel de la Torre 7203 N. Crossway Rd. Milwaukee, WI53217''

Could you please respond via email to: email removed for privacy

Ed LeBeau golfcoachGolfcoach (talk) 16:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)golfcoach


 * Responded on your talk page. ww2censor (talk) 17:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

love
 !@Tarix of Tajun@! (talk) has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Someone tagged my stamp image - Can you give me some advice?
Hello,

Someone at Wikipedia flagged an image of a Vietnam National Liberation Front stamp that I posted. I have provided in response a link to my Flickr page where the scan originated. The scan of the stamp on Flickr is covered under a Creative Commons 2.0 standard license Flickr Link My stamp is at [[Media:Van_troi_execution_NLF_Stamp_10.15.1965.jpg]]  Any advice you can give would be greatly appreciated, especially considering your background. I would like to contribute to the philatelic presence in the Wiki world, but I need help with the copyright issue.

Thanks, Joseph [User:Pdxjmorris] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.46.62 (talk) 00:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC) I didn't understand the signature thing, here is my signature and timestamp: --24.20.46.62 (talk) 00:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * While you uploaded a scan of a stamp on the commons you did not register your name here on the English Wiki, so your signature will not show you as "User:Pdxjmorris" which you used on the commons. If you go to unified login help you can find out how to login to all wikis using the same name. You cannot release an image of a stamp, which you happen to have possession of and make a digital image of, which is owned by the government whose postal administration issued them. That is why the image was tagged as not having any permission; your claim to copyright is unfortunately false though you may not know it. Unless you can show that Vietnam law allows their stamps to be released to the public domain, it will be deleted by a commons admin. Your other upload AUS-Span-Civ-War-1937.jpg seems to be a problem too because Spanish law copyrights "intellectual property" until 70 years after the author's death per commons:Commons:Licensing, which is unlikely two years after it was designed. Again you do not hold the copyright of the image. Sorry. ww2censor (talk) 02:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for this information - how can I classify the images in regards to copyright - I want no hold on them, I carried over the Flickr copyright. Can I set them to fair use or something of that nature so that they might remain available?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdxjmorris (talk • contribs) 12:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You can't give a copyright to an image which is copyright by someone else. It does not happen and I have explained everything necessary above. Did you read this page yet which also gives some information? The burden of proof is on the uploader to prove the copyright they claim applies to an image and you cannot do that for these images. Again sorry to tell you this. I see you still can't get the signature thing right; just add four tildes ~ after you post. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 17:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I give up. I don't see how anyone posts anything on Wikipedia or Wikicommons.  I will list both of the images I have up for deletion and will never try to post again.  Your loss, but I seem to be unable to communicate with you and the person who first flagged my image will not communicate with me at all.  I simply give up. Pdxjmorris (talk) 18:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * While I have sympathy for your frustration please don't give up; try to understand instead. So let me explain again; we take copyright very seriously and you cannot upload copyright images to the commons, and here some copyright images may only be uploaded if they pass all 10 non-free content criteria under our policy. The images you uploaded are copyright. They are copyright violations, so we cannot keep them, but there is no loss to us at all; the loss is yours if you don't understand what I have plainly told you now three times. Freely licenced images are very welcome. Remember that we are all volunteers here, so all editors are not online all the time which may be why the tagging editor has not replied to you. You need to assume good faith, please be patient and WP:COOL but I need to tell you that you must be civil otherwise you may get blocked. If you don't want to learn how to contribute constructively by way of some upload mistakes I can't help you any more. ww2censor (talk) 19:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Roulette.jpg
File:Roulette.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Archer Roulette.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 11:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Lightships
I'll create a table User:ClemMcGann/cil ClemMcGann (talk) 13:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Chinese Embassy and FDSP.jpg
re: NATO bombing of the People's Republic of China embassy in Belgrade

I accept your tagging of the file was in accordance with wikipedia guidelines. The 'blatant copyright infringement' part is simply not accurate, however.

I carefully went over Google's fair use criteria prior to posting. The image was employed in accordance with their explicitly stated terms regarding educational, press and non-profit use. I linked to these terms on the page and no copyright violation occurred.

Now, as I discovered later, it certainly did not conform to wikipedia guidelines for non-free content. This policy has no legal meaning or implications, however, and I'm a little upset to have 'blatant copyright infringement' notice on my talk page now. Dduff442 (talk) 08:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think as you now seem to understand the situation with this image, but it does not matter what Google's fair-use criteria is, you must comply with all 10 of our fair-use criteria but without a fair use rational the use of such an image is a copyright violation. If you had added a fair-use rationale it may have been disputed but you could deal with that at that time and as I don't remember exactly what the image was, I cannot tell you right now. Whether you think this policy has no legal meaning or implications is irrelevant because we hold Wikipedia to a higher standard that other may legally require; that is policy that has been developed and if you don't like it, then you might try to change the policy by starting a discusssion on the non-free content talk page. If you like please point me to the original image and I will be happy to advise you but, as I see you agree with the deletion, there is little need. There is no stigma to having an image problem notice on your talk page, but if it upsets you so much, you are entitled to remove or archive any or all of your talk page posts, especially as the issue has been dealt with. You may like to read this informative page I wrote concerning image copyright issues. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 15:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Forgive my pedantic nature, but... I did include a fair use rationale but not in accordance with Wiki guidelines; I just uploaded it as 'free' (completely incorrectly -- my bad), but there was a statement about Google Maps policies. This shifted any liability from Wikipedia on to me. Also, the use of the image was in accordance with the specific terms of Google Maps. A breach of Wiki guidelines occurred but there was no copyright infringement.


 * I'm going to initiate a fair use review in an effort to get a low-res version passed for upload as a non-replaceable fair use image of a building. Dduff442 (talk) 14:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Photo - Anna Chakvetadze
I don't understand, why you don't like good photos and you menace to delete them. Yes I am photographer. I make a lot of photos. I thought, that I could support wikipedia with photos, because I really can't use all my photos for commercial things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pascalre (talk • contribs) 17:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not delete any images because I am not an administrator but, is this the image? We appreciate you uploading image here but there are some problems with some of your images. Your images were nominated for deletion for various reasons, by me and others, as stated in the notices left on your talk page. Some had no copyright tags (you may have forgotten) such as this one File:Timea Bacsinzsky in St.Malo 2009.jpg, some were duplicates of other files that are now on the commons as you will see from this commons search. If you are more careful when uploading images, making sure you complete all the requirements and, as mentioned by J Milburn if your profile Pascalre21 on Webshots was updated, editors looking to confirm the copyrights claimed will see that you are the same person as Pascalre here. Or when you upload images, under the author information you can say that you are Pascalre21 on webshots. If you are uploading freely licenced images you will be better off uploading them directly to the commons because then every wiki can use the images but you will still need to be diligent when uploading and there will be no problems in future wherever you decide to upload. Did you read this page as it helps clarify copyright and other image issues? Hope that helps. ww2censor (talk) 17:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * My name is Ralf Reinecke - photos by be for example www.annachakvetadze.com and other sources under my name Ralf Reinecke and I let people see my photos at webshots - under the name pascalre21 and by wikipedia pascalre, I have used these names, becaused I was asked for a nickname —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pascalre (talk • contribs) 18:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok that clarifies your identity, but because we take copyright matters very seriously, some editors will check images to confirm the licences claimed. We see too many copyright violations where people upload images stolen from websites. If an image of your from webshots gets uploaded here under a different name than the one there, there is suspicion there may be no permission to use it, so please try to make sure you identify yourself better and then no one will challenge your uploads. Why don't you write in the Author of any image you upload: "I Ralf Reinecke, Pascalre, known as Pascalre21 on webshots, created this work entirely by myself". So, are all you images on the commons? If there are any images that were deleted that are needed, not duplicates, you can ask the deleting admin to restore them and explains your identity to them. Hope that helps. ww2censor (talk) 18:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Visaliaguy
I've zapped the obvious (c) violations & tagged the rest of the non-obvious ones. I think there was just one or two that passed muster. Thanks for going through the commons ones as well! Skier Dude ( talk ) 05:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Okinawa soba - THE OLD JAPANESE TATTOO - Art and Artifice in the Camera.jpg
did you really check the source beore deleting the image? I've personally asked the photographer for posting it on wikipedia + he already licensed it with a creative commons licence!! photo page: http://www.flickr.com/photos/24443965@N08/2888531586/and the cc attribution: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en_GB - IIIIIIIII (talk) 22:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Please don't make inaccurate accusations. Indeed I did check the source very carefully but I did not delete the image in question, all I did was nominated it for deletion because the creative commons licence is not one which is acceptable to wikipedia; it is a "non-commercial" creative commons licence and we don't accept any image that are limited to non commercial use. We only accept freely licenced images and this one was not freely licenced.  Look at the several acceptable CC licenses and you will see that the licence for this image has one that is is not one of those. We have had success in asking flickr users to change their licences to ones we accept and they have cooperated. Maybe this flickr user will do likewise but right now that image is unacceptable to wikipedia. If you get a better licence, there is no need to reupload it, just ask the deleting administrator explaining the situation and they may undelete it. Sorry. ww2censor (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

RE: Michael J. Burg photo duplicate
File:Michael_j_burg.jpg AND  File:Michael_J_burg.jpg

Hi!

I have double images downloaded for the Michael J. Burg  article. I wanted to delete the File:Michael j burg.jpg image, but didn't know how.

Could you help me? And delete the one image that is a duplicate AND leave the image that is in the beginning of the article? Thank you so much! Robert Allen Wright.

PS: It is the photo on the Michael J. Burg article page that says:  "Actor, Michael J. Burg on roof of his home in NYC, HEARST BUILDING in background." I want to delete the copy image and keep the one proper image.

Thanks and sorry for being a newbie.


 * -) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertAllenWright (talk • contribs) 14:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem, but I do not actually delete images because I am not an administrator but let me help you out. You uploaded several copies of the same image and there is one on the commons too. We generally keep the commons images because then they can then be used by all the different language wikis as opposed to just locally. You actually don't need any of the local images if they are freely licenced, one commons image will suffice. All the local images can be retagged for deletion by you by adding the template db-author to the image, or ask me to do it, and the commons image, which has a similar name, is now displaying in the article because I have linked to that image. Telling me the caption on the image does not really help much because the caption can stay the same with any new image, but I figured that out. BTW, you could add a proper source to the commons image commons:File:Michael-J-Burg.jpg, because the PD template (which is a broken redlink) is not what we need. Source means where it came from, website, you photo, someone elses photo, email from subject, etc., not what its copyright status is. Hope that helps. Remember, we were all newbies once and learn something new every day. Good luck. Please sign you posts. ww2censor (talk) 15:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

MAJOR CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Why have you attacked my page Dee Iva? The information on this page is written by the person who was actually there at the time, myself. This page is meant as a historical recollection of my time on the British stage in the 1980's. I intend to upload published articles to verify the text. The images from my private archives that have been and will be posted to this page are my own property and no longer exist anywhere else in the world other than other websites I may have contributed to. Deeiva (talk) 14:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Dee Iva is not your page, you don't own it. Actually no, I have not attacked your page, I only added a notice that confirms that a major editor of the article has a conflict of interest in the page. This is quite normal for articles such as this where the main contributor is the subject of the article. I have nothing against you personally but I suggest familairising yourself with WP:AUTOBIO especially the section WP:YOURSELF and you will understand the problems when people are writing their own article. You are of course welcome to correct any blatant inaccuracies by posting verifiable information on the talk page. In fact everything in the article needs to be verified by third party reliable sources. Based on virtually all your edits being to the one article, essentially you have an single purpose account instead of contributing to the encyclopaedia as a whole.


 * With reference to the image File:Dee Iva c1983.jpg it is properly tagged because it has a copyright licence and the author is the same as the uploader, so we presume you have the right to apply a PD licence to it but File:Dee Iva at The Rock Garden, London c1983.jpg still has no copyright licence as requested in the problem notice, and it also has a fair-use rationale which we only use for non-free images where the copyright is owned by someone else. Who took the photo and do they still own the copyright? If so you need their permission to use it, if not who owns the copyright? If that is you please say so, don't use a fair-use rationale and tag the image with a suitable copyright tag. I am tagging File:Risqué 1985.jpg and File:Risqué-iD 1984 collage (A Belluso).jpg as OTRS pending because you claim that permission will be sent by the photographer and this will stop it being deleted so quickly unless the permission does not arrive. Finally, File:Flex c1983.jpg is a problem because you cannot claim to be the source of a magazine extract; you may be the source of an image of that particular page from the Blitz magazine but that does not give you any rights over its image and the source is still the magazine. The magazine, or its subsequent owners, own the copyright because being from 1983 cannot be licenced by you as you have done with a cc-by-sa-3.0 tag. Regarding image issues you may want to read my image information page to become familiar with many of the image problems uploaders encounter.


 * Please check out all the links I have provided in the prose above but if you need more clarity on any of these issues, just ask me here and I will try to help you. Hope that helps ww2censor (talk) 17:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Blitz magazine no longer exists so what happens then? This article was in the public domain so what license goes with it? I will change the copyright license for File:Dee Iva at The Rock Garden, London c1983.jpg as suggested (I have said in the summary that I own the copyright). I will also post the email from the photographer here on your page for the other images even though I have forwarded an email from the photographer to Permissions. EMAIL FOLLOWS....


 * Deeiva (talk) 21:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No need to post the email to me, but thanks anyway. BTW it is best not to post people's email addresses in posts for privacy reasons. I will investigate the Blitz image problem and get back to you but it really cannot be in the public domain being only 26 years old. Thanks for your cooperation. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 23:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Kalmia Latifolia
Um...  The GNU license I placed on the page as the uploader clearly states the photo is my own. Is there something else I need to do to make it more clear? Thanks ++Arx Fortis (talk) 18:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed not. Sorry, I have reverted both notices. This was meant for File:Mountainlaurel.jpg. ww2censor (talk) 18:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, no prob. Thanks. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 18:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)