User talk:Ww2censor/Archive16

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 • Archive 16

Talk:Telegram messenger
Can't believe I did that :). Of course it's not a high importance article. Thanks for fixing it anyway. TheRetroGuy (talk) 17:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Creating/publishing a wikipedia page
My knowledge of computer programs is 'reasonable' but i am still having great difficulty in being able to combine an image with the text i have already placed onto wikipedia. I go searching around and see all those nice and neat wiki pages everywhere. All with the exception of mine. Please help me because i have a good number of people wanting to know more about what it is i do. I am a writer and have just published my latest novel. Thank you for your time. Michael Gilwood author of DOK —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Gilwood (talk • contribs) 13:05, 9 November 2009


 * Perhaps, if you actually read the page that is noted on the top of this page and the edit page, vis User:Ww2censor/IfD you will get a better understanding of image requirements. We accept freely licenced images and do not accept images that are licenced for Wikipedia only. BTW, you don't WP:OWN any pages so please don't call them "mine". Please sign your posts with four tildes ~ like this, so editors don't have to go searching for who you are and where your talk page is. Hope this helps but ask if you need more info but the welcome note gives many links to areas that will answer other questions you may have and how to do things. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 17:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea.
I have been through the help/sandbox etc files and can see no relation to what i want. Can i send across all related material for someone (who knows)to help. Michael Gilwood. p.s, you can go through my history of contributions to understand what is going on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Gilwood (talk • contribs) 18:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Carrier modulated by 1 V VF.jpg
Thanks for the warning about the file I've uploaded. I didn't copy the file from another web page or a written material. I produced the file myself. Besides, before uploading the file, I filled an e-form to state that its entirely my work. Have a nice day. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 18:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * While you may have added some information when you uploaded it, you later removed the information template where such information goes during later uploads. I have added a blank template for you to fill in, but you have failed to add a copyright licence to the image. You can choose one from WP:TAGS but without a valid licence it will be deleted whether you made it or not. We take copyright status seriously and right now this image has not copyright status. Is it a public domain image, should it have one of the acceptable creative commons tags? Fill that information and it will be fine. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 19:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Right to use image
REF: File:Kwech gta vir 66.jpg Horst Kwech

Hello,

I'm XXXXX (Lynxman), and I have been assisting YYYYY (an Alfa Romeo and Trans-Am history buff) in adding various entries/edits to Wikipedia. The image referenced above is a photo taken by ZZZZZ of Automotive Art. He emailed his permission to YYYYY for use of the image (see below). We subsequently found that the picture is also online at:

http://www.virhistory.com/vir/66-transam/rb-6608-col/rb-6608-26.jpg

Is the following copy of the email thread sufficient evidence of our right to use the image? or can you advise how to proceed?

Thanks, Lynxman (talk) 19:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

--- From: ZZZZZ Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 10:38 AM To: YYYYY Subject: Re: Your 1966 VIR Kwech photo

Hi YYY, By all means, have at it! Look forward to seeing it.

ZZZZZ

new email: ________________________________________

From: YYYYY Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 09:58:37 -0700 To: Subject: Your 1966 VIR Kwech photo

Hi ZZZ, Hope all is well with you. I am going to spend some time getting the 1966 Alfa Romeo Trans-Am GTA story updated on Wikipedia. Can I have your permission to use the one photo from VIR on Wikipedia? Best regards, YYYYY —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lynxman (talk • contribs) 15:24, 9 November 2009


 * Unfortunately, due to fraudulent claims made by uploaders, and I am not suggesting this includes you, it is best to have the copyright owner email the WP:OTRS team their permission directly to the email mentioned in the notice on the image page. They will then apply an OTRS ticket, confirming the permission, to the image and all will be well. I have removed all email addresses you posted for privacy reasons; it is best not to post these online here. Hope that helps, but you can also read my images faq page at User:Ww2censor/IfD so you can better understand the issues. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 19:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your note regarding my Parboosingh image. I created this image that comes from the National Gallery of Jamaica's permanent collection. I created it for a series of lectures called Masterpieces from the National Collection delivered at the NGJ in 1985. It was subsequently published in the national newspaper and I have reproduced it since on my website at http://www.petrinearcher.com/ see Caribbean Archive: Masterpieces. The artist died in 1975. PetrineA-S (talk) 10:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Conrad O'Brien-ffrench Right to Use Images
Files: File:Conrad_obrien-french_military_200x290.jpg‎ File:Conrad_obrien-french_krassin_400x243.jpg‎ File:Conrad_obrien-french_kitzbuhel_300x299.jpg‎ Article: Conrad O'Brien-ffrench

I am newer at Wikipedia but have been trying to follow all guidelines. As requested, I have emailed permissions-en@wikimedia.org  on Nov. 7, 2009 with email from Conrad O'Brien-ffrench family (John ffrench) giving permission to use three O'Brien-ffrench images with the Sharealike 3.0 copyright, my original email requesting right to use these images, and attachments of the three images. There should be no question as to which images have been approved.

In the file metadata I have listed: Source: Courtesy of John ffrench; http://www.moniveasaltspring.com/contact.php Permission: Creative Commons Attribution 3.0

This is my understanding of the requested procedure. How do I receive confirmation that this email has been received and is being recorded in the database? Please advise as to how to proceed. Thanks so much!

Cher Skoubo (talk) 10:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info and happy to help. There was actually no need to add the text you did to the three image files and there was also no reason to actually send the files as they are here already; you just need to identify them. Anyway, you can replace the text with an OTRS pending template (outside the info template, which notifies administrators, who might review a file for deletion, that permission is on the way. I will do one for you now. The WP:OTRS team are always busy so it may take a week for the OTRS ticket to be applied to the image. If you keep the images on your watchlist you will notice when they have been edited and the permission confirmed. Hope that helps. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 14:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

OTRS pending
File:Kwech gta vir 66.jpg Horst Kwech

Per your advice, the owner of this image sent an e-mail to WP:OTRS authorizing its use by me on Wikipedia. Hopefully this will allow the picture to remain on Wikipedia.

Thank you for your guidance, Lynxman (talk) 14:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem Lynxman. I added an OTRS pending template to the image so it does not get deleted. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 14:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

speedy deletion help
what do I need to do to fix the speedy deletion issue in the article Fence Lake, New Mexico? Danrig (talk) 06:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Day_length_quick.jpg
Thanks for reminding me of the copyright issue regarding File:Day_length_quick.jpg. I myself created this image and gave it to Wikipedia, but I don't know how to add the "copyright tag". Could you add it for me? Thank you! -- Roland Longbow Roland 05:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * What a pain you would not provide an actual image link or a proper signature per the request at the top of the page which now forces me to go searching around for both! Anyway, all you need to do is choose a copyright tag from those on the page linked in the image problem notice and on your talk page. You state that you have given this to Wikipedia, but do you only want it to be used for Wikipedia only, or released into the public domain, or are you going to retain some rights to the image. We don't accept any Wikipedia only image uses only freely licenced images, so if that is the case it will be deleted, but if you want it to the a public domain image add the PD-self template to the image, however if you want to retain some rights you may want to choose a Creative Commons licence from here such as cc-by-sa-3.0. If you are adding a free licence tag to the image you may remove the "no-licence notice at the same time. You will find it useful to read my image copyright information page for a better understanding of such image issues. Hope that helps. ww2censor (talk) 15:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

DynamicDLC-add sources to keep image
The image File:dynamic-language-logo.jpg I posted has been flagged for deletion. I thought I had followed the correct steps, but I must of messed up somewhere. How do I add more sources to correctly and legally keep the image from deletion? The image was taken from the website of the company the article is about. Which is also the company I work for. Would you mind guiding me into the right direction and I seem to be falling further away from the correct way. I am the administrator for this wiki article if that helps any. Please respond on my talk page.

DynmaicDLC/DynamicLanguage/Subpage

Thank you kindly, Linda of DynamicDLC DynamicDLC (talk) 23:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * OK there are in fact a number of issues going on here. The use of the word administrator is reserved for people who have been appointed administrator by consensus but I think you actually mean that you are own, or are responsible for the article, but you need to know that no one owns any articles on this wiki, so you might want to read WP:OWN. You have, as I see on your talk page, already been informed about your conflict of interest and in that respect you should also read WP:COI.


 * Now to the image. You obviously did not actually follow the instructions at the top of my edit page on how to reference an image on a page without actually displaying it but I fixed that: I don't need to see it but I need a link to it. Anyway, I tagged the image as missing copyright status because the image is obviously taken from a company website and therefore it is a copyright image and there is no copyright tag attached to the image to show its actual copyright status. The burden of proof is on the uploader to comply with all the requirements. Generally we only accept freely licenced images and companies don't often release their logos into the public domain which would mean that anyone could use it for anything, including commercial use. Will they do that? I doubt it. Logos can sometimes be used in the infobox of articles in the mainspace if they comply with all 10 non-free content criteria but right now the article has been moved into your userspace and therefore it will fail NFCC for now, so it will definitely be deleted unless you can convince the company to release it under a free licence.


 * You asked me to reply on your talk page but adding a talkback template actually tells me there is a message for me on your page, which is not the case, though I did look at it to see what else was there. However I like to keep discussions in one place instead of being disjointed, so I am replying here and I will leave you a talkback. If you sign your posts editors will see a link to your talk page and you can make a simple request to reply there if you want.


 * I suggest you let the image be deleted for now because the article may or may not be acceptable when you finish with it. If it moves to the mainspace and you need a logo, upload it properly at that time. You may get a better understanding of many image copyright issues by reading my image copyright information page. Hope that helps but post here if you need more advise. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 00:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If I edit the page and add the logo into the information box, if that legal as long as I go in and also add a copyright tag? I was aware that I needed to add that tag in the beginning, but haven't been able to find it or I must be not understand your page as I must keep passing it. I am sorry, thank you very much for your help. If you could clarify and steer me in the correct direction, that would be greatly appreciated. Thank you so much! LindaDynamicDLC (talk) 01:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No, that won't work because the only possible copyright tag you could add is Non-free logo which requires a fully completed fair-use rationale per WP:NFCC but you cannot complete that validly because the article is not in the mainspace and therefore you cannot add a valid purpose either. Either way the image cannot be kept. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. ww2censor (talk) 03:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

haha, it's ok. I understand. I just wish I was better at understanding all this so you wouldn't have to spell it out for me! But thanks for your patience. I will just let it be deleted as you suggested and when it does it the mainspace I will correctly add it! Thank you!

LindaDynamicDLC (talk) 14:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

File:209 RAF emblem.gif
Thanks for your "heads-up" on this. I wasn't clear which standard notice applied as the options at upload didn't include a ref to HM Government. I've updated the source info as requested. There is, however, an issue. While rummaging, I found these pages, which contain what I believe to be public domain items (as the badges are HMG artwork usually more than 50 years old). However, this particular site has this copyright notice which appears to contradict the 50 year rule. What's the situation? Are RAF badges, HM ship badges and other British military insignia in the public domain or not? Or are we ok as long as we don't copy from the RAF Heraldry site? Sorry for any hassle. Folks at 137 (talk) 09:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed the "no source" notice from this image. Regarding the site you mention, they, like many others, are guilty of copyfraud whereby they claim copyright over images to which they have no right to claim copyright even if they are clearly in the public domain or are otherwise freely licenced. You have to do a bit of research to check such issues and be sure that when you upload such images they are correctly tagged. I seem to recall seeing images from this website previously but could not swear to it. You should probably faliliarise yourself with country specific licences from the Commons licencing page. Ask if you have other questions. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 23:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Out of focus images....?
File:StJohnsBrisbane.JPG Out of focus? Please check your optics....

Deleted 21 September 2009 from St John's Cathedral, Brisbane  This is a reasonable modern comparison to the 1910 historal image  on this site of the building. There is a new office block tower being constructed which will obstruct this view, so this will quickly become a historical image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Celcom (talk • contribs) 23:43, 27 November 2009


 * Perhaps it is you who actually needs to check your vision? Let me explain. This edit is the one I made to remove the following three images File:Liturgical South choir stalls and cathedra, St John's Cathedral, Brisbane.jpg, File:St John's Choir.jpg and File:Fan vaulting in choir.jpg that are badly out of focus. You can't argue with that, can you? Looking at the logs for File:StJohnsBrisbane.JPG you will see that it was deleted because it lacked a copyright tag which you have now added to the reuploaded image and not because it was out of focus. Perhaps a little checking of the facts before making an accusation would have clarified everything for you. BTW, adding a talkback is only useful to tell me there is a message on your talk page but there was none. A simple four tilde ~ signature works fine when you leave a message on my talk page. ww2censor (talk) 04:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Visaliaguy/Uploads
I've put together a page that's got a list of Visaliaguy & the socks' uploads & changes on images. Might be a help ;) Skier Dude  ( talk ) 04:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The image part is done - take a look at the updated page above. There were just a few that checked out OK. That just leaves a check over the Visalia page :) Skier Dude  ( talk ) 05:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

File Uploading
You told me that I can't upload file named 'File:Dokdo-1.jpg', 'File:Dokdo.jpg.'

But yesterday, I have a permission about using that photo from copyright holder.

So I want to prove it. How can I do that?

p.s. Reply to Korean Wikipedia, not English Wikipedia please, or I can't check your answer. Thank you.

p.s-2. If you can't understand Korean, here is hyperlink.(http://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/%EC%82%AC%EC%9A%A9%EC%9E%90%ED%86%A0%EB%A1%A0:Sinuikiru) Then click '+' that you can see it on the top of my discussion page.) --Sinuikiru (talk) 17:24, 30 November 2009 (KST)


 * We take copyright status very seriously and try to exclude all copyright violation as well as unjustified use of non-free images. The only way to show that you have permission to use these images is if they are freely licenced by the copyright holder. You need to have them send us their permission and you can do that by following the procedure described at WP:PERMISSION. However, right now I retagged File:Dokdo-1.jpg as having a disputed rationale for several reasons and the other image is still tagged as having no purpose in the rationale, besides which, as an unused non-free image it is orphaned and cannot stay here under the WP:NFCC rule. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page to familiarise yourself moree with some copyright issues that crop up. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. ww2censor (talk) 16:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * O.k. Thank you for your advice. It will be better to delete photos, then I will reuproad....--Sinuikiru (talk) 16:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That is probably the best thing to do for now, but you are welcome to add new images if they are properly licenced or, if you get permission to use these images they can be restored without uploading them again. Hope that helps for now. ww2censor (talk) 16:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Non Free Reduce...
The strike thru is images tagged but not reduced.

Images that have been reduced or deleted can be removed from the list in my userspace entirly.

Thanks for the effort by the way :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Picture
Hello :) Please don't delete my picture. I'm a huge Twilight fan and I've contributed so much to all the Twilight related articles. Please, don't delete my picture. I've made so many points on the image's talk page. If you want, I could add a few more points and clarify everything. But please don't delete the picture. It's really special to me. I'll be really thankful to you. Mo HH92   Talk 10:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC) EDIT: OK, is there anything I can do not to get the image deleted? There must be someway, please. I really need your help. But, please don't delete my picture. Is there any way out?  Mo HH92   Talk 10:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The deletion discussion about the Twilight books image is fair but you keep making the same points, over and over, none of which make the image any more acceptable. It does not matter how much of a fan you are or how much you have contributed to this or any other article. Simply, this image fails the non-free content criteria. Read it and understand it, don't fight it; it is policy. BTW I do not delete images, that is up to the closing administrator who will weigh all the facts, the policy and the arguments before making a decision but when an image clearly fails policy, it does not matter how much you argue. Sorry


 * Thanks you for alerting me to the fact that there are more of your unjustified book images up for deletion. ww2censor (talk) 14:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

hello Ww2censor
this is user emykat, u have indicated missing copyright info for 2 images, even though when uploading , i filled out the correct info and chosen the appropriate license by selecting from the pull down menu in upload image. I need your help, i cold not figure out where and how to place the missing info. it got a little confusing for me, i tried few times , i think i figured out what to put its GFDL|self, GFDL-self, is this what i need to place ? if its correct, then could be so kind to guide me step by step, where and how to place it ?

thanks a million user:emykat


 * You do make life rather difficult by not linking to the images in question and not providing a regular signature that links to your user talk page, per my clear request at the top of the edit page. Additionally you have blanked your talk page which means I have to dig around the page history to see what images I tagged. Anyway, GFDL is not the best licence for images. If you took the images yourself and you want to release them into the public domain, then add the template PD-self to the image files. However, for File:Emy Isaac 99.jpg you claim this as a portrait of you, yet you also claim to took the photo. Is this true, or did someone else take it? It looks more like a low resolution web image to me and also has no metadata so does not look like your own image. Please clarify. The second image File:Emy Missoni4 97.jpg is stated to be a "Missoni Advertorial". Does this mean you made this image for Missoni? If so, was it a work for hire? In which case you probably do not own the copyright to the image, the advertising agency or client does, and you cannot provide a valid copyright because you don't own the image, even if you were the phogorapher. Again the lack of metadata and low resolution make this look like an image copied from a website. Let's see if we can clarify the status of both images. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page and please sign your posts with four tildes so I can find you easier. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 16:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello Ww2censor, thank you for taking the time to explain. firstly i apologize for any inconvenience. I blanked the page cos i realized the article is been drafted there and talk pages is not for drafting as i understood later. I also apologize for being a novice in using the ethics of wiki, I do enjoy contributing and i am still learning and need any help and advise i can get. I noted the recommended tag. Thank you. To further clarify and get your opinion and advise, for File:Emy Isaac 99.jpg. This not a portrait of me nor of Emy Kat, it is a portrait taken by Emy Kat of Isaac Tigrett , please help to point out where does it say a portrait of me , its incorrect and i need to edit this indication or misleading info. I though it was clear its a portrait by Emy Kat. For File:Emy Missoni4 97.jpg, even though to my understanding that the author, even if he sells the rights to other parties such as an advertising agency or the likes,- correct me if i am wrong- they still hold the "moral right" of an image and is allowed to use it in an article so long the  article is about the author of that image and in this case it is. Moreover, an advertorial is an editorial for one brand instead of the typical fashion editorial of many brands. Typically, the magazine that publishes the images hold the rights for  a short period only by default, either in certain cases for the actual period of the period its been published in. For example for 1 month, say the issue is out in March , and the image is released  only for march, later rights revert to author,  for 2 month if the magazine is bi monthly and so forth.  In other cases, other magazines by default get the author to sign for 1 year to avoid any copyright issues and get the release for a 1 year instead of the 1 or 2 months, that is  to cover the period of the issue and the year of that issue. In this case this was shot back in 1997 and it does revert back in 1998 to the author. Moreover, the magazine in question is closed down. it used to be out of CA. In addition, Emy Kat he confirms that he holds a full release from all the people in the images, its a series of about 12 - 15 images. This s also to confirm, Emy Kast holds the full copyright of both images including the File:Emy Isaac 99.jpg . I have purposely uploaded a low resolution because when i asked  Emy Kat, he  did not wish i upload any higher resolutions, even though i have them. On the other hand , I  have contacted Isaac Tigrett with consent from Emy Kat to see if he would like the portrait  File:Emy Isaac 99.jpg to be uploaded on his wiki article, This is out of courtesy, if he will allow me to post it there for him in the article about him,  as its his portrait by Emy Kat.  I hope this clarifies and perhaps now you can better advise m now. I would need though to understand how to place those tags , this beats me , i tried many times. Or shall i delete all files and start again ? More over i will work on a signature, i am still reading about it . forgive me . Thanks a million. Let me see if this works if i copy your code for now and insert my user name ? Chita1234 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 05:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC). , here is my new signature , i hope you approve of  it in the wiki code of ethics :) --♥Chita1234♥ (talk)


 * I will reply later today if possible. ww2censor (talk) 04:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello Ww2censor, I guess you are swamped. I was hoping to get your advise on this. Do let me know when you get a free moment. Kind regards --♥Chita1234♥ 20:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC) (talk)

Hello Ww2censor, looks like the images were deleted. Could kindly advise. Perhaps i can start again by uploading the files again with their respective license ? Thank you. --♥Chita1234♥ 08:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chita1234 (talk • contribs)

U-607
Already nominated at DYK. :-) Mjroots (talk) 20:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As you already have a DYK 100 medal you hardly need my suggestion. With only 14 DYKs, I have a very lonnnnnng way to go! ww2censor (talk) 21:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but it's a long way to the 200  Mjroots (talk) 21:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Sculpture Image Copyright Problem
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kchattin (talk • contribs) 11:33, 30 November 2009

Luminary and Untitled (IUPUI Letters)
Thank you for your information regarding my images in Luminary (sculpture) and Untitled (IUPUI Letters). I do apologize for taking down the deletion tags. I am new to Wikipedia and did not mean to violate the rules. I have updated the copyright information and rational for the Untitled (IUPUI Letters) article main image. Can you please take a look at my rational and let me know if the image can stay? Will I still be allowed to upload additional images? I would like to upload 3 more 100 px images if possible. Thank you for your assistance. JillRGordon (talk) 17:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I just replied on your talk page. Please keep the discussion in one place. Thanks. ww2censor (talk) 17:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
User_talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 018 3 December 2009

An IUPUI Thanks!
Hi, Ww2censor --

I want to thank you for all of your kind help to many of the IUPUI students that are participating in the project WikiProject Wikipedia Saves Public Art!.

Your work was not only helpful, but done in a professional and pleasant way. Many of the students had very positive experiences with WP, and some had negative experiences. It's a somewhat wild world, this WP. We hope that this project continues beyond IUPUI. To that end, I think we've continued to improve the templates and categories -- WSPA! Templates & Categories. However, the big difficulty that many students have had, as you know, is in getting images into the articles. I've appreciated your expertise in this area. If you have any suggestions, I'd like to invite you to be a part of the WSPA! project, and help guide the way we can load images appropriately. Even if you're not interested in joining the project, it'd be great if you could give the project some guidance. In any case, thanks again for your work and support! You're clearly a conscientious editor. Kind regards,

--Richard McCoy (talk) 05:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have been trying to deal with some of your editors in as friendly a manner as possible but as volunteers they are actually giving us lots of clean up work; we have just scratched the surface and it is difficult to keep cool with so much to do, and I generally only deal with images, not with any prose issues that may arise.


 * You can't just dump images into article without an understanding of copyright. The main problem is that most of your editors are inexperienced and with their misunderstanding or lack of knowledge of freedom of panorama, for which there is no exception in US law for sculptures per the commons FOP page, many images will have to be deleted. Those images licenced as public domain are false licences because photos of modern sculptures are derivative works and as such the photos are copyright of the artist, and these images will have to be deleted. All images uploaded to the commons will have to go too because the commons does not accept non-free images. The proper licence for sculptures is Non-free 3D art and that template clearly states that a fair-use rational must be used. All sculptural art images must be used under the fair-use justification and in that regard we use a higher fair-use standard than you may be used to in university. A fully completed fair-use rationale must be added to each image, the image may not be of a high resolution (generally 300px on the longest side), which most are, and the images MUST comply with all 10 non-free content criteria, which preclude using galleries under the minimal use criteria, so generally one image is all that will be permitted per article.


 * For now the only article I can confirm whose image use really complies properly is Untitled (IUPUI Letters) with one fair-use image of low resolution where all the proper details have been provided.


 * An issue for us is that, while we gained our experience over time making mistakes and learning on the go, even though anyone can edit here, when you use the encyclopaedia as your classroom/project we get inundated with a load of problems at one time from inexperienced editors who often don't understand policy and, maybe as students (I know I was one once), may be offhand about it not even bother to read the necessary guidelines, assuming we will clean up after them. That is unfair, so you need to guide them more fully and if we can post some details that will help please ask, but before you dive into a new project. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 06:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your kind and well-reasoned response. If it's okay with you, I'm going to copy some part of your response into the WSPA! page and e-mail it to all of the students.  I certainly understand your concerns about the images and the increased workload for you.  The other professor & I on this project are committed to helping out on this and making sure the images are uploaded correctly and helping to remove the ones that are not (if there are any that are left).


 * On the WSPA! project & Talk page we linked to the resources within WP and other guides inside and outside of WP that we thought did give fairly clear advisement on using images. I think, though, that the difficulty is that the copyright issue is a complex one. There is a considerable amount of grey area within the copyright laws, especially when you get to artworks that are before 1923.


 * In any case, I thank you for your approach and kindness. Best,--Richard McCoy (talk) 12:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

WikiBirthday
I saw from here that it's been four years since you joined the project. Happy WikiBirthday! Keep up the good work, r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 15:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Mega-Gem Photos
I know you're being inundated with issues regarding our WikiProject Wikipedia Saves Public Art!, however I just wanted to confirm that I did the right thing with re-uploading my images for Mega-Gem, in order to cause you less work later. I have gone over your suggestions on our WikiProject talk page as well as on the talk pages of my friends who have fixed up the fair use issues in their images (User:KChattin User:JillGordon User:KPetrole). Now knowing that the derivative work images are not allowed in the Commons, and that galleries are not allowed, I reuploaded only two images to Wikipedia (Special Upload) and included all of the fair use and rationale information I think I am required to. I wanted to make sure I wasn't doing anything else wrong. Thank you for your patience as we all figure this out. HstryQT (talk) 15:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I also just saw that you mention that Untitled (IUPUI Letters) is the only article to appropriately follow all the rules. I will try to compare against this to ensure I have done the right thing. Thank you again. HstryQT (talk) 15:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I modified File:MegaGemFront(South).JPG slightly by removing the redundant information template, but you still need to reduce the file size to a maximum of 300px on the longest side. We don't usually categorise the images here either, just the articles, so you might remove them because the categories are not often used to search for images as is normal on the commons. A well described image works well. File:MegaGemDetail.JPG is also too big and the "purpose of use" does not fit its actual use because you already have an image to identify the sculpture so the rationale's purpose would need to be rewritten to justify it; the prose already describes what you might want the image to show and so would fail WP:NFCC, however, another editor may challenge even a rewritten rationale. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 17:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your help. I made all of the changes you suggested. The file sizes should be correct now, removed categories and updated rationale. HstryQT (talk) 18:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Ormond (novel)
I created the above article as part of WP:NEWT (see Newbie treatment at Criteria for speedy deletion/Awadewit). I was wondering, since the article was created by a supposedly new user, would it have been a good idea to explain to the user about sourcing rather than just leave a tag? Perhaps a note on the article talk page as well? I'm curious what you think. Awadewit (talk) 17:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well obviously the notices had the effect they needed as the three issues have been resolved even if they were not welcome. It really is a balance between getting stuff done or spending time trying to explain details to a much smaller number of editors. As you well know the links in such notices go to pages that explain the problem and how to fix it. As I spend rather a lot of my time dealing with image copyright status, I have written a specific page to explain the possible issues that arise and if those editors come to my talk page to just ask questions or even complain, many of those questions are answered in my image copyright information page. I also assess articles for the Ireland WikiProject and in reviewing such articles for assessment I may drop tags on the page, as in this case, or do a quick copyedit, add a stub tag or other constructive edit, but spending specific time checking if the user is new, and may or may not understand such matters might be a good idea but really I don't have the time to hold their hand for such detail that is easily found directly from the posted notice. The welcome notices also alert such newbies to many of the guidelines that will help them and I leave those for some user too. Am I right to rely on scripts or gadgets to leave notifications rather than writing custom posts is a question I can't answer, but it is the process I find works best for me. I try to review the contributions of editors to whose images I am adding deletion notices and generally if they have more than 500 edits I drop a quick polite post rather than the scripted notice but even that takes a lot extra time and when one has a list of 100 images, every day, that need reviewing and possible notifications left, custom work is not really a first priority. As you well know we all have too little time anyway. As experienced editors I am happy to debate the issue with you here or elsewhere. ww2censor (talk) 18:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Image Answer
Hey Ww2censor, in regards to your comments on File:Missouri_State_Athletics_Montage.png I took those images on my own. They're all in my facebook albums. I worked for MSU Sports Info from August 08-May 09 and took photos during game. Not necessarily for MSU, just for pleasure, though a few of them were used on the U's website, missouristatebears.com. If it is an issue, should I change it to where it's not public domain? I'm new to this stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coasterbill42 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 3 December 2009


 * No signature and image is not linked despite the clear instructions at the top of the page you edited. You do not tell us that you Caosterbill42 are one and the same as Billy Jansen, the author of the images. Otherwise the image is fine, I was wondering, but it might be best to be more specific as we take copyright status very seriously. I would state that these are personal images and not MSUs. Cheers Keep on editing. ww2censor (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Ireland edit
What are you talking about man! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Desktop126 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This edit you made to Ireland is totally unencyclopaedic, has spelling mistakes, and adds nothing constructive to the article. It is consider as vandalism which is why you were given a warning on your talk page. You had a note there asking for help, so I placed a comprehensive welcome note on your page which has loads of links to help you become a constructive editor. You are very welcome to make constructive edits but edits like that one will only lead you into trouble. Review the links in the welcome note on how to edit properly. ww2censor (talk) 02:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

File:CORNERED_POSTER_RGB_NORMAL.jpg
hi! you've tagged File:CORNERED_POSTER_RGB_NORMAL.jpg for deletion. It is to be used in the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TomStaels/CORNERED! which is still a work in progress. What should i do? cheers, Tom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TomStaels (talk • contribs) 16:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Tom, we take image copyright status very seriously around here and you are not allowed to use non-free images in anything other than articles, so using it in your user pages in not allowed and means it will be deleted, so remove it from you page. Wait until the article is ready and then reupload it, or finish it within 7 days, after which time the image will be deleted. You will also have to complete the fair-use rationale completely, which you did not do, including a full description and especially the purpose of use, otherwise, even then it may be deleted. You may find it useful to read WP:NFC and my image copyright information page which has several good links, that is also linked at the top of this page. Oh, and please sign you posts. Hope that helps. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 16:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Question
I was wondering: How did you get the blue message box that appears above the edit box? Thanks. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I had to ask someone too. :)> It is called an editnotice. Have a look at mine here User talk:Ww2censor/Editnotice and also Editnotice. Borrow whatever you need, I did from 3 others. ww2censor (talk) 00:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

[[File:Magic Bullet.jpg]]
I understand the issue at hand, and I am willing to provide a new, CC-BY licence. It will be of lower resolution though. Do you think this would appropriately resolve the situation at hand? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chairsenses (talk • contribs) 17:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't actually recall the image itself as I review many images most days but the image was deleted because it had a licence incompatible with Wikpedia which likely means you took the image from elsewhere and it did not have a good licence or you used the wrong licence. That needs to change to a freely licenced image which may mean not using that same image but photographing it yourself and uploading that new image. So long as an uploaded image has a proper free licence, there is no need to use a lower resolution file, in fact we prefer high resolution files, but if you are trying to upload an image under a fair-use claim a low resolution is necessary but it must also have a fully completed fair-use rationale and pass all 10 non-free content criteria. If the image is replaceable, then you cannot use the existing non-free image. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page which give more copyright information. ww2censor (talk) 22:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Well,
Oh, okay! I want to tell you I made that animation myself. It is to show an example of a Looney Tunes opening. From, --Looney kid (talk) 13:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's see if I can help you with this. The problem with File:LOONEY_TUNES.gif is that it looks too much like the original, which I suppose was the point, but that means this is a derivative work to which you cannot give it any copyright status other than the one of the original, which we would presume to be copyright to Warner Brothers Pictures. We take copyright status very seriously around here which is why I tagged the image as not having a source or a copyright licence. So you made it but being a derivative work you would have to have an appropriate licence and under fair-use, you cannot use a fair-use image on your user ot user talk page, only in mainspace articles. Your other images suffer from the same issues. File:ColorizedPorky.png looks like a straight copy and has no source or copyright licence, though it might be possible this is an old enough image to have fallen out of copyright however only reliable source information will help us with that. File:Looneykid.png also has no licence or source but, unless the little guy in the middle is a copyright image, this might be ok, if you made it yourself and you give it a proper copyright tag. Hope that helps. ww2censor (talk) 16:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, the rings! I made those rings on Photo Editing Software! Yeah, Photo Editing Software is awesome! Oh, and the little guy in the middle is me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Looney kid (talk • contribs) 21:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Logo vinNEBRASKA.jpg - Deleted, but I have a question for future improvement!!!
This logo was created for our volunteer foundation, but I guess I'm not sure how to give proper copyright credit/information for use on Wiki.

PLEASE help me understand a better way to do this!!

Thanks!! ss Steve SteveSeidel (talk) 21:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, let me see if I can help you with this. Generally logos are copyright to the companies or organisations that create and use it but its use here could only be made if it has a correct copyright tag, most often non-free logo. If a fair-use claim is being made it is policy that the image MUST fulfills all 10 non-free content criteria, has a complete fair-use rationale, in addition to the proper copyright tag, and its usual use is in the article infobox. You may not be aware that you cannot use non-free images on user pages or user talk pages. Because the two images in question, File:VinNEBRASKA logo.jpg and File:VinNEBRASKA2 logo.jpg, are dependent on a recently deleted article per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VinNEBRASKA Foundation, they will have to be deleted in due course. Only if and when an article about VinNEBRASKA Foundation is notable enough to maintain its own article will it be appropriate to upload these images or ask for them to be restored. BTW, I also notice that you (we) claim to own the logo, obviously this means you have conflict of interest so you should familiarise yourself with WP:COI; if your organisation or company is notable enough others will write about it and it is best to let them do that. You may also find it useful to read my image copyright information page. Hope that helps. ww2censor (talk) 05:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Help
I can't find the page associated with The Redway School, where I put the image, where I can put a rationale. You will have to be patient with me please as I am very inexperienced. throughgrittedteeth Throughgrittedteeth (talk) 12:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Provide me link if you expect a reply. Fair-use rationales are placed in the image file not in the article the image is used in, and if any sections are red or missing details, they need to be filled in. If an image is bring used in any article it will show as a link near the bottom of the image page; "The following page links to this file: The Redway School, Milton Keynes." You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page that is clearly linked at the top of this page you edited. ww2censor (talk) 14:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I need more help than this, consequently I have taken the image off Wikipedia's visible page whilst I find out what to do. Throughgrittedteeth (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem with File:the redway school.jpg is that this is not the logo of the school, which appears at the top of the home page, but some sort of promotional image which you had added to the infobox but have now removed. That image is clearly copyright of the school so it can only be used under a fair use claim if all 10 non-free content criteria are fulfilled and a fully completed fair-use rationale is attached for each use of this image in a mainspace article. Because this is not the logo of the school, I do not see you being able to justify it in the infobox and if you try to use it elsewhere in the article it seems like decoration and with, or even without, any commentary about the image itself it will fail WP:NFCC. The proper school logo is at the top of the home page. Hopt that helps. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 16:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll try your suggestion at the weekend. If I use the school logo in the infobox, then it should meet all 10 non-free content criteria, otherwise it will be taken down. Throughgrittedteeth (talk) 17:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No, you must ensure any non-free image actually complies with all 10 criteria; just putting it in an infobox does not make it meet all 10 non-free content criteria. Did you read the criteria WP:NFCC yet? ww2censor (talk) 05:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I've just put up the school logo into the infobox, didn't wait for the weekend. Filled in the 10 required answers. I do hope its OK this time. Throughgrittedteeth (talk) 16:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hands on.... PDF
Hiya, please go ahead and delete the 'Hands on...' PDF as I cannot find it to do it. Thanks. Scadwallader (talk) 05:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

File:TRNA all1.png
The file File:TRNA all1.png has been marked for deletion due to proposed copyright infringement. I have attempted to make changes to this file several times to reflect the proper copyright. Since the file was made using open source material (protein coordinates deposited in the protein data bank are free of copyright restrictions). I did realize that this fact may need to be reflected in the copyright tag along with a short citation of the original author who deposited the coordinates. I also made note of the use of PyMol software to render the coordinates to the resulting image.

The new file is File:TRNA all2.png. Let me know if any further changes must be made. Thanks! SchneiderKD (talk) 01:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There was no reason to upload another copy of the same file. You just need to fix the problem with the first file; now someone has to delete one of them and you need to fix the other one. Let's address the problem. From the file history I don't see any attempts to make any changes to either files since they were uploaded, so I don't know what you think you did. As yet you have not made any changes but it needs a freely licenced copyright tag to be retained. You also need to clarify the source info. Your link does not show any file with this image, so was the file created from raw data on that site? If you you are the creator of the file then the source is you, but under what exact licence was the data provided? Does "free of copyright restrictions" mean public domain? I think so but you should link to the policy page in the file information and perhaps the best copyright to apply is . Hope that helps. ww2censor (talk) 05:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Pacific Jewell.JPG
You nominated it for deletion, i fixed it, can you check, make sure it's fine.Nath1991 (talk) 12:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No changes have been made to fix this image File:Pacific Jewel.JPG. There is still no copyright tag attached, all you did was upload another copy of the same image under a slightly different name File:Pacific Jewell.JPG but that image too has the same problem, so I have tagged that for deletion too because it is a redundant file and not used in any articles while the original one is used in several articles, so the original image is the one that should be fixed. We take copyright status very seriously so please choose a copyright tag per the link given on your talk page and add it to File:Pacific Jewel.JPG. Please fix this otherwise an admin will delete it. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page. Hope that helps. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 16:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

copyright issue on photo of John Bridgeland
It looks like you may have posted an issue with the photo of John Bridgeland File:Henry Lozano and John Bridgeland.jpg on the Henry Lozano page? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Lozano But I believe it's in good shape and should not be deleted. It's copyright permission is: This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government, etc. The photographer works for the White House, so may I keep this photo with its current permissions? Thanks! Eric. Scubeesnax (talk) 04:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I doubt you can keep this image because the source page provided clearly states (at the bottom) that all right are reserved and there is not evidence that this image was taken officially on CNCS business, in which case it is a copyright violation. Harmon even states on this page that "I'm also the staff photographer for CNCS - which is why there are some galleries and photographs on this site that aren't for sale. All images that I take for either CNCS are property of the U.S. government and, as such, are public domain." So, unless there is any proof that the permission statement on the file is accurate, the image must be deleted even though you added details and a licence, that licence is IMHO false. The best thing to do is check the source again and see if you agree with me, in which case you can tag the image for deletion or we can take it to WP:IfD. Unfortunately I think that some of your other uploads are improperly licenced too, such as File:Lozano Eisner Merriman.jpg where the source shows an all right reserved notice while File:Henry Lozano National Volunteer Week White House.jpg looks properly licenced per this page but don't assume all M. T. Harmon's photos are in the public domain. Hope that helps. ww2censor (talk) 05:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi ww2censor, Thanks! Here's a copy of the email in which the photographer M.T. Harmon gives me permission to use the Bridgeland photo. It clearly states that he was working in his capacity as a government employee covering a government event, to use his words, “Corporation for National and Community Service photo by M. T. Harmon, Office of Public Affairs”  Therefore, the photo is in the public domain and my permission is correct.  Here's the email from Matt Harmon... Eric  PS - I just want you to know I appreciate all your hard work! Thanks for helping to keep Wiki compliant. Scubeesnax (talk) 05:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * From: Harmon, Matthew
 * Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 11:15 AM
 * To: Eric Kasum
 * Subject: RE: Hi Matt - photo permission for Wikipedia


 * Hi Eric –


 * No problem with using the photos. Credit should read “Corporation for National and Community Service photo by M. T. Harmon, Office of Public Affairs” – if that’s too long, then just “Corporation for National and Community Service”.


 * Send me a link to the entry once you’re done – love to see it.


 * M

--


 * From: Eric Kasum
 * Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 2:00 PM
 * To: Harmon, Matthew
 * Subject: Hi Matt - photo permission for Wikipedia


 * Hi Matt,


 * I'm designing a Wikipedia page about Henry Lozano, former Director of USA Freedom corps. I'd like to use a couple photos you took of Henry by himself, and another one of him and John Bridgeland at a Learn and Serve America event...


 * http://photos.mtharmon.com/gallery/3551067#201149232_AbBMm


 * Would it be OK to use your photos on my Wiki page? What kind of permissions do I need to get from you, and what kind of credit/attribution would you like?


 * Thanks for all the good work you're doing!


 * Eric Kasum

Scubeesnax (talk) 05:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm off to bed, so a quick reply, but the permission given is not clear as to what licence he is giving but it seems that the use of this image is for Wikipedia and nothing else. That is not a compatible licence for us. The image needs to be freely licenced by him, either as a public domain, or suitable Creative Commons licence. You really need him to email his permission to us directly and the OTRS volunteers will ticket the image when they get his email. Follow the instructions at WP:PERMISSION and everything should be work out but he needs to understand his image can be used by anyone for anything including commercial use if he agrees to freely licences the image but if he is using his CNCS title, then maybe he agrees to make this a PD image even though the website states otherwise. ww2censor (talk) 06:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi www2censor. I believe, the fact that the photo is in the public domain is very clear.   The Wiki photo permission says "This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government..."  The issue isn't if we have his permission.  The issue is whether or not we can clearly identify that he was working in his official capacity as a U.S. government employee at the time he took the photo.  In fact, he answers this question for us quite clearly in his email, when he says: "Credit should read “Corporation for National and Community Service photo by M. T. Harmon, Office of Public Affairs”.  He's clearly saying that he took the photo while working in the Office of Public Affairs for the Corporation for National and Community Service, a branch of the U.S. Government.  In my opinion, the fact that the photo is in the public domain is absolutely clear.  Therefore, I respectfully ask that you free this photo up for use.  Thank you.  All the best for the Holidays.  Eric  Scubeesnax (talk) 06:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Only considering File:Henry Lozano and John Bridgeland.jpg for now, I have to disagree with your analysis of the copyright status. Not to be a pedant but I am not happy with the current copyright status as it stand right now though it might be ok. The photo permission was added by you with this edit and I assume this was based on your thought rather than the fact that you actually know the image was created by M. T. Harmon while representing, or working for, CNCS, especially because the source specifically says it is a copyright image. His email to you does not confirm that the image was taken for the CNCS, but I think you are assuming that "he is clearly saying" it was a CNCS image because he has asked to be acknowledged by adding "Corporation for National and Community Service photo by M. T. Harmon, Office of Public Affairs" and that the photo was taken while in their employ. If it was taken for the CNCS, it is clearly in the public domain, as you tagged it, and needs no credit to him other than stating the name of the author, but if it is not a CNCS image, then he can give permission under a free licence. As you have already been in email contact with him, I suggest you clarify the matter with him about the actual status of the image; was it for the CNCS or not and why does the source page indicate it is a copyright image not made for CNCS. You are convinced but I am not, so if you can contact him it would be great. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 04:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll do that. Good advice.  Thanks for the help.  Eric.  Scubeesnax (talk) 21:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)