User talk:Ww2censor/Archive17

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 • Archive 17

Country definitives
Just to say thanks for your advice re Country Definitives - the two articles have been merged, and I'm going to leave a week for people to comment on the rename. I'm also going to fix the reference list at some stage when I dig up a reasonably recent copy of the SG UK stamp catalogue - it will deal with most of the references required.

Cheers

AndyB (talk) 18:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

re: Template Irish Places
Yeah that was an issue i figured would happened. I set the code in the template to show it in both the template and on the top of the page, apparently it being on the top of the page has something to google picking it up or something, the problem being that when a cord template is placed at the bottom on the page or elsewhere in the article, this is apparently a different template setup from what i can figure, it can cause an overlap on the top of the page. I figure their is one of a couple of options, i an set the code in the place template not to display on the top and just in the template, or remove the coord template from the articles that have the issue, or have it display in the article as inline. I am not sure if removing the coord from the article will have the desired effect, as i am not sure what the handling is for google in this case. --boothy443(r|e|c|t|o) 18:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Image of Norman Crider / copyright issue
Hello. I hope this is the right way to answer you. The photo is of a publicity sheet that Norman Crider used to use over 35 years ago as publicity for his act. The photographer for the images is unknown and it was provided to me by his partner, who requested that I put it onto the page. What else do I need to provide? Funambules (talk) 09:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Censor, right now there's one that is important
I would understand your vigorous censorship more if you were contributing to articles rather than just popping in to change those while in process. I'm just beginning to round up a work group for the Rory Gallagher article, as part of the article rescue group, and at the same time, looking to procure photographs for biography articles from two professional photographers who never before were willing to release their copyrights before; and both have photos placed there. If the article's attribution to them in the captions remain until at least C level, we will not only have an improved article, but also, the trust and addition of many photos to come. By the time the article is larger, I'll allow the removal of the captions. The one photo whose size you objected to was the only clear photo we used to have; it's purpose in the article at this point is to show Gallagher's 1961 Fender Stratocaster, while still relatively new, b/c as the article's text has yet to say, it was used so often, that the wear and tear literally left it with just a few flecks of paint on it, as you can see in the photos of it further down. Please. I'm just now adding text and references. If you wish to get involved in adding to that, or in particular, the discography, that would be welcome!--Leahtwosaints (talk) 15:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Firstly I don't censor anything here and secondly, having been around since 2007 with 7,000+ edits, you should realise that you don't OWN any article and all articles are in progress, so that's is a silly reason, and saying "I'll allow the removal of the captions" clearly shows you have a misconceived notion about article ownership, so please don't claim it. Each change I made is totally valid and per guidelines. Generally we do not attribute photographers in the articles, that is why there is an attribution notice on the image files, and if your argument is that these attributions you added will be deleted when it becomes a C-class article, there is no reason why they should stay now as opposed to later. We will have an improved article whether there is file attribution or not. You should probably familiarise yourself with Captions. It is not necessary to make images any larger because readers can always easily click on the image to see any details that may not be clearly visible in a thumbnail size and this is already well described in the prose. Personally I am very familiar with the "the wear and tear" on Rory's Stratocaster. I am involved in this article by making sure it follows WP:MOS and is properly sourced with reliable sources. Don't start an edit war by reverting proper and well justified edits. ww2censor (talk) 16:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have been editing for some time, and have never, ever reverted anything by another editor unless it has been spam. This was a first, running into you. I have to wonder. I responded the way I did because the photos were just added, and I thought we had an understanding. I was angry. I called you a Censor, in part b/c of your username, but because the first time you began removing photo attribution, your daily contribution that day consisted almost exclusively in removing captions, but adding nothing for a series of a span of edits. When I say, please wait until the article reaches C level, it's only so the photographers who have been kind enough to drop copyrights for us can see the results, and know that they were approached by a reputable editor, and it wasn't a trick. I said I'll remove the captions at C level only because I will still be with the article, and I never know what you'll be doing, so, yes, I'll remove it, per our earlier agreement! I don't own the article. However, I am working on it quite seriously right now- after noting that nothing has fundamentally been changed since 2005 other than the list of instruments, so it isn't a case of me just popping in and adding a photo, and asking for a little time for a different photographer to get used to it! I'm fully aware of the Wikipedia policy, both re: ownership and captions. Please, I thought you understood me on this with the photos, and layout. It's just an issue of respect. Nobody is better than anyone else, and yes, I understand policy. But I also understand that we have a multitude of poorly researched and unreferenced articles, and I want to get along. This is just something I'm right in the middle of doing, just this week, and it's distracting to have to worry about the photographers, and other issues when I'm trying to focus on seeing some work done. I prefer to get on with it, expand the text, reference it, etc. and worry about little things like captions when the article has more to it. Maybe you'd like to join me in researching and writing it? --Leahtwosaints (talk) 17:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Apologies for the delay but real life and the holidays have intervened. First, because you have never reverted anything other than spam, you must not have any controversial articles on your watchlist, or, are not interested in articles where edit wars take place. Lucky you. Second, I don't know what understanding we have that you are referring to. Third, so you were angry. I'm sorry about that but being WP:COOL is the best attitude to take. Fourth, if you looked at my user page you would have found that my censorship interest is in postal censorship and not any form of wiki censorship. Fifth, if you actually realise how many problematic images are uploaded every day that need scrutiny regarding their copyright status, you would know that reviewing images is a very serious part of media review, and their use fall under that umbrella.


 * Now to your addition of caption credits to some images in Rory Gallagher article; I don't know what sort of arrangement you have been making with some photographers, but if you are offering some image credit as a tactic to get images released under free licences, I suggest you need to revise that as a unsustainable concept because offering something like this cannot be fulfilled under WP:CAP. If I don't remove the credits someone else will not doubt do it. Credits should only be given to famous or notable photographers, such as Ansel Adams credit in Nature photography where no other images are credited, or Dorothea Lange in Documentary photography and I don't see these photographers being of that status yet. Removing improper edits have nothing to do with respect for any editor; I respect all other editors who make constructive edits that comply with policy and guidelines, and whether you are in the middle of an article expansion or not is irrelevant to the issue of adding credits in captions or not. I wonder why you are worrying about photographers as that is a personal issue for you and nothing to do with the article or images; that distraction is your and easily solved by following the guidelines for captions and continuing to expand the article with references as you seem to be doing quite well. Personally I don't have the references to assist in expanding this particular article, and allowing me to join in is very generous of you. You are indeed correct there are many poorly researched and unreferenced articles but that is also no reason to give a credit to a photographer, so I am sorry to see that even though you stated when the article became a C-class article, the credits would be removed, but now that you reassessed the article a C-class you have readded the credits. Please remove them. ww2censor (talk) 06:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I was waiting to talk to you. I don't avoid controversial aricles. God, the Cat Stevens one, had a lot of anti-Islamic POV issues. But I keep thinking, you and I have some of the same interests: we both are interested in biographies, articles focusing on Ireland, and musicians. Now, I go outside of Wikipedia, to request photos for articles here that need them. (Remember that awful photo that was the only one of Rory Gallagher in Wikipedia Commons? Anyway, since there's no real proof that I'm an editor here, when II request photos. I couldn't blame anyone for being skittish about giving up their copyright-- how do they know it's not a scam? Many of them don't speak English much, and they run the gamut of pro-photographers to beginners, who are excited to see their name here, if only for a couple of weeks. I make no promises to them other than by clicking the photo, they can find their name and photostream. In fact, they have to read the link explaining Creative Commons, for example, at Flickr to change licenses. I hope to keep up their name on the photo for at least a couple of weeks is all, and I know someone will pull them down, or I will. But in the process, trust has been earned, and they donate far more really good photos. That's all I was saying. Sure, I was upset with you, only b/c when we first "spoke" I thought you'd agreed to allow the attribution on the pages of the newest photographers and b/c when I saw your contribs that day, it appeared that you were only removing things rather than adding. But I thought you'd understood me, and it's why I reverted on the pages with the newest photographers the attribution. I was hoping though, that you would help with this article! I did not rank this a "C" article, except for the info on the guitar part. Someone else ranked it a B article in two categories, and restored the attribution on the article though, and I thought it was you. I went along with it. But now, the photographers feel OK and are willing to donate more, and I'm happy to remove -or have anyone remove their names if you feel it's necessary. I don't own the page- nobody does. But there are lots of references in the talk page, and I'd myself sure be glad of your help in adding text and refs, or discography. Can't we be friends?  --Leahtwosaints (talk) 13:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I certainly got your point about trying to encourage photographers who may not have been too willing to donate material. I can be difficult to persuade some people as they don't see any advantage to themselves. Most people are all about me, me, me and not about anything greater like we are trying to do here. Ah, indeed Cat Stevens must be a nightmare on occasions. My Irish interest is quite wide but more geographical and my Irish musical sources are rather slim. I even lent someone one of my scarce Van Morrison books, stupid me. Look, it is not a problem per se if you intend to remove an attributions anyway, I won't bother getting in the way for now especially as you realise they will go eventually or you will even remove them. I watch Rory's page because I have seen much spam link edit warring there. How I wish he were still alive, what a brilliant musician though I only saw him once in the Olympia in Dublin (maybe 1989) a few years before he died; he was on fire for a solid three and a quarter hours. If I find some references I will perhaps add something. See you around. ww2censor (talk) 14:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks then! Rory Gallagher was an amazingly talented musician, and finding so many urban myths and such is a nightmare. People think because he had a liver transplant that he was the typical dopefiend, groupie-loving rock star, but I've only found evidence to the contrary; he was terribly shy offstage, and because he loved his craft, he found a lot of love from the feedback in his audiences, rather than the-- I don't know, the Jimi Hendrix scene, if you will. You were lucky to see him; I don't think he ever toured Brasil, and was rarely in the USA, so betwixt the two, I missed out. If you ever do get bored, though.. Gerry McAvoy co-wrote a book about him, and his brother Donal authorised another recently. I think I'll be visiting libraries a lot soon to seek out old copies of guitar magazines and the like for the article. It's going to be slow going though with the photo uploads for other articles and a few others that I'm trying to work on. Glad it's all good between us, then. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

use portal's own images not something else
What do you mean by "use portal's own image" -- none of those 3 image appear on the portal pages they link to. User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude 05:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * However the regular portal templates Template:Ireland portal, Template:Northern Ireland portal and Template:Europe portal use these images while the "portalbox" used on the Irish monarchs category pages requires the insertion of an image and all I did was replace the non-standard image with the usual ones. I have replace the Europe image with the more usual one not the Europe flag which actually seems like a deviation too. Hope that explains the reasoning. ww2censor (talk) 16:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I do not find there to be any standard name format to these sort of templates, and so I normally cannot one any given portal
 * I like this Cartography of Europe image better-- and I now see you changed them to that. Merry Christmas. User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude 04:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed it does seem much better and more appropriate, and is the image used in the Europe portal template, though some people seem to have changed it to the Euro flag in some instances. I am not sure what you mean by the last sentence about the standard name, as my edits had nothing to do with naming, only the images and those are usually found in the proper template. I was more concerned about the use of the silly (highly POV) Irish island/flag image. Cheers & have a happy holiday. ww2censor (talk) 18:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * What I mean is that to look at such a tag-link template I would need the name, so I might have looked under the Template:Portal Ireland, Template:Irelandportal, Template:PortalIreland, Template:Ire-portal, Template:Ireportal, Template:Por-Ireland, Template:Porireland, or even others names.

How do i fix it ?
My figure File:Schlieren_imaging_setup.GIF is tagged for delete. How do I access the file's decription page for fixing the problem? --Shmuel Ben-Ezra 20:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Just click on the edit button at the top of the page and fill in all the missing details in the information template that I added as well as adding an appropriate freely licenced copyright tag. If you did not produce the image yourself but copied it from elsewhere it is most likely copyright to someone else and we cannot use it. You may also find it useful to read my image copyright information page. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 15:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

-Shmuel Ben-Ezra 21:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have edited the file's description page - please check. Thanks,


 * You still need to add a description of what the image is and a date, which could be when you made it or when you uploaded it, then you are welcome to remove the two deletion notices. Thanks Cheers ww2censor (talk) 01:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Italian wikipedia
Actually the picture I uploaded to Lithuanian wiki, not italian. I understand that it looks familiat lt.wikipedia.org and it.wikipedia.org What do you mean by telling me "to clarify the status of that image"? http://lt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaizdas:Skulptorius,_medalininkas_Juozas_Kalinauskas.jpg What is wrong with this image? Is there any information missing?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Germantas (talk • contribs) 04:11, 29 December 2009

WP:DTTR
I realise you are a tagger of content for deletion. Perhaps before tagging you could see if there has been vandalism, like o say removing portions of the fair-use rationale in the past few days. :P  delirious  &amp; lost  ☯ ~hugs~  06:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for additional week. Question for alternative method.
Thank you for your excellent instructions. Very helpful and easy to follow. All of Wikipedia should adopt your format. :)

You tagged two images for deletion as follows: File:Marlin-Stutzman-275.jpg and File:Marlin-Stutzman-175.jpg

These images were provided to me by the campaign and I was requested to add them to the article on Marlin Stutzman. I've asked the campaign to send the author permissions letter to permissions-enwikimedia.org - but because of the Hoidays, we need an extra couple of days.

Moreover, the Campaign may post these images on their own website - thus putting the images in the public domain. Correct? So if they post the images at www.gomarlin.com and I cite that link as a reference -- will that satisfy Wikipedia? I've also already noted the email address of author - in the images' author line.

I hope you can help me and allow the pictures to remain for another week. I've spent so much time trying to understand Wikipedia rules and follow them --- but I'm obviously not violating a copyright when the author gave me the photo's and asked me to post them. Really - it's a campaign photo, not something likely to violate any creative artists rights, etc.

Please let me know if posting the images on the gomarlin.com web site and citing that as a reference for copyright is sufficient.

Best regards. UseYourHead33 17:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Useyourhead33 (talk • contribs)


 * Thanks for the compliments but actually the copyright notices are performed by a script I use when reviewing new images but at least you can follow them though some editors don't seem to able to follow what they read, or maybe they just don't read what they see on the page.


 * There is absolutely no reason to have more than one version of any image on wikipedia because the wiki resizes images from the largest version particularly if the "thumb" format is used, so please tag File:Marlin-Stutzman-175.jpg with the following template db-author because it is redundant. All the media files linked from the gomarlin website are hosted on Flickr and specifically are NOT in the public domain because they all seem to be restricted with an "All right reserved" licence, so linking to any of those images with the same licence will be questioned by us. Either the Flickr images specifically need to be freely licenced otherwise we cannot use them or as you have already done, arrange to send a permission to us. Both images have been tagged with an OTRS pending template, which means that when the permission arrives, it will be applied to the image but if it does not arrive the image will be deleted as having no verified permission. We don't just accept editor's statement that they have permission to use copyrighted images, we require it to be verified by someone from the source and that is when an OTRS ticket is added to the image. Once the OTRS pending notice is on the image page there is no need to add all that prose asking for the image not to be deleted; it is redundant to the notice. If by any chance the image got deleted before the OTRS permission arrive, the OTRS volunteers will restore the image, which is why the permission should provide the name of the files for which permission is being provided.


 * By way of better understanding, you should know that just because someone gives you a photo and asks you to use it does not mean they have released it under any free licence we can use or that they even have the right to release the image at all. It is necessary that copyright holders understand that freely licenced images can be used by anyone for anything, including commercial use, and not just in a Wikipdeia article. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page for a better understanding of most of the copyright issues we come accross. Hope that helps. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 23:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Adding info to File:Deon.jpg
Thanks for adding that info... I guess I'm a little lazy in my old age ;-) &mdash; Deontalk 06:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

FFS I'd only just uploaded it!
The file Bricks2b.jpg was uploaded solely to be the picture on my user page. I restricted the copyright only to prevent commercial use. I did not even have the chance to discuss it! Please please, desist. It doesn't affect anyone else and it doesn't affect you. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 06:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Apologies for being so quick in tagging the image which you have now uploaded again but unfortunately the non-commercial restriction you added means the image licence is incompatible with Wikipedia. We only accept freely licenced images. You would need to add a non-free non-commercial Creative Commons licence as opposed to the current licence with the added prose restriction, but that licence would mean the image will be deleted. The one you have used now allows commercial use and if you don't want that to be allowed the best thing to do is get the image deleted. There is really no middle ground to the copyright status that is acceptable. Sorry. ww2censor (talk) 17:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Theobald Burke 4 dyk?
Would you like to nominate for DYK? Maybe dyk ...that Theobald Burke was born at sea in 1567, shortly before his mother's fleet engaged in a battle with Barbary pirates? I find the dyk page useable but somehow a bit fiddly.Red Hurley (talk) 12:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅, but expanded the hook a bit. Checkk it out at: Template talk:Did you know. You may want to keep an eye on it and respond to any suggestions or fixes necessary. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 02:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * grma. I also tried with The Monks of the Screw but it didn't work, me being scripting-challenged. Red Hurley (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The prose looks like it is less than the required 1500 characters, so I doubt it will qualify. The song does not contribute to the prose count, I think. What cited hook do you want to try? ww2censor (talk) 20:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually you were already too late for The Monks of the Screw even when you left the request. Nominations must be made within 5 days of article creating. Next time ask early and I will be happy to help. ww2censor (talk) 04:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Vietnamese image
This photo File:Hieu wiki.jpg had been categorized "public domaine" in the Vietnamese version: vi:T%E1%BA%ADp_tin:Hieu_wiki.jpg I don't know how to add a copyright tag to it. Would you please tell me how to or do it for me? Thanks. Tnguyen12 (talk) 21:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I cannot read Vietnamese, so I cannot confirm what the licence of this image is on the Vietnamese wiki. There is no source for the image, so I cannot check the copyright. You may need to find some bilingual editor who understands the en wiki's copyright because the different wikis have different policies. Sorry I can't really help you but if you have a source, date of photo and date of death of the photographer, I may be able to assist. I ask for these details because Vietnamese copyright extends for 50 years after the death of the author for photographic works. Awaiting your reply. ww2censor (talk) 23:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The photo in question is part of General Hieu's family album posted at www.generalhieu.com/HieuVAlbum-2.htm Tnguyen12 (talk) 15:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * And where do you see any evidence that any of the images on that site are in the public domain? There is no such evidence and unless images are clearly noted to be freely licenced, they are copyright to someone even if there is no copyright notice. Only images pre-1960 might be in the public domain due to their age, if the author is unknown but most images on that site are undated and the Vietnamese copyright law has not been written here, though I have read an English guideline available here. Sorry but my opinion is that File:Hieu wiki.jpg is not clearly a public domain image. Hope that helps. ww2censor (talk) 17:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I am in possession of the original copy of this photo which was shot in 1968 when general Hieu was promoted to two star general and was meant to be made known to the public. I think by being too meticulously faithful to the wiki's copyright policy, you striffle the knowlegde of the public about this public figure of general Hieu. Tnguyen12 (talk) 18:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, so, because you want to include a copyright photo, you think we should break the rules that have been made, not by me but by the community. The omission of a non-free image is not going to stifle anyone's knowledge of the general and you can easily create an external link to the image website you pointed me to. Keeping copyright images is not the way it works especially as you have now confirmed the image dates from 1968. The only way you can possibly keep this image, because the general is dead and no new photo can be taken of him, is to make a claim under fair-use and if you do that the image must comply with all 10 of the non-free content criteria but any such claim will be scrutinised closely too. Hope that helps. ww2censor (talk) 20:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Forcing/unforcing widths in images
Hi Ww, I wasn't aware that the MOS was "anti" setting pixel sizes. The MOS itself isn't clear but to clarify: the position is to not force px widths unless there's good reason?

That makes sense - I like it. The MOS isn't explicit about that if it is the case. Should we also prefer "upright" instead of px? (It would make sense too, I believe, in the scheme of things, if we are leaving widths to be set by the application.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Generally forcing is discouraged, especially in higher, GA and FA, rated article. When we force image sizes, we override the default, which may mean that images appear too small or too large for some users screens, however users can set their own image size preference in the appearance pane to a size they prefer which cannot happen when the size is forced. If we ever have a chance of getting Ireland or any other top-class Irish article to be a featured article that is an aspect that would need to be addressed during the nomination process for the sticklers, so I occasionally try to tidy some of these things in Ireland. It also looks more consistent. Upright can be used instead of px, though personally I tend to use it to reduce the size of some images where they interfere with the following headers or where there are too many images for a section, if appropriate to the images. Even though some of the pages say the default is 180px I recall it was recently changed to 220 or 225 px. I am trying to stay out of the main Ireland articles except for vandalism, citations and formatting. Hope that helps. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 14:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That's what I gathered. Thanks for filling me in. I'm working through copy editing the Ireland article now to try and get it re-listed as GA. Please lend a hand, or plonk some suggestions on it's or my talk page, if you go the time. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 16:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

x2 --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 04:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Belated Happy New Year
A (slightly late) Happy New Year, and to go egregiously off-topic, have you checked the weather in Wicklow recently? Heck, might as well break a few user talk page guidelines and suggest you look at the pictures on the weather section of boards.ie. Needless to say, the Sally Gap might be best avoided :) >  FlowerpotmaN &middot;(t) 17:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks indeed for the New Year's greetings. All the best to you too. The snow reminds me of one winter in the 1980s when it took a week to open the Ballinbarney road from the Glen of Imaal to Rathdangan. Some nice pix on the boards though. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 18:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the picture I uploaded..
I uploaded File:GADliveatKnitting.jpg, I meant to include the source but I guess I forgot some information. Also, I don't know what's going on but I'm not seeing anything that I can edit when I tried to fix it so..
 * This is the page: http://snickerattheswine.com/img/gallery/index.php?album=Knitting+Factory%2C+The%2F07.09.05%2F1&sortby=modified&order=dsc
 * The "author" is Jacqueline Law
 * The photo is downloadable for free at snickerattheswine.com, the bands fan site (is that sufficent for free use?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 30daysinAK (talk • contribs) 07:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have added an info template and placed some details in it, but there is still no copyright tag and just because you can download an image, or that there is no copyright notice on an image, does not mean it is freely licenced so we can use it. Clearly this image was made by Jacqueline Law but you have no evidence that she permits it to be used in a free manner. Until you can show that permission we cannot use the image but you could try asking her for permission by following the instructions in WP:PERMISSION. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 15:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Ramanananda Maharshi.jpg
Hi Ww2censor. Please be a little more careful when using automated tools such as twinkle to tag files. For instance, on File:Ramanananda Maharshi.jpg, you tagged it as a F9, unambiguous copyvio. However, the uploader never at any time asserted pd,gfdl, or cc licenses. Frankly, this isn't the first time I've declined some of your speedies. I respect the work that you do (tell you the truth, you're on my list of users I'd be willing to nom for adminship) for Wikipedia's media department but please slow down and be a little more careful. Regards,  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 03:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * So, even if an image is clearly a copyright violation, unless the uploader claims some sort of free licence, I should not tag it as a speedy? I should just tag it as missing a copyright tag and only then, if that new tag is different from that on the source page, can I tag it as an F9 speedy copyright violation. Do I have that correct? If that is the way to deal with such images it seems a rather unproductive way of dealing with such images. TIA


 * BTW, to tell the truth I doubt I would want the tools or the responsibility but thanks for the thought. ww2censor (talk) 04:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Ramanananda Maharshi.jpg wasn't a clear copyvio because the uploader never claimed any sort of free license. For all we care, the uploader might have been trying to upload the file as non-free content but just goofed up the fur and licensing (Remember AGF!).  Unless the file is obviously a non-free file and tagged with some sort of a free license, then it qualifies for deletion under WP:CSD.  Hope that helps to clarify things a bit.  Oh, that's a shame...we could really use someone like you as a sysop.  Ah well, if you ever want to run for adminship someday, please don't hesitate to let me know; I'd be more than happy to write you a nom!  Regards,  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 11:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your clarification on this issue. Hopefully you don't mind if I ask you an occasional question when I am unclear on what action to take. Actually since I increased my involvement in reviewing media, my own editing has suffered rather and between that and real life, my time is already used up. Though thanks for the support. ww2censor (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. Yes, it's alright with me. If you ever have any questions on media files, don't hesitate to ask :)  Regards,  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 22:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Biereco verherbouwingen.jpg
There was a rationale (at least, a line intended as such), but badly placed. I hope the rationale ("two of the most iconic characters of the artists work in a characteristic pose, used to illustrate the work of the artist in question") is now sufficient. The artist in question of course being Gerrit de Jager. If this is insufficient, and the picture gets deleted, i won't loose any sleep over it.. Regards, Kleuske (talk) 09:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Northern Pakistan Languages Map
I created the image entirely by myself. I have also mentioned this in the details. I forgot to tag it though and I am having difficulty doing so now. Please reply to this on my talk page. Thanks, Fred-Bolor —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fred-Bolor (talk • contribs) 14:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You need to add a free licence for this image to remain. If you really made this image yourself, as opposed to copyring it from somewhere else, you could apply the PD-self to the image by clicking on the edit button and typing in the template with the curly brackets. Should you prefer to apply a different licence you may want to review the copyright tags page or the Creative Commons linked free licences. BTW, in future you need to link to the image in question and sign your posts as clearly noted at the top of my edit page if you expect editors to help you, but you forced me to search around for you and the image you uploaded. ww2censor (talk) 05:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have added the tag, thank you very much for your help and consideration, I happen to be a lawyer and an amateur linguist, but I'm not that great with computers! Thanks a lot, Fred-Bolor


 * I cleaned up the file after you added a copyright tag. ww2censor (talk) 04:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Image lacking copyright status
You identified this image File:Liang Shiyi.jpg as lacking copyright status. I wasn't sure how to approach the copyright status because the image is taken from Chinese wikipedia. It appears from the Chinese page that the image's creator has been dead for over 50 years and therefore that the image is in the public domain under Chinese law.

I'm glad I'm apparently dealing with a human user this time, rather than a bot. If you have any message for me, would you mind leaving it at my talk page? Many thanks.

All the best, BartBassist (talk) 10:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You usually apply the same copyright as the source, i.e., the original source, just as you would for an image found elsewhere. While I cannot read the Chinese wiki's copyright licence, I don't you know exactly what it is but it looks like a PD licence. I am unable to connect to the source page to see what the source licence says but it looks like an online news site, so the image might not actually be free; it needs to be checked out. You neeed to see the page the image is displayed on, not the url to the image. If the image is in the public domain or otherwise freely licenced, then it is a candidate for uploading to the commons and deleting this image here, otherwise if is an equivalent licence on this wiki, which is most likely the case, please add it. According to this commons licencing page Chinese copyright subsists for 50 years after the death of the author, not just 50 years. You may find it useful to also read my image copyright information page. Hope that helps. ww2censor (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Photographs (unlike other images) enter the public domain 50 years after publication or creation. (See Template:PD-China.) The images Liang Shiyi.jpg, He Yingqin.jpg, Wang Shizhen.jpg, HHKung.jpg and Sun Fo.jpg are all photographs, and all are comfortably 50 years old (their subjects all attained prominence during the period 1910–1950). I have added copyright templates which show this, and which match the Chinese wiki pages. I have also done my best to source the photos. BartBassist (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Cage-Rulers-Logo-bluebackground.gif
By all means delete it. I was actually going to try and find a way to get rid it myself. Thank you. I will have an email from Will Broyles about the two files I wish to keep to the

permissions-en@wikimedia.org, email by COB today. Thank you. David.snipes (talk) 15:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not an admin but it will be deleted in due course. Thank you for attempting to get permission for the other files. You may also find it useful to read my image copyright information page. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 15:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh I've read it believe me, The main difference between the other images I have uploaded and these is last time it was a free use one as the letters were not copyrighted, this time they are. Thanks againDavid.snipes (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

File:AudreyHornebandlive.jpg
File:AudreyHornebandlive.jpg I've updated Source and Terms of use is now Free use. If the information is lacking please notify me. It is the first image I've uploaded to Wikipedia so I was a little confused about what and how to provide information. Sorry, and thank you for any help. Mike Rophone (talk) 15:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The source page you provided clearly states "All photos copyright" (on left side) so unless you can their permission to release the image as freely licenced, by using the WP:CONSENT info, we cannot use it. Fair-use will not work either because this image is replaceable under non-free content criteria. You may also find it useful to read my image copyright information page. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 16:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I see your point. This was an oversight by the web-designer who did some quick copy/paste from an old design. I've talked with the band and the page has been edited to reflect that only photos marked copyright are so. The photo that I uploaded is not copyrighted. Sorry for the trouble, hope we have this sorted now. Mike Rophone (talk) 16:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The source page still states that all images are copyright while other groups specifically add details of the photographer's copyright. We cannot use photos that are copyright and if they are free to use this fact must be clearly visible and/or specifically stated with the image and the type of licence stated, or permission needs to be validated as I suggested above. Just get the band to email permission to us but remember that they need to understand that freely licenced means anyone can use it for anything, even commercial use, such as printing on a t-shirt, even if attribution is required. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand. To not complicate this any further I've removed any links to the photo and I'll upload another one of my own. Thank you for helping and please delete File:AudreyHornebandlive.jpg. All the best. Mike Rophone (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * We take copyright status very seriously around here and I am sorry to be so pedantic but, "rules is rules!" which is why uploading your own image saves any hassle. Thanks for that. The original will be deleted in due course. Good luck and ask any questions you need to if you have any problems and I will try to help you. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

[File Gazza pic.jpg]
Regarding the picture in question i am not to sure how to edit the picture details on the page, i received it from the discussion page of the article in question as someone else had recomended it to replace the very poor quality image that was there before. It was from photobucket.com which is a free file sharing website i believe, would it be satisfactory to just state this? Thanks(Monkeymanman (talk) 15:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC))

Re:Ireland
I'm on vacation until Monday, but I'd be glad to take a look at the article when I return. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 15:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I updated that population graph with more detailed data and put all the relevant source/info etc. on the talk page. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 00:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

File:TowerTheatre02.jpg
Thank you for your comment. I normally upload and contribute with pix taken by myself. The photo File:TowerTheatre02.jpg is one of them. I granted Public Domain usage... Am I messing something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabonarola (talk • contribs) 06:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you messing? I don't know, but you are missing a copyright tag on this image as mentioned in the notice I left for you. If this is your own work then you may want to add the PD-self tag to the image and then you can remove the deletion notice. Did you actually read the "Unlicenced images" section of my image copyright information page as mentioned at the top of this edit page? Hope that helps.. ww2censor (talk) 13:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up on my editing. Am new to this and so I'll definitely be seeking guidance. Cheers.--Changez84-88 10:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnOjara (talk • contribs)

File:London Street in the rain.jpg
I designed the website this image came from www.finchleygallery.com. I have put on this page Paul Cranfield Smyth at the request of the grand daughter of Paul Cranfield Smyth whose name is Barbara Pearce. What do I need to do to resolve the copyright issue? Peter Fleming (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC);


 * But who owns the copyright to the artwork? Being in possession of an image is not the issue, copyright is the issue and the website clearly show a copyright notice, so we have to assume the image is copyright unless there is a specific notice showing it yo be freely licenced. United Kingdom copyright exists for 70 years after the death of the author per Commons:COM:L and Paul Cranfield Smyth died in 1963, this work is still copyright until 2043 or 2039 for a non-published work. Because you don't own the copyright, then you need to have the current copyright owner send their permission to us to use the image by following the information in WP:CONSENT and when that is received an OTRS ticket will be attached to the image verifying the permission. You may also find it useful to read my image copyright information page. BTW for privacy purposes do not put email addresses on pages and because we do not do external follow up. At the end of the day the burden of proof is on you to provide the necessary info and unfortunately do the legwork. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 14:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your advice. I have past it on yesterday to Barbara Pearce the copyright holder of the image (from www.finchleygallery.com). Peter Fleming (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC).

File:Kanye-wiki.jpg
I own copyright to this picture. I've designed it myself. I don't think it violates any sort of copyright. Thanks. --Scieberking (talk) 10:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * While you may have modified an original photo your found on the internet by adding text, I doubt that you are Jason DeCrow of the Associated Press who took the underlying photo. That photo is copyright of the Associated Press not you, and any derivative work you make retains the same copyright as the original, you do not get any rights for it by working on it. If you are Jason DeCrow please follow the instructions at WP:CONSENT to verify your permission to use the image which is also found on the Guardian newspaper website as well as many other websites. Hope that helps. ww2censor (talk) 14:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your help but I'm not Jason DeCrow. Feel free to remove that image. I've also removed it from my user page. Wikipedia is so uncool :-( --Scieberking (talk) 19:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I am sorry that you think Wikipedia is uncool but it is actually uncool to steal images whose rights belong to others, which is effectively what you did, even if you did not know it. You are very welcome to take your own images and upload them, or use other free images you find around here, like most you will find on the Wikimedia commons, and essentially modify them as much as you like unlike doing so to a press agency image. If you look around, there are many very cool areas of interest on Wikipedia where you can make much constructive work. If you need any additional assistance, please ask. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 00:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the long unasked for lecture. --Scieberking (talk) 14:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * My reply was not intended as a lecture, even if it came across as such, but to help you understand some of the copyright issues. Good luck ww2censor (talk) 14:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

File:HemingwayhuntingAfrica.jpg
You can take it down from The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber and replace with this instead which clearly states public domain. In fact, the one I uploaded does state copyright is unknown after double checking, so it's best not to use. This is link to JFK Library Hemingway images. Watching your page. (I read the instructions!) Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The current image is tagged for deletion and an admin will delete it in due course. You could upload the other image, whose status is clear, instead and overwrite this one because the name would be quite appropriate without the need to create a new image file, then add a copyright tag, proper description and remove the deletion notice. BTW, did you read this page? I don't know where they draw the line between public domain images, unknown status and no permission. Good luck ww2censor (talk) 15:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you could help me, I'd really appreciate it!! I seem to have created some sort of problem that's resulted in warning messages to my userpage! Don't think I'll try uploading images again. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * When you finally readded information last you forgot, or did not know that you needed, to add the 2 right curly brackets "}}" at the end of the template to close it. When you start a template with the 2 left curly brackets you must close the template with 2 right curly brackets. Check it out as I have fixed it, added better links to the source image as well as a copyright tag, so all looks well now. BTW, it is better to provide a link to the page an image is from and not only to the image source as often it is impossible to get back to the page it is displayed on. Don't give up, you will learn by practice. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 04:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much! I thought I must have missed a something in the copy-paste, but the messages to my page made me nervous so I couldn't concentrate. Also, I was trying to find the correct public domain template and didn't know which to use. I see now what you've done and so maybe won't give up. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Editing User Entries on Article Discussion Page
Can I request that you would not edit anybody's posts - if posts are being edited how can any post be taken as the contributors genuine own words. I was not aware that my posts had to look a certain way - in the same way as some use different fonts and colours for their User Names. I am new to this but would have great difficulty with the concept that anyone can start editing anybody else's discussion posts. If you need me to do something - please do let me know instead...thanks Dubhtail (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I absolutely did not edit your posts, I simply removed unnecessary duplicate signature that are redundant. Do you sign your name at the start of all letters and emails you send? I very much doubt it. Placing your signature at both the beginning AND end of a post looks like your post are shouting and gives (me) the impression you are making a point about how important your posts are. Actually there are guidelines for signature use at SIG which tells you to sign at the end of your posts, be it customised or not. Hope that helps. ww2censor (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply regarding the editing of my posts. Dubhtail (talk) 23:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Image for deletion
File:Chateau vue gene.jpg This image i uploaded, i was given permission from the owner of the website and brewery. I put that in the licence, i do not know how you change it to fair use though. --mark nutley (talk) 08:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Mark, I very much doubt that claiming this as a fair-use image would work because it is a easily replaceable image per WP:NFCC, if someone goes there and takes a new photo, so the best thing to do is have the brewery email their permission to us by following the procedure shown at WP:CONSENT. An OTRS ticket will then be applied to the image but the copyright owner must release the image under a free licence, which means they understand that it can be used commercially by anyone for anything, otherwise we cannot accept their image. I presume this identical image is the source. ww2censor (talk) 14:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes it is, i have the e-mail from them can i just forward that to here or do i need to ask them to mail it direct? --mark nutley (talk) 14:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No, we need to have the permission come from an email associated with them, it is not that we don't trust you but forwarding is not regarded as sufficient. Just follow the procedure at WP:CONSENT. I will tag the image as awaiting an OTRS ticket. Good luck ww2censor (talk) 14:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok and thanks. mark nutley (talk) 15:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Carson signing Solemn League and Covenant
Sorry I can not give you any further information. It says I uploaded it but I do not recall doing so. It was a side issue to my work on Maritz Rebellion, the Curragh Incident and Jan Smuts advise to the King and the British government on how to negotiate with Michael Collins. I lived in SA for a couple of years and saw a documentary on the Bitter Enders and read Deneys Reitz's Commando and thought we needed an article on the 1914 Maritz Rebellion. -- PBS (talk) 08:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for catching the vandalism on Rory Gallagher's page. Did you leave a message on the offender's talk page? Well, either way, I appreciate it! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 01:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't usually bother leaving a message when it seems like a drive-by anonIP edit but if it is an anonIP with an obvious record of vandalism I will usually post a warning. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 04:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Sock issue
What's the problem? I haven't got a lot of time right now, but I'll look at it. Reply below here, I'll watch this. JohnCD (talk) 15:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Alison blocked User talk:Dubhtail, a sock of User:Garydubh. Od Mishehu declined a block removal and I left a note on his talk page because I see Dubhtail is evading the block by using at least 2 anonIP accounts, but he has not been online since. This diff to my talkpage clearly shows it to be him modifying his signature. This diff shows him replacing the same anonIP address signature with his own username after the block was imposed. Now he has also used another anonIP per this diff and this diff to my talk page. Today I now see what looks like a new sock account User:GarDubh per this diff. Most of this issue is around Talk:Republic of Ireland postal addresses. Whatever you can do to help is appreciated as I have not done any sock complaints nor any checkuser requests. TIA ww2censor (talk) 15:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Now he has given up trying to hide posting from an anonIP but signing his blocked user name manually per this edit. ww2censor (talk) 16:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have blocked User:GarDubh indef per WP:DUCK and blocked the IP for 24 hours. There doesn't ever seem to have been an SPI report on this one, I suppose because they were so obvious: I'll take advice about whether there is any point raising one. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your help. Let me know what i need to do if you think we should start an SPI. ww2censor (talk) 20:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)